lawful authority over the city which, under the providence of God, he and his predecessors have held, by martyrdom, suffering, and sovereignty, for 1,800 years; for the liberty of his person and office as Head of the Universal Church, for his supreme guardianship of the faith and law of Jesus Christ, in which all Christendom has its vital interest; and finally, for the rights and spiritual liberties of the whole Catholic world.
If it be madness or baseness to die for such a cause, tell me what cause is holy, what cause is glorious? If the world call such men hirelings, the whole Christian world will honour them as martyrs; and we will bide the sentence of the Judge from Whom is no appeal.
There was a time when the whole of Western Christendom held it to be noble and glorious to volunteer in arms to defend the Holy Sepulchre from the powers of Mahometanism. Why is it not in like manner noble and glorious to defend the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the liberty, the purity of the Church itself from an anti-Christian revolution? If it was an act of Christian chivalry to defend the frontiers of Christendom, why is it not both Christian and chivalrous to defend its head and centre? If it was a noble courage to fight and to fall for the Christian liberty and purity of souls and of homes threatened by Mahometanism, how is it ignoble and hireling to defend the Christian Church at the centre of its liberty, purity, and life, against the violence of men who have blasphemously trumpeted their hatred of Christianity, and stained the cities of Italy with impurity and blood? If a war for justice be sacred, and if all Christians may lawfully and with dignity help their brethren of every
