Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

com

MASTERING JAVASCRIPT DESIGN PATTERNS create

scalable and reliable applications with
advanced Javascript design patterns using
reliable code 3rd Edition Tomas Corral Cosas
https://textbookfull.com/product/mastering-
javascript-design-patterns-create-scalable-and-
reliable-applications-with-advanced-javascript-
design-patterns-using-reliable-code-3rd-edition-
tomas-corral-cosas/

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

JavaScript Patterns Build Better Applications with Coding

and Design Patterns 1st Edition Stefanov Stoyan

https://textbookfull.com/product/javascript-patterns-build-better-
applications-with-coding-and-design-patterns-1st-edition-stefanov-
stoyan/
textbookfull.com

Mastering PHP design patterns develop robust and reusable

code using a multitude of design patterns for PHP 7 Ali

https://textbookfull.com/product/mastering-php-design-patterns-
develop-robust-and-reusable-code-using-a-multitude-of-design-patterns-
for-php-7-ali/
textbookfull.com

JavaScript Design Patterns 1 / converted Edition Hugo Di

Francesco

https://textbookfull.com/product/javascript-design-
patterns-1-converted-edition-hugo-di-francesco/

textbookfull.com

Israel's Technology Economy David Rosenberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/israels-technology-economy-david-
rosenberg/

textbookfull.com
Employers’ Economics versus Employees’ Economy: How Adam
Smith’s Legacy Obscures Public Investment in the Private
Sector 1st Edition John F. M. Mcdermott (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/employers-economics-versus-employees-
economy-how-adam-smiths-legacy-obscures-public-investment-in-the-
private-sector-1st-edition-john-f-m-mcdermott-auth/
textbookfull.com

Asset Management A Systematic Approach to Factor Investing

1st Edition Andrew Ang

https://textbookfull.com/product/asset-management-a-systematic-
approach-to-factor-investing-1st-edition-andrew-ang/

textbookfull.com

The Psychological Experience of Integrating Content and

Language 1st Edition Kyle Read Talbot Editor Marie Theres
Gruber Editor Rieko Nishida Editor
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-psychological-experience-of-
integrating-content-and-language-1st-edition-kyle-read-talbot-editor-
marie-theres-gruber-editor-rieko-nishida-editor/
textbookfull.com

The Edmonton Manual Approach to the OSCE 5th Edition Marvi

Cheema

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-edmonton-manual-approach-to-the-
osce-5th-edition-marvi-cheema/

textbookfull.com

Tawang Monpas and Tibetan Buddhism in Transition Life and

Society along the India China Borderland M. Mayilvaganan

https://textbookfull.com/product/tawang-monpas-and-tibetan-buddhism-
in-transition-life-and-society-along-the-india-china-borderland-m-
mayilvaganan/
textbookfull.com
Embodied Curriculum Theory and Research in Arts Education:
A Dance Scholar's Search for Meaning 1st Edition Susan W.
Stinson (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/embodied-curriculum-theory-and-
research-in-arts-education-a-dance-scholars-search-for-meaning-1st-
edition-susan-w-stinson-auth/
textbookfull.com
What this book covers
Chapter 1 , Building Your Foundations, this chapter is the
introduction to the book. It will cover, in general, basic history
of Javascript, programming paradigms and design patterns and
how the book is arranged. By the end of this chapter, readers
should be able to explain where JavaScript is used and the
history and applicability of design patterns. They should also
have an understanding of how to read the book.

Chapter 2 , Object Oriented Programming, we'll talk about how

to create classes and modules in JavaScript. Most of the
patterns presented are related to classes so it is important to
have some grasp of how to create classes using
ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 3 , Functional Programming, in this chapter, we'll take a

look at how some functional paradigms can be used in
JavaScript using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 4 , Reactive Programming, reactive and Data Flow

applications view the world as a stream of events. Working with
these streams instead of discrete interactions presents a
different worldview and one which may be very useful for
large-scale JavaScript applications using ES2015/2017/2018.
Chapter 5 , Creational Patterns, in this chapter, we'll look at the
classic creational design patterns that were popularized by the
GoF book using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 6 , Structural Patterns, in this chapter we'll look at some

of the ways code can be structured. Again we’ll pay attention to
the classic design patterns as described in the GoF book.
Structural Patterns using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 7 , Behavioural Patterns, in this chapter, we'll pay

attention to the classic behavioural design patterns as
described in the GoF book using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 8 , Performance Patterns, in this chapter, we'll look at

those patterns that will improve the performance of highly
demanding applications using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 9 , Asynchronous Patterns, in this chapter, we'll explore

the concept of asynchronous programming patterns and how to
use them to do not block our application using
ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 10 , Patterns for Testing, JavaScript is a real language

now so we need to make sure that we’re doing proper testing of
it. In this chapter, we’ll discuss some of the ways our code can
be structured to perform testing.
Chapter 11 , Advanced Patterns, this chapter will cover some
advanced patterns in JavaScript. Most of them are
implemented as wild language hacks.

Chapter 12 , Application Patterns, in this chapter, we'll examine

some of the patterns for building applications in JavaScript
using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 13 , Web Patterns, in this chapter, we'll look at patterns

that are specifically useful for building web applications.

Chapter 14 , Messaging Patterns, in this chapter, we'll explore the

concept of messaging and how it can be used in JavaScript
applications using ES2015/2017/2018.

Chapter 15 , Micro-services, monolithic applications have become

larger and more complicated. There are many possible
remedies but the one which has been making a lot of noise
recently is micro-services. In this chapter, we'll discuss what
micro-services are, where to use them where not to use them.

Chapter 16 , ES2015/2017/2018 Solutions Today and the Road

ahead, in this chapter, we'll look at how we can get some of the
features of the upcoming versions of JavaScript today.

Chapter 17 , ES2019 What is ESNEXT, in this chapter, we'll look at

what are the features that will be introduced in ES2019 a.k.an
ESNext.
Table of Contents
Preface

What this book covers

1. Building your foundations

Introduction

The road to JavaScript

The early days

A pause

The way of Gmail

Javascript everywhere

What is a design pattern?

Anti-patterns

Summary

Questions

Further Reading

2. Object Oriented Programming

Introduction

Isolate your code

Why should we avoid global variables?

Namespaces

IIFE – Immediate Invoked Function

Expression

Modular programming

UMD

Module types

Revealing Module pattern

AMD

CommonJS

require

module.exports

exports.<keyName>

Class-based languages versus JavaScript

class

interface

extends

implements
 PROTOTYPE EXTENSIONS

OOP in ES6

Modular Programming with ES6

Summary

Questions

Further reading

3. Functional Programming

Introduction

Technical Requirements

What is Functional Programming?

Imperative programming versus declarative

programming

Pure functions versus impure functions

Higher-order functions

MapReduce pattern

Map

Reduce and filter

Reduce

Filter

Map + Reduce + Filter - Pipes

Side-effects and immutability

Immutable.js

ES6 tail call optimizitation

Memoization

Implementation

Lazy instantiation

Implementation

Currying – Partial application

Composing

Functional libraries

React.js

Redux.js

Rxjs

Lodash

Ramda.js

Bacon.js

Summary

Questions

Further Reading
4. Reactive Programming

Introduction

Technical Requirements

Application state changes

Streams

Filtering streams

Merging streams

Streams for multiplexing

Best practices and trouble shooting

Summary

Questions

Further Reading

5. Creational Patterns

Introduction

Technical Requirements

Singleton

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Alternative
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
Prototype

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Constructor

When to use it?

Example

When not to use it?

Factory method

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Abstract Factory

When to use it?

 How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Builder

When to use it?

What the telescoping constructor anti-

pattern is

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Summary

Questions

Further Reading

6. Structural Patterns

Introduction

Technical Requirements

Adapter

When to use it?

 How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Composite

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Decorator

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Bridge

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example
 When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Facade

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Flyweight

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros

Cons

Proxy

When to use it?

How to implement it?

Example

When not to use it?

Pros
 Cons

Summary

Questions

Further Reading

7. Behavioural Patterns

8. Performance patterns

9. Asynchronous patterns

10. Patterns for Testing

11. Advanced Patterns

12. Application Patterns

13. Web Patterns
14. Messaging Patterns
15. Micro-services
16. ES2015/2017/2018 Solutions Today and the Road ahead

17. ES2019 What is ESNEXT

Building your foundations
Introduction
JavaScript is an evolving language that has come a long way
from its inception. Possibly more than any other programming
language, it has grown and changed with the growth of the
World Wide Web. The exploration of how JavaScript can be
written using good design principles is the topic of this book.
The preface of this book contains a detailed explanation of the
sections of the book.

