cal position which some regard as in conflict with his vocation; let his local superiors settle the ecclesiastical question here among themselves and give him just judgment, where, if they rob him of his profession and means of livelihood unjustly, they can be punished by the laws. As an American, he cannot lawfully be summoned beyond seas, to be judged by an Italian court. For look, if he can thus be dealt with for a wrong position, he may, also, be cited abroad and punished for a right one. If they may call him to account in Italy for his conduct in America when he votes for an agrarian, so, also, when it comes to sustaining our common school system, he may be cited to Rome and stripped of his profession, because he votes to uphold and to perpetuate it. If this can be done in one case, so in a thousand; and by terrorism, a thousand ecclesiastics may be forced to vote as an Italian dictates (an Antonelli, perhaps, or another Borgia), and every such ecclesiastic will control a thousand lay voters by like terrorism. What then? The government itself may be turned into a dependency of the court of Rome, The balance of power may enable a minority to usurp the functions of government under color of law; and lo! we are transformed into a Mexico, with no choice but to bow our necks to a foreign domination, or to involve ourselves in religious wars for the preservation of freedom. See how wise are our laws, in their unconscious Gallicanism; intolerant of all foreign interference, and, as I said, asserting Home Rule for Americans. We choose to be governed by ourselves, as were our Anglo-Saxon forefathers by themselves, in the darkest days of papal domination. It was then that they said to the Italians: "Nolumus leges Auglia mutari." We say just as emphatically of our American laws and constitutions: We will not suffer them to be altered by any foreign dictation whatever.

But what is our actual concern with these principles just now? Are we threatened with alien interference and with a foreign power to influence and overawe our elections? I leave it to your own burning sense of recent events to frame the proper reply. The proposal to introduce a papal nuncio into the republic; the residence among us of a cardinal, who is a foreign prince and bound to a foreign court by obligations which no American has any right to assume; the goings to and fro of ecclesiastics to consult an alien potentate as to our domestic questions of labor and labor associations, and to prescribe to our citizens what they may do or not do in such issues; and the proposed establishment in this Capital, of a

university under the authority of a pontiff who, whatever the virtues of his private character, has been forced to re-invest the Jesuits with unlimited powers, and with functions against which every Roman Catholic government in Europe has protested, not only in words, but by banishing the Jesuits as public enemies and confiscating their estates; I ask, are not these tokens of peril to be resisted here and now and for all time to come? Are they not the prelude to an open assault upon our common schools, and their subversion through political subserviency?

Let me remind you of some tokens of alien warfare on our dearest relations in society, which we may rely on liberal Roman Catholics to resist with us.

Archbishop Lynch, of Toronto, in a letter to Lord Randolph Churchill, reminds him that he and his confraternity hold the balance of power in Canada, and through it have controlled the elections there; and he goes on to assert that by a similar use of the balance of power, presidential elections will be decided in this republic.

In California, certain Ultramontane dignitaries have insulted American social ties of the most sacred character, by reflecting on the marriages of the vast majority of our countrymen as mere concubinage.

Our school system is denounced in terms the most flagrant, and a counter-system is set up in which the un-American ideas of the Syllabus are to be imposed on thousands of our future voters. Private schools, if subjected to the supremacy of our laws, and so stripped of Ultramontanism, might receive the approval of Americans; but as Ultramontane schools, they are a menace to the republic. No schools should be permitted to exist without government inspection. How destructive they must be to American society, if worked in an alien spirit, under the dictation of a foreign court, may be inferred by any one who reads Mr. Gladstone's demonstrative reviewal of Vaticanism and the Syllabus. But take a fair example. I hold in my hand a book issued by the "Catholic Publication Society" in New York, and by affiliated publishers in Baltimore and Cincinnati. It is printed in Baltimore under license of its late Archbishop (Bailey) and the certificate of his official censor, that it is unobjectionable—“nihil obstat." It is a book of instruction for children. Its motto is (quoted from Benedict XIV.), "We affirm that the greatest part of the damned are in hell, because they did not know those mysteries of faith

which Christians must know and believe." What are these mysteries? Let us read this authorized Ultramontane school book. I quote (pp. 97-104) as follows:

"Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

"A. They never had.

"Q. Why not?

"A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in. "Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe?

"A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.

"Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

"A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

"Q. What will Christ say to them on the day of judgment?

"A. I know you not, because you never knew me.

"Q. Are Protestants willing to confess their sins to a Catholic bishop or priest, who alone has power from Christ to forgive sins?

they are forgiven them.'

Whose sins you shall forgive

"A. No; for they generally have an utter aversion to confession, and, therefore, their sins will not be forgiven them throughout all eternity.

"Q. What follows from this?

"A. That they die in their sins, and are damned."

