virtue in the Catholics to labor night and day to convert this country to their faith, as they say they are doing, why is it improper in me to try to protect the free institutions of the country? I have not said anything against Catholicism which Cardinal Gibbons has not said against what he calls the infidels. In one of his recent letters he declared that no agnostic or atheist should be given office in this country. Why may a cardinal stand up for his church, and not I for the secular state? If the framers of the Constitution desired only Christians, or believers in a church of some kind as office holders, they would not have left the name of the deity out of the nation's charter. According to the Constitution, the only persons really eligible to office are the infidels, or at any rate, those only who are willing to place the interests of the country above even those of God or church. Are Catholics willing to do that? We ask once more, are Catholics willing to do that?

And we do not have to ask the future to answer that question. The past has answered it in unmistakable fashion. What today is the difference between Austria, for instance, and America? In Catholic or religious Austria, the interest of the church is above the rights of man. It is well for religion to be free, but it is not free in Austria; it is well for thought and speech to be free, but they are not free in Austria. Why? Because the interests of the church come first. In secular America, religion is free, thought and speech are free. Why? The rights of man come first in a secular state. The church has the power to make an America out of Austria. But will she do it? Yet if she had the power to make an Austria out of America would she hesitate to do it? Americans beware!

But let us return to Napoleon III and Pius IX. Encouraged and emboldened by his successes, and his increasing power over the emperor, as well as by his command of the resources of France for his own throne, Pius IX about this time promulgated the famous dogma of the infallibility of the pope. Until then, the church, or ecclesiastical councils, shared infallibility with the pope, but henceforth the pope alone shall be infallible, and councils and conclaves would no longer be needed to decide religious questions. Thus, to the principle of absolutism was given a new endorsement. As soon as he became infallible, the pope announced a new dogma—the immaculate conception of the virgin. The church had never held that Mary herself, like her divine son, was born of the Holy Ghost, but Pope Pius declared she was, and his word became the belief of the church universal. About this time Mary began to appear to shepherds and young girls in the fields, confirming the word of the pope that she was born of the Holy Ghost.

At the commencement of 1854 there appeared a pamphlet by an abbot who was not yet ready to accept the virgin birth of Mary. The writer charged that a certain woman of Grenoble was personating the Virgin Mother of God in these reputed appearances to shepherds and young people. Mlle. de Lamerliere, the accused woman, sued the abbot for defamation of character. To the profound regret of the church, the young lady lost her suit. From that time, her name became "The Apparition!" The church gave her a famous advocate, Berryer, to appeal the case; the abbot was defended by Jules Favre. The higher court of Grenoble confirmed the decision of the lower court, which under ordinary circumstances would have put an end to the new dogma. But it did not. The church was in politics and had therefore many ways of getting over a little embarrassment like that.

But the church did more than promulgate new dogmas. About this time, in Bologna, the little child of a Jew, Martara, suddenly disappeared from home. Careful search by the distracted father proved that the priests had carried him off to bring him up as a Roman Catholic. The anti-clerical party poured forth hot shot at a church that would steal, not only the goods, but also the children, whenever it had the power to break into people's homes. Even the emperor pleaded with the pope for the return of the child to its outraged parents. But it was all in vain. The church, the Holy Catholic church, was in the saddle, and she would ride the nation to please herself. The pope replied that as this was a matter pertaining to the salvation of the child's soul it was a spiritual question, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the state. Shortly after another boy disappeared precisely in the same manner, and was discovered in the Catholic seminary. The French ambassador pleaded with the pope as before, but the church was a divine institution, and the secular authorities were guilty of impertinence in attempting to criticise her conduct or to give her advice. It was impossible to live next door to such a power peaceably. In every Catholic country there were two kingdoms, the one within the other; two sovereigns, the one the rival of the other. And the result was, as we said it would be a moment ago, the "divine" church swallowed up the secular state whenever it could.

In 1864 Pius IX issued his famous encyclical, in which he boldly condemned the "pernicious" doctrine of the rights of man. For the edification of Americans who hope some day to see a Catholic in the White House at Washington, let us quote one or two passages from this papal bull:

"We (the pope) can not pass over in silence the audacity of those who teach that except in matters pertaining to the church, the decrees of the Apostolic See are not binding upon the conscience." Which means that the pope must be obeyed in secular as well as in religious matters. Americans beware!

"There are also those who have the audacity to declare that the supreme authority given by Jesus Christ to the Apostolic See is subject to the secular authorities," which means that the pope is the real head of the nation as well as of the church and that she will not obey any man-made constitutions.

"Our predecessor of blessed memory, Gregory XVI, described as a madness[C] the doctrine of liberty of conscience and of worship," which means that with the Catholic church in power there will be only one church. Then the encyclical proceeds to enumerate the errors which all Catholics condemn:

Error XVIII. To say that Protestantism is a branch of the true Christian church, and that a Protestant could be as pleasing to God as a Catholic.

Error XXI. That the Catholic church has no right to call itself the only true church.

Error XXIV. That the church has no right to resort to force.

Error XXVII. That the holy ministers of the church have no right to interfere in matters temporal (this proves the charge that the Catholic church is in politics).

Error XXXVI. That there can be state churches in any country other than the Catholic church.

Error XLVII. That the schools should be independent of the authority of the church.

Error LV. That the state ought to be separated from the church.[D]

There is much in the passages quoted to make every lover of free institutions to ponder over seriously and long.

But let us hasten to the concluding chapter of that period in history reaching from 1848 to 1870, with which we have been dealing. The third Napoleon began to realize that after all he was a mere figure-head in the empire which he had created by violating his own oath and