In the first half of this chapter, we'll explore the history of

JavaScript and how it came to be the important language that it
is today. As JavaScript has evolved and grown in importance,
the need to apply rigorous methods to its construction has also
grown. Design patterns can be a very useful tool to assist in
developing maintainable code. The second half of the chapter
will be dedicated to the theory of design patterns. Finally, we'll
look briefly at anti-patterns.
The road to JavaScript
We'll never know how language first came into being. Did it
slowly evolve from a series of grunts and guttural sounds made
during grooming rituals? Perhaps it developed to allow
mothers and their offspring to communicate. Both of these are
theories, all but impossible to prove. Nobody was around to
observe our ancestors during that important period. In fact, the
general lack of empirical evidence led the Linguistic Society of
Paris to ban further discussions on the topic, seeing it as
unsuitable for serious study.
The early days
Fortunately, programming languages have developed in recent
history and we've been able to watch them grow and change.
JavaScript has one of the more interesting histories of modern
programming languages. During what must have been an
absolutely frantic 10 days in May of 1995, a programmer at
Netscape wrote the foundation for what would grow up to be
modern JavaScript.

At the time, Netscape was involved in the first of the browser

wars with Microsoft. The vision for Netscape was far grander
than simply developing a browser. They wanted to create an
entire distributed operating system making use of Sun
Microsystems' recently-released Java programming language.
Java was a much more modern alternative to the C++
Microsoft was pushing. However, Netscape didn't have an
answer to Visual Basic. Visual Basic was an easier to use
programming language, which was targeted at developers with
less experience. It avoided some of the difficulties around
memory management that make C and C++ notoriously
difficult to program. Visual Basic also avoided strict typing and
overall allowed more leeway.

Here is an illustration of the timeline of JavaScript:

Brendan Eich was tasked with developing Netscape repartee to
VB. The project was initially codenamed Mocha, but was
renamed LiveScript before Netscape 2.0 beta was released. By
the time the full release was available, Mocha/LiveScript had
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
been renamed JavaScript to tie it into the Java applet
integration. Java Applets were small applications which ran in
the browser. They had a different security model from the
browser itself and so were limited in how they could interact
with both the browser and the local system. It is quite rare to
see applets these days, as much of their functionality has
become part of the browser. Java was riding a popular wave at
the time and any relationship to it was played up.

The name has caused much confusion over the years.

JavaScript is a very different language from Java. JavaScript is
an interpreted language with loose typing, which runs
primarily on the browser. Java is a language that is compiled to
bytecode, which is then executed on the Java Virtual Machine.
It has applicability in numerous scenarios, from the browser
(through the use of Java applets) to the server (Tomcat, JBoss,
and so on), to full desktop applications (Eclipse, OpenOffice,
and so on). In most laypersons' minds, the confusion remains.

JavaScript turned out to be really quite useful for interacting

with the web browser. It was not long until Microsoft had also
adopted JavaScript into their Internet Explorer to complement
VBScript. The Microsoft implementation was known as JScript.

By late 1996, it was clear that JavaScript was going to be the

winning web language for the near future. In order to limit the
amount of language deviation between implementations, Sun
and Netscape began working with the European Computer
Manufacturers Association (ECMA) to develop a standard to
which future versions of JavaScript would need to comply. The
standard was released very quickly (very quickly in terms of
how rapidly standards organizations move), in July of 1997. On
the off chance that you have not seen enough names yet for
JavaScript, the standard version was called ECMAScript, a
name which still persists in some circles.

Unfortunately, the standard only specified the very core parts

of JavaScript. With the browser wars raging, it was apparent
that any vendor that stuck with only the basic implementation
of JavaScript would quickly be left behind. At the same time,
there was much work going on to establish a standard
Document Object Model (DOM) for browsers. The DOM was,
in effect, an API for a web page that could be manipulated
using JavaScript.

DHTML was a popular term in the late 1990s and early 2000s. It really referred to any
web page that had some sort of dynamic content that was executed on the client side. It
has fallen out of use, as the popularity of JavaScript has made almost every page a
dynamic one.

Fortunately, the efforts to standardize JavaScript continued

behind the scenes. Versions 2 and 3 of ECMAScript were
released in 1998 and 1999. It looked like there might finally be
some agreement between the various parties interested in
JavaScript. Work began in early 2000 on ECMAScript 4, which
was to be a major new release.
A pause
Then, disaster struck. The various groups involved in the
ECMAScript effort had major disagreements about the
direction JavaScript was to take. Microsoft seemed to have lost
interest in the standardization effort. It was somewhat
understandable, as it was around that time that Netscape self-
destructed and Internet Explorer became the de-facto
standard. Microsoft implemented parts of ECMAScript 4 but
not all of it. Others implemented more fully-featured support,
but without the market leader on-board, developers didn't
bother using them.

Years passed without consensus and without a new release of

ECMAScript. However, as frequently happens, the evolution of
the Internet could not be stopped by a lack of agreement
between major players. Libraries such as jQuery, Prototype,
Dojo, and Mootools, papered over the major differences in
browsers, making cross-browser development far easier. At the
same time, the amount of JavaScript used in applications
increased dramatically.
The way of Gmail
The turning point was, perhaps, the release of Google's GMail
application in 2004. Although XMLHttpRequest, the
technology behind Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX),
had been around for about five years when GMail was released,
it had not been well-used. When GMail was released, I was
totally knocked off my feet by how smooth it was. We've grown
used to applications that avoid full reloads, but at the time, it
was a revolution. To make applications like that work, a great
deal of JavaScript is needed.

AJAX is a method by which small chunks of data are retrieved from the server by a
client instead of refreshing the entire page. The technology allows for more interactive
pages that avoid the jolt of full page reloads.

The popularity of GMail was the trigger for a change that had
been brewing for a while. Increasing JavaScript acceptance and
standardization pushed us past the tipping point for the
acceptance of JavaScript as a proper language. Up until that
point, much of the use of JavaScript was for performing minor
changes to the page and for validating form input. I joke with
people that, in the early days of JavaScript, the only function
name which was used was Validate().

Applications such as GMail that have a heavy reliance on AJAX

and avoid full page reloads are known as Single Page
Applications or SPAs. By minimizing the changes to the page
contents, users have a more uid experience. By transferring
only a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) payload instead of
HTML, the amount of bandwidth required is also minimized.
This makes applications appear to be snappier. In recent years,
there have been great advances in frameworks that ease the
creation of SPAs. AngularJS, Backbone.js, and ember are all
Model View Controller style frameworks. They have gained
great popularity in the past two to three years and provide
some interesting use of patterns. These frameworks are the
evolution of years of experimentation with JavaScript best
practices by some very smart people.

JSON is a human-readable serialization format for JavaScript. It has become very

popular in recent years, as it is easier and less cumbersome than previously popular
formats such as XML. It lacks many of the companion technologies and strict
grammatical rules of XML, but makes up for it in simplicity.

