estant ministers. Scarcely a convention, or convocation or corference of any Protestant sect is held but the subject comes up; and, in the discussion which ensues, the fact is brought plainly to light that whatever hold Protestantism may have upon the higher and middle classes of society, it has none whatever upon the lower.

How utterly irreconcilable this fact is with the claim of Protestantism to be par excellence Christianity, is aside from the purpose of this paper to show. We bring it up here simply in its relation to the subject of national prosperity. Protestantism does not, cannot, reach the poor. Consequently Protestantism does not, and cannot, check the socialistic tendency, the spirit of radical revolution which is spreading with fearful rapidity, and which, if it once gains the ascendency, will repeat in this country, under conditions that will make them far more terrible than the social convulsions which, from time to time, threatened the very existence of Christian society in the Old World. Protestantism can do nothing, does nothing for the outcast, the vicious, the destitute classes of society. We do not wish to be misunderstood. We are not accusing individual Protestants of having no natural feelings of humanity. It is Protestantism as a system that we are discussing. There are many noble examples of generosity among Protestants, but in that respect they differ in no way from men who are kind and generous, though they believe in and profess no religion. They are generous, not because they are Protestants, but because they are naturally kind-hearted and humane.

We have said that Protestantism has no power over the poor, in preventing on their part the growth of feelings of jealousy, envy, and hatred of the wealthy, which threaten the peace and good order of society. So, too, it is wanting in real effective power over the rich. It can speak with no authority to them with respect to their obligations to "consider the poor." From regard to its fundamental principle that the individual judgment is the interpreter of divine revelation, it must leave to the individual conscience of the wealthy of its "churches" what each one will do, and what he will not do, in regard to works of benevolence; and, as a matter of actual fact, the benevolent wealthy among Protestants do not exercise their benevolence as a religious duty but as an act of humanity. What they do in this way is usually and to the greatest extent done in a purely humanitarian way. Protestantism, too, expressly denies the doctrine that there is any merit in good works, personal mortification, and self-denial. It thus takes from its adherents one of the strongest motives to acts of charity. Finally, on this point, in virtue of its principle of individual judgment as to religious obligations and duties, it makes

itself a principle of separation and division among men instead of a bond of union. However much it may speak in words about the brotherhood of men, it turns that truth in fact into a mere sentiment, and leaves to each individual to make out of it whatever he pleases, much or little. Thus Protestantism has no real power to restrain in the wealthy the inordinate desire for riches, the growth of luxury and self-indulgence, of indifference for and contempt of those who are socially beneath them.

It is evident, therefore, that we cannot look to Protestantism to check the growing tendency to socialism in our midst nor any of the evils to which it gives rise. In fact Protestantism is itself socialistic in principle. Its treatment of the poor is at bottom socialistic. It seeks to solve the problems of the different conditions of persons in society by the action of civil laws, and not of Christian charity. It depends upon poor laws, laws for the suppression of mendicancy, poorhouses, and workhouses, the raising of money by poor-rates and its distribution by public officials, overseers of the poor. Wherever Protestantism shapes the policy of a country and forms the ideas of the people, the poor have come to be looked upon as criminals, and practically they are often treated with less consideration.

5. Protestantism cannot be relied on as a corrective of the growing disregard for the sanctity of law. We are not referring here to outward violations of law in the form of criminal acts, but to the growing disbelief in the objective authority of law, as such. The Christian idea of law is that its authority is divine. It has its source in God, the source of all authority, secular or spiritual. Government is the embodiment of this authority as regards the relations of men in society. In republican governments this authority comes from God to the officers of the government mediately through the people. Its source is not in the people, but in God. The people do not create it; they receive it from God, and delegate it to those whom they appoint as legislators, to embody it in legislative enactments; as judges to interpret it and apply it practically to the facts and occurrences which fall within its scope; and as administrative officers, to give practical effect to its provisions. These officers are responsible to the people for the manner in which they discharge their trust, but they are responsible to them, not as the original fountain or source of law or as the creators of its authority, but as the stewards of God, who is the source of all law, of all right, of all obligation, and of all authority.