A Gallican would here remind his Jesuit brethren that even in the Roman Communion there was never any obligatory confession of this sort until the times (A. D. 1215) of Innocent III.; and I ask liberal Roman Catholics whether they wish their children to be instructed in such Ultramontane ideas of their Protestant countrymen? Have we not a right to demand that the text-books and teachers of Roman Catholic schools, if chartered by our legislatures, be subject to government inspection? If their proposed university in Washington receives a charter from the United States, should it not contain such a prescription? Observe what sort of professors we shall have, unless we protect ourselves like freemen. The book I have quoted is commended in unmeasured terms by a "professor of Moral Theology and Canon Law," which is a specimen of what such professors will be likely to teach, here, at our seat of government, and in constant intercourse with our law-givers, our judges, our Cabinet officers and the society of the White House itself.

"Professor Konings, C. S. F. R., speaking of the book which

tells us that all Protestants will be damned, eulogizes it as follows:

"I have most carefully read and examined your excellent manuscript, 'Familiar Exposition of Christian Doctrine.' I took the liberty to make a few alterations. I do not hesitate for a moment to pronounce this work of yours one of the most useful for our time and country. It is written in the true spirit of St. Alphonsus. I was particularly pleased with those chapters which treat on the Church, Papal Infallibility, etc."

As he has "made a few alterations," we infer that he is the more responsible for all which remains unaltered.

There is no modus vivendi with the emissaries of such a religion as this Ultramontane book sets forth. But we sincerely seek a modus vivendi, a means of living with our Roman Catholic brethren on good terms, in Christian neighborhood, and with as true a jealousy for their rights as we cherish in behalf of our own. What is to supply this modus vivendi? I will give the answer suggested by a Roman Catholic writer, to whom his fellow-religionists propose to erect a statue, as to one of the greatest ornaments of their faith in America. Their own Orestes Brownson warns them that they must become Americans; that thus far they are a "foreign colony" in the nation—"representing a civilization different from the American, and in many respects inferior to it." He says: "The foreignism which Roman Catholics bring with them is antagonistic to the American idea." He asserts that "they are a people as distinct from the American people, in all except their political and social rights, as the people of France, Italy, Spain, England, Germany and Ireland." They are, "speaking in general terms, a foreign people; think, feel, speak and act as a foreign population." Again he says: "They who are educated in our schools seem misplaced and mistimed in the world, as if born and educated for a world that has ceased to exist." Now, is this to be the character of the proposed university in Washington? Certainly not, if it is to be chartered by an American Congress. But I have shown that every Roman Catholic who is "attached to the principles of the American Constitution," is essentially a Gallican, and, therefore, to carry out the ideas of Dr. Brownson, the Roman Catholics of America must assert and proclaim the Gallican maxims, and should require the court of Rome to concede to them, as Americans, all that was conceded to their co-religionists in France, under the republic, in 1801. We may be sure that this position would be

approved by all men who honor the sentiments of Charles Carrol, of Carrolton.

Let us examine the "Organic Articles" which the court of Rome authorized in 1801. I quote a few specimens:

"1. No bull, brief, rescript, decree, mandate, nor any other missives from the court of Rome, not even such as merely concern individuals, can be received, published, printed, or otherwise put into execution without authorization of the government.

"2. No person styling himself nuncio, legate, vicar or apostolic commissary, or relying on any other denomination (e. g., cardinal) shall without similar authorization, exercise, on French soil or elsewhere, any function relative to the affairs of the Gallican church."

In the same spirit these Organic Laws forbid the publication of such a document as the Syllabus, or even the decrees of the Vatican council, without permission of the government, the government charging itself to license only such documents as in no wise affect the laws and franchises of the republic, and contain nothing that concerns or might disturb the public tranquillity. Much more to the same purpose, and entering into minute details, is contained in this instructive work of eminent French jurists. Now, what do we learn from such a document? I answer: (1) We learn what Ultramontanism can do, and is sure to do, against any free republic, when not held in check by such safeguards; and (2) we learn what the Roman Catholic "bishops in America, if they are sincerely attached to the principles of the American Constitution," are bound to do, exacting tantamount concessions to them as Americans, and so giving their countrymen a guarantee of their resolution to "abjure all fidelity" to a foreign court of Italians and others who may, in so many ways, interfere with our public affairs and disturb the public tranquillity.

Obviously, the American government could not enter into a Concordat with the court of Rome, nor ask the pontiff to concede to it the powers of authorization which were conceded to a Roman Catholic state. But, if the Roman Catholics of America are sincerely "attached to the principles of the Constitution," they will exercise these powers themselves, and will, in behalf of their countrymen, reject foreign interference in every particular which the French republic could not permit with safety to itself. They will limit every claim and interposition of the Roman court, by the historic example of the Gallicans, and will say, in the spirit of St.