At the same time as the frameworks using JavaScript are

evolving, the language is too. 2015 saw the release of a much-
vaunted new version of JavaScript that had been under
development for some years. Initially called ECMAScript 6, the
final name ended up being ECMAScript-2015. It brought with
it some great improvements to the ecosystem. Browser vendors
are rushing to adopt the standard. Because of the complexity of
adding new language features to the code base, coupled with
the fact that not everybody is on the cutting edge of browsers, a
number of other languages that transcompile to JavaScript are
gaining popularity. CoffeeScript is a Python-like language that
strives to improve the readability and brevity of JavaScript.
Developed by Google, Dart is being pushed by Google as an
eventual replacement for JavaScript. Its construction addresses
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
than there are in support of the pretense that it was divinely
established at the fall of the Roman Empire, or at any other time.
Louis Napoleon had his own affairs to look after. His stealth of the
imperial crown of France had given fresh spur to his ambition, but
his perfidy was so flagrant that even among the stanchest
monarchists he was held in contempt. His self-conceit made war
between Prussia and France inevitable; and when that event was
brought on, he realized, probably for the first time, that he had been
engaged in the ignominious work of preventing the independence of
Italy, and forcing the Italian people to accept a king they had almost
unanimously decided to reject. Whether he fully realized this or not,
his necessities compelled him to withdraw the French troops from
Italy, and to leave Pius IX without the support of foreign troops, who
had stood guard over his temporal crown during every hour of his
pontificate. The war between Prussia and France was a terrible blow
at Pius IX, but an event of incalculable value to the cause of Italian
independence. And when it led to Sedan, the capture of Paris, and
the loss of Alsace and Lorraine by France, Victor Emmanuel steadily
kept his eyes upon the unification of Italy, which even Pius IX
understood to mean the abolition of the temporal power.
Victor Emmanuel again had an opportunity of acting frankly towards
the pope and fairly with the Church. He endeavored to explain
himself in a letter to Pius IX, wherein, "with the faith of a Catholic"
but "with the dignity of a king," he declared that it was not his
purpose to impair or interfere with the spiritual authority or
independence of the pope, and that he would maintain these with
his troops; and, counseling him to recognize the stubborn facts
which confronted him and which he was powerless to change, he
urged him to accept this as the only practical and possible solution
of the difficulties surrounding him. He closed his appeal in these
words: "Your holiness, in delivering Rome from the foreign troops, in
freeing it from the continual peril of being the battle-field of
subversive parties, will have accomplished a marvelous work, given
peace to the Church, and shown to Europe, shocked by the horrors
of war, how great battles can be won and immortal victories
achieved by an act of justice, and by a single word of affection."[187]
Here, in an eloquent and touching appeal, the king implored the
pope to "give peace to the Church," well knowing, as he did, that
the only purpose of the revolution was to get rid of the temporal
power and establish a constitutional government, and that if this
question were disposed of by the acquiescence of Pius IX the vast
multitude of Roman Catholics then in arms would return to their
homes and be content to live in peace and quiet under his spiritual
dominion. The issue was a single and a simple one, which could not
be misunderstood; and that it should be made so clear that even the
commonest mind could comprehend it fully, Victor Emmanuel
accompanied his letter with a statement of the terms which he
proposed for adjusting the relations between the Church and the
State. They were these: All nations should have free access to the
pope; all Churches in Rome to be neutralized; ambassadors to the
pope to enjoy full immunity; the cardinals to retain their revenues
and immunity; the salaries of all military and civil functionaries to be
paid as before; and the bishops and clergy throughout Italy to have
"the full and absolutely free exercise of their ecclesiastical functions."
It would be hard, if not impossible, for a liberal mind to find fault
with these propositions. They were so generally accepted as fair that
any comment upon them is unnecessary. They encountered no
objection—except from those who preferred that the pope should
remain an absolute temporal monarch, with full power to make and
unmake all the laws—to a constitutional government representing
the people. They were made by a Roman Catholic king, representing
and speaking for several millions of Roman Catholic people, and,
besides being in a conciliatory and kindly spirit, bore upon their face
conclusive evidence of sincerity. If they had been accepted by the
pope, the true faith of the Church would have been untouched, and
the pope in the full possession of all his rightful and necessary
spiritual powers. The Church, in fact, would have been brought back
to its primitive condition before the fall of the Roman Empire. But
Pius IX, instead of reciprocating the generosity of the king, mourned
over the "deep sorrow," which filled his "life with bitterness," and, at
the same time, treated the propositions of the king with intense
scorn. He was then the first pope, in all the long history of the
Church, who had been allowed authoritatively to avow his own
personal infallibility. He had convened the celebrated Council of the
Vatican, in which, but a few weeks before, the Jesuits had
succeeded in having him declared infallible by the passage of a
decree dictated by himself, and secured by the suppression of
debate, against the protest of a number of bishops, including several
from the United States.[188] Having obtained this victory over the
liberalism of the Church, and thus thrown himself completely into
the arms of the Jesuits, and preferring an alliance with them to
union with millions of Roman Catholics who favored a constitutional
government, he made it impossible to take a single step towards
conciliation, or to carry on even an amicable discussion with the
king. He manifestly felt as if no human power had the right to
demand or to expect conciliation or discussion from an infallible
pope. The Council had affirmed his universal sovereignty, and had
encouraged him in the belief that he possessed the power of
omnipotence, so that those who refused obedience to him were
under the curse of God. The time for debate, therefore, had passed
with him, and no longer were thoughts of peace and conciliation to
be entertained. Consequently, he is represented by a friendly pen as
having, with an air of imperial majesty, broken off the official
interview with the envoy of Victor Emmanuel, by expressing "the full
measure of his scorn and indignation" in these expressive words: "In
the name of Jesus Christ, I tell you that you are all whited
sepulchers!"[189]
There was nothing then left for Victor Emmanuel but to advance his
troops, and take possession of the city of Rome, in the name of the
new kingdom of Italy. He delayed no longer. After crossing the
frontier of the papal territory, his army engaged in several skirmishes
with the Zouaves of the pope, but met with no serious resistance.
On the 20th of September, 1870, orders were given to attack the
city. Two breaches were soon opened in the walls, and as the
victorious Italians entered, the papal troops retreated, and Pius IX
took refuge in the castle of St. Angelo as a fugitive from the city
where, but a short time before, a decree of his personal infallibility
had been forced through a packed Council by such methods as no
other body of men in the world would have submitted to, and to
which it is not likely they would have submitted but for the
influences of the Jesuits. The pope having fled and made himself a
voluntary prisoner in the castle of St. Angelo, the remaining duties
pertaining to the papal Government devolved upon Cardinal
Antonelli, who still called himself Secretary of State. This consisted
of a formal and puerile protest in the name of the fugitive pope,
wherein he declared that nothing done by the kingdom of Italy had
conveyed any rights whatsoever against the dominion and
possession of the pope, and that the pope "both knows his rights,
and intends to conserve them intact, and re-enter at the proper time
into their actual possession." All that can be said of this is, that,
whilst practically it was mere unmeaning bravado, it fully set forth
the policy and purposes of Pius IX, by which he expected, with the
aid of the two hundred millions of Roman Catholics in the world, to
destroy the new Italian Government, and bring the people again
under papal dominion. Strange fatuity, made the more strange by
the fact that these announcements proceeded from the first pope
whose personal infallibility had been approved by conciliar decree!
The possession of Rome and the flight of the pope made it
necessary to put in operation the machinery of the new Government.
Accordingly, a temporary Government was formed and provision
made for taking the vote of the whole population to decide whether
or no the people were for or against the "unification of Italy." At this
vote an overwhelming majority decided in favor of the new
Government—thus indicating that even if the people had hitherto
been persuaded to believe that the kingship of the pope had been of
Divine creation, they had become enlightened enough to understand
that Providence had permitted it to continue long enough; and that
as it had succeeded in separating the Western from the Eastern
Christians, and splitting the whole into rival and warring factions, the
time had been reached when, by a new dispensation, the spiritual
department of the Church should be purified by stripping the pope of
his imperial authority and enlarging the sphere of his spiritual
functions and duties. Realizing that God governs the world in all
things by his providences, and casting their eyes over the nations to
see where the largest degree of prosperity and happiness prevailed,
they were awakened to the conviction that, as these had been
produced where Church and State were separated, the Divine
wisdom had been displayed by pointing out to them a like measure
of relief from their existing grievances. Taught by their own instincts
to believe that the shifting dispensations of God's providences were
only so many methods of exhibiting his sovereign power, and that as
he had permitted their forefathers and themselves to bear the
burden of the papal temporal power for centuries, it was natural for
them to conclude that he had at least indicated to them the duty of
exchanging it for that liberty and intellectual development which free
constitutional governments had assured to other peoples as the
means of making them happier and more prosperous—better able to
appreciate and discharge the duties which pertain to citizenship as
well as to Christian life. God had tolerated their misfortunes only in
the sense in which he has permitted slavery to exist; but they could
not be persuaded to believe that he intended longer to perpetuate
them by his providences, any more than can the people of this
country consent that the former existence of slavery here overthrew
the fundamental truth set forth in our Declaration of Independence,
that the inalienable right to freedom and civil equality is derived
from the natural law.
A very large majority of the aggregate vote cast in the provinces
having been in favor of the new Government—the negative vote
having been less than two thousand—it became necessary to adjust
the future relations between the Church and the State so that they
could exist harmoniously together, each in full possession of its
proper functions. Accordingly, the pope and all the papal authorities
were notified that the utmost liberality would be displayed toward
the Church, and that there would be no interference with it
whatsoever except the abolition of the pope's temporal power, and
such provisions in regard to temporal affairs as that rendered
necessary. It is only necessary to observe the leading provisions
made by the new Government to show their liberality and to
demonstrate the folly of their rejection; and to realize how much the
Church has lost by the unwise and infatuated policy of Pius IX, it is
sufficient to observe that there is no Government existing in the
world to-day from which the same conciliatory terms could be
obtained. Not all of them could have been obtained, even then, from
any other but a Roman Catholic population.
The policy of the new Government was set forth as follows: The
pope was to be left entirely free to exercise all his spiritual rights as
before; he was to continue to possess "the prerogatives of a
sovereign prince," and his court was to be provided for with that
view; he was to be secured "a territorial immunity," limited, of
course, within bounds to be defined, wherein he should be free and
independent of the State; all the prelates, cardinals, archbishops,
bishops, and those in ecclesiastical orders, who should be
summoned to Rome by the pope, were to enjoy immunity from civil
interference; the pope was to be permitted to communicate with
foreign powers and the Church throughout the world, and to have
special postal and telegraphic service at his command; all the
representatives of foreign powers at the court of the pope were to
enjoy perfect liberty; freedom of publication and communication
were assured; the pope was guaranteed "full liberty to travel at all
times, and at all seasons, in and out of the country," and was to be
treated and honored as "a foreign lay sovereign" throughout Italy;
his "royal appanage" and the members of his court were to be
furnished by the new Government, which should also pay the debts
of the pontifical States; and the liberties of the Church and the
spiritual independence of the pope were to be fully and amply
guaranteed.[190]
These fair and liberal provisions had reference only to the changed
relations produced by the abolition of the temporal power. They
involved a purely political question, except as it had been made
politico-religious by the doctrine of the Jesuits, which Pius IX had
adopted, to the effect that it was a necessary part of the faith of the
Church that the pope should be a temporal monarch. The Roman
Catholic population of Italy having rejected this doctrine, and
demanded the expulsion of the Jesuits because they taught it, these
provisions were the result of their desire to leave Pius IX in the full
possession and enjoyment of all his spiritual powers. It was intended
by them to provide merely for the new condition of affairs, and to
recognize the kingdom of Italy as an accomplished fact, neither to
be controverted nor changed. Victor Emmanuel, as a firm and
consistent Roman Catholic, was not disposed to do anything less,
and his obligations to the Italian people would not allow him to do
more. But Pius IX, still continuing to sorrow over the destruction of
the "old régime," and clinging to the Jesuit idea that God was
offended because he had lost his temporal crown, refused to be
reconciled. Bemoaning the incompetency of the people to decide
what was right and what was wrong in affairs of government, and
the inevitable ruin which he imagined would follow their attempt to
be governed without a pope-king, he again hurled his fiercest
anathemas at the new Government, and at the heads of all who had
aided in its creation. And having done this, the controversy was
brought to an end, leaving it well understood that Church and State
had been finally separated in Italy by a Roman Catholic population,
and that Pius IX would not be reconciled to the loss of his temporal
sovereignty which that separation occasioned, or to anything short
of his restoration to absolute royal power. There were other acts
necessary to complete the entire drama, but these would draw us off
into fields crowded with a multitude of combatants. We are now
concerned only with the conflict about the temporal power, and the
bearing of that power upon the right of the Italian people to have a
voice in the construction of the Government, and the passage of
such laws as their own welfare required. That was the only issue
between the Italians and the papacy—between Victor Emmanuel and
Pius IX. If the latter had adhered to the convictions of his own mind
when he first introduced measures of reform, and had followed the
kindly dictates of his own heart, many heartburnings and bickerings
might have been avoided, and the Church might have escaped a
serious and staggering blow. The contestants upon both sides were
attached to the Church, its history, its traditions, and its faith. A calm
discussion between them as to what it had or had not taught with
regard to the temporal power, would have made it clear that it did
not involve any essential article of the Christian creed, and they
might thus have been led to see that, as this power did not exist in
the apostolic and primitive times, there could not rightfully exist in
the changed condition of the world anything to render it absolutely
necessary to the existence and growth of Christianity in the present
age. But when Pius IX suffered his mind to be impressed by the
teachings and doctrines of the Jesuits, and allowed them to mold his
pontifical policy, passionate declamation took the place of calm
discussion, and made reconciliation impossible.
And now, when those most devoted to the Church look back upon
this conflict, and realize upon what a multitude of their Christian
brethren the papal anathemas are still resting, because of their
refusal to assent to a dogma of faith which strikes at the foundation
of free constitutional government, they can not fail to observe that,
whilst the blow has fallen heavily upon the Church, the Jesuits alone
have achieved a triumph. They laid the foundation of this triumph by
extorting from Pius IX—at a time when his unsuspicious nature was
easily imposed upon—his celebrated Encyclical and Syllabus,
whereby he declared that freedom of speech, of conscience, and of
the press were errors which the Church could not tolerate; that the
Church must be the sole judge of its own jurisdiction, and possess
the power of coercing obedience within the circle it shall assign to
itself; and that it never can become reconciled to, or agree with, the
"progress, liberalism, and civilization" of the present age. By this he
placed a barrier between the papacy and all the leading modern
nations, which the Jesuits are striving hard to overleap, but can not;
but which can only be broken down by that Christian charity which
ennobles the nature of its possessor, and teaches that God has
implanted in the hearts of mankind a spirit of brotherhood which no
creeds or dogmas or ceremonies should be permitted to extinguish.
But Pius IX added to his sufferings by the pretense of hardships that
were not real. He was allowed to return to Rome unmolested, and to
take up his residence again in the Vatican. He called himself a
prisoner, and induced others to do so, thereby setting an example
his successor has imitated. But he was not a prisoner, except when
he, of his own accord, shut himself up in the castle of St. Angelo. He
was, up till the close of his life, free to go wheresoever and when he
pleased. There was no restraint imposed upon his actions. No
indignity to his spiritual office or to his person was allowed. He could
open and close the doors of the Vatican at his own pleasure, and
admit or exclude whomsoever he pleased. He enjoyed the utmost
liberty of speech and of writing, and bestowed praise or censure at
discretion. But instead of enjoying the real liberty guaranteed to him
by the laws of the Government upon which his pontifical curse was
resting, he wore his life away by useless complaining, and by
sending forth additional anathemas, which indicated only that his
vanity was ungratified and his ambition disappointed. He died at last,
not broken-hearted—for he was always a spiritual sovereign—but
with the melancholy consciousness that his pontifical arm had
become too feeble to bear up the temporal scepter which many of
his predecessors had grasped so tightly. It would be hard to write his
life well and faithfully; it was so impulsive, varied, and feverish. His
purposes were honest, his affections sincere, his generosity
unbounded, his nature kindly and sympathetic; but he was as
powerless to drive back the storm that beat upon the papacy, as a
seaman is to check the speed of the winds when the storm is raging.
And now that he has appeared before the final Judge, who is
infallible, it might be appropriately engraved upon his tomb that he
was a good priest but a poor and incompetent statesman.

FOOTNOTES:
[185] Appleton's Ann. Cyclo., 1866, p. 674. "The pope had lost all
his bygone sympathy for the popular cause, and was only too
willing to secure his restoration to the Vatican by the aid of an
 Austrian occupation of the Romagna, and of a French siege of
Rome." (Life of Victor Emmanuel. By Dicey. Page 118.)
[186] During the progress of the Italian revolution, the present
pope, Leo XIII, then Cardinal Pecci, wrote a pastoral letter "On
the Temporal Dominion of the Popes," for the express purpose of
maintaining that dominion. Referring to the period of its first
introduction, he said it had been "consecrated by eleven centuries
of time." Neither he nor Pius IX has been able to fix the time,
except in general and indefinite terms, differing, as they do,
several hundred years, yet both infallible! (Life of Leo XIII. By
Bernard O'Reilly. Page 200.)
[187] Maguire, p. 470. Appleton's Ann. Cyc., 1870, p. 410.
After the occupation of Rome by the Italian army, the citizens
were required to decide by the form of a plebiscite, whether or no
they favored union with the kingdom of Italy, when the popular
vote was 133,681 in favor of, and only 1,507 against it. Victor
Emmanuel thereupon signified his loyalty to the Church in this
strong and expressive language: "As a king and as a Catholic,
while I hereby proclaim the unity of Italy, I remain constant to my
resolve to guarantee the liberty of the Church and the
independence of the supreme pontiff." (Life of Victor Emmanuel.
By Dicey. Pages 317-318.)
[188] Eight Months at Rome. By Pomponio Leto (Francis
Vitteleschi). London Edition. Page 212.
[189] Maguire, p. 473.
[190] Appleton's Annual Cyclopedia. 1870. Pages 414-415.

CHAPTER XVIII.
PAPAL DEMANDS.
At the death of Pius IX he left to whosoever should succeed him, as
an official inheritance, the decision of the question whether or no
the Church should acquiesce in and become reconciled to the
abolition of the temporal power of the pope, or be agitated and
possibly further disrupted by the demand for its restoration. In the
meantime Italy had become an organized nation, and was so
recognized throughout the world. The capital, after several removals,
had been established at Rome, and legislative chambers were
assembled almost within the shadow of the old senate-house of the
Cæsars, under the checks and guards of a written Constitution, to
enact laws for and in the name of the Italian people. A king existed,
but without absolute power, and had attained great popularity on
account of his eminent fitness and recognized fidelity to the trusts
committed to him. It, consequently, required but little practical
knowledge of affairs to foresee that the future peace and welfare of
the Church depended, in a large degree, upon the policy to be
pursued with regard to the temporal power—which no longer
existed, but had been abolished by Roman Catholic populations, who
had, with great deliberation and extraordinary unanimity, taken the
right to manage their own political affairs into their own hands, in
imitation of the example set them by the people of the United
States. Thoughtful minds were inspired by the hope that moderate,
wise, and conciliatory counsels would prevail with the new pope,
whosoever he might be.
The occasion rendered it necessary that the distinction between the
Church as a Christian organization, and the papacy as a magisterial
power over temporals, should be observed; that is, that the ability of
the former for Christian usefulness was left unimpaired, whilst the
latter was only designed to make the pope an absolute monarch
over the Italian people. Nobody understood this better than Pius IX,
and, therefore, the year before his death he signalized the first
important exhibition of his infallible authority by issuing a decree
amending the Confession of Faith, which had been prescribed by
Pius IV nearly three hundred years before, and an "allocution," or
authoritative and ex-cathedra epistle to the clergy and the Church,
with regard to the relations existing between the Church and the
Government of Italy. The former concerns only those whose faith is
influenced by it; the latter concerns all the progressive nations, and
none more than the United States.
In this allocution he accused the invaders of his "civil principality"—
that is, of his temporal power—with riding roughshod over every
right, human and divine; with the attempt to undermine "all the
institutions of the Church;" and characterized the act of establishing
the Italian kingdom as one of "sovereign iniquity"—a "sacrilegious
invasion." He complained that the ministers of religion "were
deprived of the right of disapproving the laws of the State which
they considered as violating those of the Church"—which was
equivalent to asserting it to be a principle of faith that he and the
clergy should be permitted to defy any law of a State which he and
they considered violative of their prerogative rights. He pointed out
"the shameful and obscene spectacle" to be seen in Rome, in "the
temples erected in these latter days to dissenting worship;" in
"schools of corruption scattered broadcast," and in "houses of
perdition established everywhere"—thus intending, undoubtedly, to
intimate what his meaning was when he said in his Syllabus, a few
years before, that the Church could never be reconciled to the spirit
of progress prevailing among the progressive nations. He insisted
that the pope can not exist in Rome except as "a sovereign or a
prisoner"—which has been disproved by all the subsequent years of
actual experience—and that there can be no "peace, security, or
tranquillity for the entire Catholic Church so long as the exercise of
the supreme ecclesiastical ministry is at the mercy of the passions of
party, the caprice of Governments, the vicissitudes of political
elections, and of the projects and actions of designing men"—
meaning thereby, in plain words, that the pope must be so supreme
wheresoever his clergy are as to require them to execute his
decrees, notwithstanding the laws of Governments shall expressly
provide otherwise. He expresses this idea with equal plainness by
saying that the pope "can not exercise full freedom in the power of
his ministry" scattered throughout the world, so long as he
"continues subject to the will of another party;" in other words, that
he must be free to require his clergy, wheresoever they may be, to
obey him and not the laws of any Government in conflict with his
will. He congratulates himself that the "whole Catholic people,"
everywhere, are united with him in supporting all these propositions,
and makes it known that he expects them "to take in hand the cause
and defense of the Roman pontificate;" that is, the restoration of the
temporal power and kingship of the pope. He expresses the belief
that the attachment shown to him by the multitudes of pilgrims who
visit Rome "will go on increasing until the day when the pastor of the
universal Church will be restored at last to the possession of his full
and genuine freedom"—which he can not enjoy without the crown of
absolute monarchy upon his head. And with a view to the
accomplishment of this, he instructs all the ministers of the Church,
everywhere, to "exhort the faithful confided to them to make use of
all the means which the laws of their country place within their
reach; to act with promptness with those who govern; to induce
these latter to consider more attentively the painful situation forced
upon the head of the Church, and take effective measures towards
dissipating the obstacles that stand in the way of his absolute
independence."[191]
All this is plain and emphatic—not susceptible of misunderstanding.
It makes the restoration of the temporal power of the pope, so as to
make him king of Italy against the positive and expressed will of the
people of that country, a politico-religious question, and commands
the faithful in every part of the world to form themselves into a
politico-religious party to influence the Governments of their
respective countries to contribute to that result. This counsel is given
in face of what the world knows to be the fact, that the temporal
power can not be restored without war—without drenching the
plains of Italy with blood, in order to force upon the people of Italy a
king whom they have repudiated by their highest act of sovereignty.
This allocution was among the first fruits of the pope's infallibility,
and makes known with distinctness the method dictated by Pius IX
for reconstructing the papacy. At the time of its issuance he had
encountered so many embarrassments without the ability to resist
them successfully, he could scarcely have expected that his hopes
would be realized during his pontificate. He was confronted by the
existence of a kingdom, still Roman Catholic but not papal, within
the limits of which Rome was included, and no man knew better
than he that what he sought after would have to await the formation
of a politico-religious party beyond the limits of Italy, and among the
peoples of other nations, strong enough to coerce the Roman
Catholic people of Italy, at the point of the bayonet, into obedience
to the papacy they had repudiated. Therefore this infallible allocution
may properly be considered his last pontifical will and testament,
whereby he devised all his right and title to the temporal power to
his successor; or perhaps it would be more apt to say, as the
politicians do, that it was intended to be the main plank in the papal
platform. How far it became so we shall see.
When, after the death of Pius IX, the cardinals assembled in
Conclave, February 17, 1878, their first official act was specially
significant. It displayed a settled purpose to hold the wavering, if
there were any, to the policy of Pius IX with reference to the
restoration of the temporal power, and to make that the test of
fidelity to the Church; in other words, that his successor should be
pledged to carry out that policy, and elected with that express view.
The cardinals, therefore, entered into an agreement among
themselves to confirm and maintain all the protests made by Pius IX
against the Italian Government. This agreement was to the effect
that they "thereby renewed all the protests and reservations made
by the deceased sovereign pontiff, whether against the occupation of
the States of the Church, or against the laws and decrees enacted to
the detriment of the same Church and the Apostolic See;" and that
they were unanimously "determined to follow the course marked out
by the deceased pontiff, whatsoever trials may happen to befall
them through the force of events."[192]
It may fairly be supposed that Cardinal Pecci was the projector of
this plan of procedure, as it is stated by his biographer that he
"stood in the foremost place at the head of his brethren." At all
events, he, together with the other cardinals, was pledged to it.
When, therefore, he was elected pope—as he was soon after—and
took the name of Leo XIII, he accepted the pontificate under the
solemn obligation so to employ all his powers and prerogatives as to
regain the temporal power his predecessor had lost, upon the
distinct ground that fidelity to the doctrines and faith of the Church
required it.
In view of the result to be thus attained, the election of Leo XIII was
unquestionably wise. Besides possessing the highest intellectual
qualifications—being, in fact, one of the foremost men of the present
time—his Christian character is pure and without a blemish. He is
cool, calm, and deliberate in considering great questions, and not
apt, as Pius IX was, to be misled by indiscreet advisers, or entrapped
by enemies. His passions seemed well restrained, and he brought to
the duties of his high office abilities far exceeding those of any of
the eminent men who composed the College of Cardinals. There is
not a sovereign in Europe of whom he is not the equal, if not the
superior, in all such qualities as fit a man for rank, station, and
authority. In the rightful and proper sphere of his spiritual duties he
is "sans peur et sans reproche." But when he ventures to depart
from that sphere, and employ the authority of his high office to
reopen a political issue already closed, to deny to the people of Italy
the right to regulate their own temporal affairs, as those of the
United States have done, and prescribes or approves a plan of
Church organization which shall measure the value of a professed
Christian life by the depth to which its possessor shall sink in the
mire of politico-religious controversy in those countries where
Church and State have been separated, he presents himself to the
world in another and different aspect. If, by imitating others who
have grasped after kingly crowns, he sees proper to lay aside the
rightful weapons of his spiritual ministry, and arm himself and his
followers with such as pertain to the strife of politics, there can be
no just ground of complaint against those whose policy of civil
government he assails, if they shall arraign him and them at the bar
of public opinion, and challenge his and their right to disturb the
peace by scattering the seeds of discord among them.
The people of Italy achieved their independence by revolution, and
decided to separate Church and State, and that they would not have
the pope for their king; they put an end to the absolute monarchism
of the papacy, and substituted a constitutional monarchy, with such
checks and guards as they deemed necessary to their own
protection. In doing this they exercised the same power of popular
sovereignty as the people of the United States, when they decided
that no king should ever rule over them. In each case the act was
intended to be final—not subject to reversal by any earthly power.
Neither country, therefore, has the right to plot against the quiet and
peace of the other; nor have the populations of either the right to do
so. All this is forbidden by the law of nations, and if knowingly
tolerated would be, by that law, just cause of war. If a politico-
religious party should be formed in Italy to change our institutions
by reuniting Church and State, and substitute a king in the place of
the people in the management of public affairs, it would incite the
spirit of resistance in every loyal American heart. And if a politico-
religious party, formed under any plea whatsoever, shall be
permitted to combine in this country for the avowed object of
reuniting Church and State in Italy, and compelling the people of
that country to accept the pope as an absolute sovereign, in the face
of the result they have accomplished by their revolution, wherein do
we escape condemnation by the law of nations? The question
whether or no any people shall exercise the right of self-government
is political, not religious. This has been decided by the people of the
United States. Consequently, to demand of them that they shall
reverse this decision, violates the spirit of their institutions, and
mocks at their authority.
No liberal and fair-minded people questioned the right of Pius IX to
declare himself infallible, or that of others to concede it to him, in
matters purely spiritual. Nor is this same right denied to Leo XIII.
But when he extends his infallibility so far as to include authority
over the fundamental principles of civil government, and thus seeks
to imperil the fortunes of the modern progressive nations where
Church and State have been separated, it should not be expected
that those who share those fortunes in common will sanction his
imperial assumption by direct affirmance or by silent acquiescence.
The age of "passive obedience" has passed, and is not likely to be
revived so long as the Reformation period shall continue to bear its
rich and abundant fruits, like such as spring from the popular
institutions of the United States. The fundamental principle upon
which all such institutions rest is the separation of Church and State;
for without that there can be no freedom of religious belief and no
such development of the intellectual faculties as fits society for self-
government. Every assault upon this great fundamental principle
must be resisted, no matter under what pretense it may be made or
from what quarter it shall come. When it was assaulted and
condemned by the vacillating and irascible Pius IX, it was in far less
peril than now, when the calm and sagacious Leo XIII has become
the general-in-chief of the aggressive forces. The former was not
even master of himself—the latter is master of vast multitudes of
men.
The election of Leo XIII caused general satisfaction outside the circle
of Church influence. He was regarded as a representative of the
highest enlightenment, and this gave rise to the hope that he would
become reconciled to the existing condition of affairs in Italy, in
order to pacify those members of the Church who had wrenched
from his immediate predecessor the scepter of temporal sovereignty.
A more favorable opportunity for pacification could not have existed;
and if it had been accepted in a conciliatory spirit, the rejoicing
would not have been confined to the Italians alone, but would have
been well-nigh universal. But little time elapsed, however, before
there were signs indicating that, instead of throwing oil upon the
troubled waters, he preferred that they should remain in agitation.
Two facts now conspire to account for this: First, the agreement
made by the College of Cardinals to adopt the principles and adhere
to the policy of Pius IX; and, second, his Jesuit education and
training. Both of these facts are stated by his biographer, and the
last with such particularity as to show that when he was only eight
years of age he was separated from his family and placed under
Jesuit care, and that his education was obtained at the colleges of
that society at Viterbo and at Rome.[193] If the world had known, at
the beginning of his pontificate, how solemnly he had pledged
himself to his brother cardinals before his election, and how his
youthful mind had been trained and fashioned by the Jesuits, it is
not probable that anything would have been anticipated, or even
hoped for, beyond what has transpired; for the skill of the Jesuits is
displayed in nothing more effectually than in the indelible
impressions they understand so well how to make upon young and
undeveloped minds. Although the question to be decided seemed
simple enough to the general public, both in the United States and in
Europe, yet to the Jesuits it was of supreme importance; for with
Church and State separated in Italy, and with Rome as the
permanent capital of a kingdom independent of the pope and
submissive to the popular will, their society would be crushed by the
weight of public odium resting upon them. During the progress of
the controversy and before the abolition of the temporal power, Pius
IX had been compelled to expel them from the States of the Church
on account of this odium existing in Italy; but they rallied again, with
their unabated energy, after his successor had been chosen,
doubtless realizing how readily a mind trained and disciplined under
their system of education would yield to their demands. For a time
Leo XIII seemed to be hesitating, as if in the issue between
liberalism and retrogression there was some middle ground. But the
Church and the world did not have long to wait before the issuance
of his first official encyclical letter, which put an end to all hopes of
reconciliation or compromise. In this celebrated document the war
upon liberalism and progress, as recognized by the modern nations,
was continued with increased and Jesuitical violence—"war to the
knife, and the knife to the hilt." There was no longer any hesitation
or faltering, but the distinct avowal of the purpose to revive the
papacy, by the restoration of the temporal power, and to carry on
the conflict until the world shall be turned away from all modern
civilization and back towards the Middle Ages. His biographer takes
special pains to make this plain, so that the encyclical may be
interpreted according to the pope's intention. After stating that there
were those who expected Leo XIII "to devise a modus vivendi with
the masters of Rome and Italy," and reconcile the Church and the
papacy to "modern society and its exigencies," he boastingly
proclaims that the encyclical "woefully disappointed all who fancied
or hoped that a pope could reconcile the revealed truth of which he
is the divinely-appointed guardian, the righteousness, justice, and
divine morality which flow from the revealed law of life, with the
awful errors, the unbridled licentiousness of thought and word and
deed, the iniquity and the immorality which are cloaked over by their
pretended civilization."[194]
This learned biographer does not intend that the pope's encyclical
shall be misunderstood; and when he thus indicates the "awful
errors," the "unbridled licentiousness," "the iniquity and the
immorality," which have been scattered over the world by modern
progress and civilization—which he characterizes as "pretended" and
not real—he manifestly understood the mind and motives of the
pope, as he also did the issue which the papacy has made with all
the most enlightened peoples of the world, and, more especially,
with the prevailing popular sentiment in the United States. We must
consequently accept this arraignment of our form of civilization as
intentionally and deliberately made. And that he understood this
issue as not confined to Italy alone, but as universal in its character,
he proceeds immediately to show that the pope "speaks with
authority to all mankind, the light imparted by his teaching
illuminates both hemispheres."
But this encyclical itself leaves no room to doubt with regard to the
universality of jurisdiction and authority claimed by the pope. Almost
at the beginning it announces that he considers himself called upon,
by virtue of his spiritual sovereignty, to decide matters of general
import, and not merely such as are understood to pertain to the
Church of Rome or to the people of Italy. Regarding himself as
possessing this unlimited jurisdiction because he occupies "the place
of the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ," he asserts pontifical authority
over the whole world, in these words: "From the very beginning of
our pontificate we have had before our eyes the sad spectacle of the
evils which assail mankind from every side." And, accordingly, he
makes his purposes known by drawing a sad picture of modern
society, "impatient of all lawful power," and threatened, in
consequence, with anarchy and dissolution, on account of its
"contempt of the laws of morality and justice." All this, to his mind,
has arisen out of the lawless spirit of revolution which modern
peoples have invoked to free themselves from the crushing weight of
imperial and absolute monarchism, which he proposes to revive in
Italy by the re-establishment of the temporal power which the
people of that country wrested from the hands of his immediate
predecessor by revolution. What we, somewhat triumphantly, call
patriotism, liberty, and natural right, he denounces as "a pestilential
virus which creeps into the vital organs and members of human
society, which allows them no rest, and which forebodes for the
social order new revolutions ending in calamitous results."
Against these threatened calamities he felt himself constrained, by
virtue of the universality of his spiritual dominion, to warn the world,
especially that part of it which has voluntarily brought what he
considers affliction upon itself, by separating Church and State and
establishing freedom of religious belief, free speech, a free press,
and free popular government. He seems to have allowed his mind to
become disturbed and agitated by this gloomy condition of affairs,
because it has been produced by the rejection of the pope's divine
right to regulate whatsoever sentiments and opinions he may deem
to be within the circle of his spiritual jurisdiction. "The cause of all
these evils," he says, "lies principally in this: that men have despised
and rejected the holy and august authority of the Church, which, in
the name of God, is placed over the human race, and is the avenger
and protector of all legitimate authority;" that is, that no authority
whatsoever, whether of governments, peoples, or individuals, can be
set up against it as rightful or legitimate. Then, looking down from
this high pinnacle upon the disturbed and raging elements below,
and sorrowing because his temporal dominion has been lost, he
enumerates some of the principal causes which, in his opinion,
threaten to wreck the happiness and welfare of society. Among
these, he makes conspicuously prominent the following: Overturning
the constitution of the Church by laws in force "in most countries;"
obstacles to the "free exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry," which
those laws have created; "the unbridled liberty of teaching and
publishing all manner of evil;" depriving the Church of "the right,"
which he considers irrefragable, to "train and educate the young;"
and, far from being least in magnitude or importance, the
sacrilegious violation of the Divine law by the abolition of the pope's
temporal power and imperial sovereignty over the Italian people.
This enumeration was manifestly made, as may be implied from the
language of his biographer, to enable him to point out more clearly
to "the Catholic hierarchy" in all parts of the world, "toward what
purpose their common zeal must be chiefly directed;" that is, what
he expects them to contribute toward turning the world away from
these modern innovations upon the papal policy, so that it may be
carried back to its condition during the Middle Ages, when the papal
supremacy was maintained by the terrible tribunal of the Inquisition.
That he prefers that period, with its ignorance and superstition, to
the present, with its advanced enlightenment and prosperity, is
plainly and emphatically avowed in these words: "If any sensible
man in our day will compare the age in which we live, so bitterly
hostile to the religion and Church of Christ, to those blessed ages
when the Church was honored as a mother of the nations, he will
surely find that the society of our day, so convulsed by revolutions
and destructive upheavals, is moving straightway and rapidly toward
its ruin; while the society of the former ages, when most docile to
the rule of the Church and most obedient to her laws, was adorned
with the noblest institutions, and enjoyed tranquillity, riches, and
prosperity."[195]
This is strange infatuation to be indulged in during the nineteenth
century, when human energy is taxed to the utmost to give
increased velocity to the car of progress, and to outstrip all previous
ages in placing checks and guards upon the ambition of temporal
monarchs. It requires but little research to learn that the "blessed
ages" to which Leo XIII refers, and gives such marked preference
over the present period, were especially distinguished by the
ignorance and superstition of the multitude. History is crowded with
evidences of this. Maitland—who is highly appreciated and often
quoted by papal writers on account of his criticisms of Robertson,
the historian—says that "the ecclesiastics were the reading men and
the writing men;"[196] but does not pretend that such was the case
with the peasants or common people, as the bulk of the populations
were called. There is nothing better established than that no
facilities for learning were afforded them, and that they were kept
down at a common level of ignorance, so as to reconcile them more
easily to submission and obedience. This is shown by the picture of
society drawn by all the early chroniclers, especially by Froissart and
Monstrelet, as well as by the more modern historians, Hallam,
Robertson, and Berington. The men of learning and letters belonged
to the "upper classes," for whom alone colleges and schools were
provided. The people, as such, were left uninstructed, in order to
make them passively obedient to the authority of Church and State,
which were united by ties they were powerless to break. They were
forced—with but little less severity than was shown to the captives
of the Pharaohs who built the pyramids, the temple of Karnak, and
other Egyptian monuments—to serve taskmasters in erecting
magnificent palaces, cathedrals, and churches, designed for display
by those whose vanity and pride made them oblivious to the fact
that they were the product of unrewarded labor, and did not contain
a stone or marble block not stained by the tears and sweat and
blood of numberless humiliated victims. But all these unrequited
victims were ignorant, and therefore obedient—obedient, and
therefore happy! But Leo XIII, exulting at this reflection, instructs
the modern nations that the curse of God is resting upon their
progressive advancement, and that he, in Christ's name and place, is
divinely empowered to turn them back to those "blessed ages,"
because, if they do not, "they must, by corrupting both minds and
hearts, drag down by their very weight, nations into every crime,
ruin all order, and at length bring the condition and peace of a
commonwealth to extreme and certain destruction."
To escape these dreadful consequences, and save modern society
from keeping open the gaping wounds it has inflicted upon itself, he
makes known his pontifical purpose in these words: "We declare that
we shall never cease to contend for the full obedience to our
authority, for the removal of all obstacles put in the way of our full
and free exercise of our ministry and power, and for our restoration
to that condition of things in which the provident design of the
Divine Wisdom had formerly placed the Roman pontiff." Having thus
instructed all the faithful that whatsoever prohibits him from
acquiring all the power and authority "formerly" possessed by the
popes, must be resisted and put out of the way, whether it be
constitutions, laws, or customs, he declares to them, by way of
encouragement, that the world shall have no rest until this is
accomplished; "not only because the civil sovereignty is necessary
for the protecting and preserving of the full liberty of the spiritual
power, but because, moreover—a thing in itself evident—whenever
there is a question of the temporal principality of the Holy See, then
the interests of the public good and the salvation of the whole of
human society are involved." His enthusiasm is always heightened,
and his eloquence of style becomes captivating, when his mind
displays its power at the contemplation of that "temporal
sovereignty" by which he hopes that he and his successors shall
bring all mankind within the bounds of the pontifical jurisdiction, so
that they shall have no care for this or a higher life but what is
involved in the duty of passive and uninquiring obedience. It is when
this enthusiasm fully possesses him that he seizes upon the occasion
to give the word of command to his ecclesiastical army in all parts of
the world; as when he tells them they must display their "priestly
zeal and pastoral vigilance in kindling in the souls of your [their]
people the love of our holy religion, in order that they may thereby
become more closely and heartily attached to this chair of truth and
justice, accept all its teachings with the deepest assent of mind and
will, and unhesitatingly reject all opinions, even the most
widespread, which they know to be in opposition to the doctrines of
the Church."
This instruction is comprehensive enough to include all, both priests
and laymen. It has the merit of simplicity, requiring only obedience
to the pope, the full "assent of mind and will" to all the doctrines he
shall announce, and the rejection of "all opinions" in opposition to
them; no matter if their submission shall involve disobedience to the
constitutions and laws under which they may live. He descends also
to particulars, and prescribes a course of conduct for all his
subordinates—like a commanding general laying down the plan of a
military campaign. They must obtain the control of education, so as
to "scatter the seeds of heavenly doctrines broadcast," in order to
save "the young especially" from the deadly influences of State and
public schools, where, according to his teaching, the method of
education "clouds their intellect and corrupts their morals." They are
required to instruct their pupils "in conformity with the Catholic faith,
especially as regards mental philosophy," as taught by Thomas
Aquinas and "the other teachers of Christian wisdom." They are to
make exterminating war upon the "impious laws" which allow civil
marriages, because those thus united, "desecrating the holy dignity
of marriage, have lived in legal concubinage instead of Christian
matrimony." And lastly, and no less imperatively, all are to be
instructed in the indispensable obligation "to obey their superiors."
[197]

But Leo XIII has not been content with these distinct avowals of his
pontifical opinions and purposes. He has chosen to give emphasis to
them in other official methods. After the death of Cardinal Franchi,
his secretary of state, he appointed Cardinal Nina to that place.
Whether he considered the latter not sufficiently instructed with
regard to his opinions, or availed himself of the occasion to express
anew and more explicitly the principles of his pontifical policy, there
is no means of deciding; but whether the one or the other, he
addressed to him an official communication, wherein these principles
were made known with perfect distinctness. Still contemplating "the
very serious peril of society from the ever-increasing disorders which
confront us on every side," and "the intellectual and moral decay
which sickens society," in consequence of its having thrown off
allegiance to the temporal power of the pope, he arraigns as
prominent among the existing evils the separation of Church and
State—precisely that condition of things which exists in the United
States more distinctively than anywhere in the civilized world. Upon
this subject—which involves so much that is absolutely fundamental
in free popular government—he says: "The chief reason of this great
moral ruin was the openly proclaimed separation and the attempted
apostasy of the society of our day from Christ and his Church, which
alone has all the power to repair all the evils of society." And
referring to the manner in which the pope had been "despoiled" of
his temporal power, he admonished him "to consider that the
Catholics in the different States can never feel at rest till their
supreme pontiff, the superior teacher of their faith, the moderator of
their consciences, is in the full enjoyment of a true liberty and a real
independence;" that is, that Roman Catholics everywhere are
expected to contribute immediate and active aid in bringing about
the restoration of the temporal power, so that "the progress made by
heresy" may be arrested, and "heterodox temples and schools" shall
be destroyed.[198]
There is nothing in all this, or in anything officially done by Leo XIII
—howsoever earnestly it may be rejected by liberal minds—that
should detract in the least degree from the estimate in which he
deserves to be held by all who appreciate upright conduct and the
consistent observance of Christian virtue. For these his life has been
eminently distinguished, and when its end shall have been reached—
fears of which are expressed at the time these words are written—
he will well deserve a lofty niche in the papal mausoleum among the
greatest and best of the pontiffs. If his opinions and utterances were
to be estimated alone by his personal integrity and private virtues,
the force of any criticism of them would be materially lessened. But
they belong to and are an essential part of the papal system which
he represents and is bound by the necessities of his position to
maintain against everything in conflict with it. What he has said, and
so frequently repeated, is echoed back from the tombs of those of
his predecessors who fought their battles with liberalism and
progress when the forces which defended them were weak and the
papacy was strong. He could not break a single thread in the net
which encompasses him, howsoever anxiously he might desire it,
and is consequently constrained to carry on the battle waged by his
predecessors until final victory is won or the flag of the temporal
power is sunk out of sight forever. His task grows harder and harder
every day; for now the progressive forces are growing stronger while
the powers of the papacy, lessened by the loss of temporal
sovereignty, are steadily waning away. He is struggling against the
patriotic sentiments of mankind, like a strong man battling with the
waves of a tempestuous sea. Although the light of modern progress
is not permitted to penetrate the walls of the Vatican, and he is shut
in behind impenetrable screens especially to keep it out, he ought,
nevertheless, to know that those to whose prosperity and
advancement it has contributed are unwilling to acquiesce in its
extinction, or to sit silently by when it is attempted. Whilst his
arraignment of civil institutions which have grown up within the
circle of this light may be well attributed to the papal system he
officially represents, he has expressed his desire for their overthrow
in such terms of censure and rebuke as to excite the suspicion that
he is moved by an uncompromising and unconciliatory spirit.
Whatsoever he has shown of this may rightfully be assigned to his
Jesuit training and education. Having been placed under the care of
that scheming and insinuating society before his opinions were
matured and whilst his youthful mind was unable to detect their
sophistry or their cunning, they were enabled to mold him to their
purposes, as the softened wax is impressed by any seal. Any
intelligent investigation of his pontifical policy, in so far as it involves
the relations of the papacy to existing civil governments, will
demonstrate this to all whose faculties have not been dwarfed by
the same system of education and guardianship. We see every day,
in the natural world, conclusive proof that "as the twig is bent so the
tree is inclined."
 FOOTNOTES:
[191] Appleton's American Cyclopedia. 1877. Pages 677 to 681.
[192] Life of Leo XIII. By O'Reilly. Page 299.
[193] O'Reilly, pp. 52-53.
[194] O'Reilly, p. 328.
[195] O'Reilly, p. 333.
[196] The Dark Ages. By Maitland. Page 461.
[197] O'Reilly, pp. 329 to 341.
[198] O'Reilly, pp. 344 to 350.

CHAPTER XIX.
PRESENT ATTITUDE OF THE PAPACY.
The opinions and utterances of the pope concerning religious duty
are considered, at least by his army of ecclesiastics, as commands
which are to be obeyed at the peril of pontifical censure. Among
these the learned biographer of Leo XIII is a conspicuous example.
He not only exhibits his own zeal in behalf of the restoration of the
temporal power in defiance of the expressed will of the Italian
people, but ventures to speak for the whole body of the Roman
Catholic population of the United States. With unflagging eloquence
he says: "For we Catholics from every land, thronging to the tomb of
the holy apostles and to the home of our common father, bear back
with us to our own land the memory of the humiliation he endures,
of the restraints put upon his liberty, of the rudeness and insults
offered to ourselves; and we resolve that the day shall come when
the pope shall be again sovereign of Rome." And addressing his
appeal to our Protestant people, he continues: "Even in our own
great Republic will not the quick American sense, and the instinctive
love of justice, and the passion for freedom of conscience, soon be
made to perceive that the dearest religious rights of our millions of
Catholics, the dearest interests of civilization among the heathen,
demand that the pope, the great international peacemaking power
of the world, should be sovereign in the city where he has reigned
for eleven hundred years?"[199]
This appeal surpasses in extravagance and hyperbole anything we
are accustomed to hear: it would constitute an admirable exhibition
of word-painting if recited from the rostrum. We, in the United
States, have made the toleration of all forms of religious belief a
fundamental principle of our civil institutions, and the present
Constitutional Government of Italy, by the abolition of the temporal
power of the pope, has, in imitation of our example, done the same
thing. When, before that, did religious toleration exist in Rome?
What pope ever gave it the sanction of a papal decree, or
recognized Protestantism as worthy of anything higher than his
fiercest anathemas? Let the millions of persecuted victims of
pontifical and inquisitorial vengeance—Albigenses, Waldenses,
Huguenots, and Netherlanders—answer from their graves. And yet
the American people are appealed to, because they maintain
"freedom of conscience" as inseparable from their national
existence, to plot against the present Government of Italy—
established by the Italian people for themselves—in order to restore
the temporal power of the pope, so that he may again possess
authority to condemn this same freedom of conscience as heresy, in
order to bring about the unification of religious faith throughout the
world! We attribute our marvelous advancement—which has no
parallel among the nations—in an essential degree, to the separation
of Church and State. But Leo XIII has told us that because of this we
are in rapid decay; and that unless we reunite ourselves with the
Holy See of Rome, and obey him and his successors—occupying the
place of Christ on earth—our ultimate ruin is inevitable. What does
this reverend biographer mean when he invokes the aid of our
tolerant spirit to re-establish an authority which, for centuries, has
been exercised in behalf of religious intolerance? Are the followers of
the pope the only people in the world entitled to freedom of
conscience? It is abundantly secured to them and all others in the
United States and in Italy as well. Nevertheless, in the face of this,
we are invited to aid in restoring the temporal power of the pope in
Rome, so that he may be empowered to turn back the modern
nations from their present progress toward the "blessed" Middle
Ages, and thus secure ultimate triumph to the spirit of religious
intolerance! Can those guilty of such inconsistencies be serious? Or
is their seriousness merely simulated, as means to an end?
What have we to do with the pope as an international peacemaker?
Why does he become so merely by wearing the crown of a temporal
king in Rome? There is but one answer, which was undoubtedly
present in the mind of his reverend biographer; that is, because, by
means of his imperial authority as the head of the Church, he may
extend his spiritual jurisdiction and dominion over such temporal
affairs in any part of the world as relate to spiritual matters, as he at
his own will and discretion shall decide. In order to understand this
we need go no further than to Leo XIII himself, whose Jesuit training
is easily discernible in all his doctrinal teachings. His idea of the
temporal power which shall give full liberty and independence to his
spiritual power, is this: that wheresoever, among all the nations, he
shall consider it necessary to interfere with and direct the course of
temporal affairs in furtherance of his spiritual duties and obligations,
he may do so at his own discretion; and where they impede the
freedom of his pontifical policy, he shall have the divine right to
resist or disregard any constitution, law, or custom which shall stand
in his way. To a mind like his—with its faculties developed under
Jesuit supervision, and filled with the metaphysical subtleties of the
Aristotelian philosophy, the sophistries of Thomas Aquinas, and the
scholasticism of the Middle Ages—this, doubtless, appears plain,
simple, and conclusive, in so far as his spiritual relations to mankind
are concerned. It may possibly be that he supposes himself not to
have mistaken his relations to the United States and to the Roman
Catholic part of our population. This may be, in view of the fact that
he can have no other but an imperfect knowledge of our form of
government, our laws, and civil institutions. His learned biographer,
however, can not shield himself behind this same plea of ignorance.
As a citizen of the United States he must know that any conspiracy
formed in this country to procure the restoration of the pope's
temporal power in defiance of the Constitutional Government of Italy
and against the expressed will of the Italian people, would violate
our neutrality laws as well as the law of nations, be offensive and
insulting to the kingdom of Italy, a disregard of our treaty of amity
with that power, and a flagrant cause of war. He does not seem
moved, or willing to have the papal car arrested in its course, by any
of these considerations, manifestly considering them as mere trifles
when weighed in the scale against the triumph of the papacy over
popular government. Ignorance of our institutions may excuse Leo
XIII; but a citizen of the United States, whether native or
naturalized, should understand better the duties and obligations of
citizenship.
When the "Holy Alliance"—as explained in a former chapter—
conspired to prevent the establishment of popular government upon
the American Continent and in Europe, and to secure the universal
triumph of monarchism, the President of the United States
announced that if these efforts were extended to the Spanish
American States, they would be forcibly resisted by the military
power of the nation. It has hitherto been supposed that this met the
full approval of our people, and that this approval has neither been
withdrawn nor modified. Yet, in the very face of this, we now find
ourselves confronted by the proposition—boldly and authoritatively
made—that a portion of our citizens shall organize themselves into a
party, under religious sanction, for the sole purpose of forcing an
absolute temporal monarch upon the Italian people against their
consent, thereby upturning the Constitutional Government they have
established, and placing the United States on the side of the "Holy
Alliance," and in direct opposition to the popular right of self-
government! To say the least, this proposition insults the national
honor; and, accompanied as it is by the assertion that it involves
religious duty, and that everything contrary to it is heresy, it involves,