This is the only Christian idea of government. On any other ground law is nothing else than tyranny, and its resistance by one individual, or by a thousand, is no crime, properly speaking. It carries with it no moral culpability; it is not a sin. On any other

ground except that of the divine origin and authority of law, legal punishments are nothing more than the expressions of the will of the greater number, or the more powerful body, of persons in a community, and have no moral character whatever. Accordingly there is no moral obligation on the part of the individual to submit to punishment. If he does submit, it is simply because superior force requires submission.

We need not say that these ideas of government, and of civil authority, are simply anarchical. They justify revolutions, conspiracies, combinations to set law at defiance, wherever a number of individuals choose to oppose themselves to civil authority. Yet these are just the ideas that are widely prevalent in our midst, and there is nothing in Protestantism to resist or prevent their spread. In fact, Protestantism practically favors them. Its fundamental principle, in constituting the individual judgment the supreme arbiter and determiner of right and wrong, justifies them.

We do not forget that Protestantism refuses to accept this statement as correct, and endeavors to evade its point by declaring that it does not make the individual's judgment, but the Bible, the determiner of right and wrong. But, after all, it is the Bible, as interpreted by the individual judgment, and thus the question of what the Bible means and teaches, is relegated to the individual judgment, and the individual judgment becomes in actual fact, in Protestantism, the supreme judge, the final tribunal, in the decision of every case.

The traditional belief, too, in the sacred Scriptures as the written word of God, which Protestantism inherited from the Catholic Church, has been so weakened, particularly of late years, that even the reverence professed by Protestants for the Bible, and which still occupies so prominent a place in their various printed creeds, is fast dying out. The assertions and doubts among them as to the inspiration of the Scriptures; as to what parts of them are to be accepted as authentic, and what shall be rejected as spurious; what renderings in their King James's version are erroneous; whether the Greek text from which the translation was made, was not imperfect and corrupt; and what changes should be made both in it and the popular English version,-these and kindred questions which, according to the fundamental principle of Protestantism can only be solved by a process of human criticism, and about which every one is free to adopt whatever opinion he chooses, have almost destroyed the traditional convictions of Protestants in the Bible as a record of divinely revealed truth.

Without entering further into the subject, we are justified in concluding from our discussion of the five points stated, that Protestantism cannot exert the restraining, corrective, and conservative

influence necessary to check, much less to extirpate the growing immorality, irreligion, lawlessness, and open defiant denial of legitimate authority, both in Church and State, which if allowed to go on will destroy all possibility of our reaching the exalted position among the nations of the world which, until recently, we regarded as our certain destiny. Were Protestantism, therefore, the only form of Christianity existing in our midst, the people of the United States would be compelled to look forward to their national and social future with most gloomy forebodings, if not with despair.

But the Catholic religion challenges our acceptance as the religion of Christ, and its claims are acknowledged by a large portion of the people of the United States. It is in place therefore to consider the influence of Catholicity with reference to the same points by which we tested Protestantism.

1. The first objection we made to Protestantism was that it had no fixed positive truths authoritatively challenging belief. The contrast here between it and the Catholic religion is broad and obvious. The Catholic religion comes forward in no timid hesitating way, as though doubtful of the validity of its own claims to be heard. There is no uncertainty as to its requirements and demands. Its dogmas are definite, precise, and distinct; the doctrines it teaches are not put forth as opinions resting on human judgment, but as the truth of God, having God for their author, revealed by Him, and committed by Him to the Church to teach with authority, and with the absolute, infallible certainty, which divinely given authority implies.

There is no room, therefore, for vacillation or uncertainty on the part of any one who accepts the Catholic religion as to what the doctrines of Christianity are, or what are the principles by which his conduct should be regulated. He may not always be controlled by those principles, he may not live up to his known obligations, but there is not the slightest uncertainty as to what those obligations are. His convictions are not based upon his own subjective feelings and opinions, they ground themselves on the authority of the Church to teach and guide him, and on the infallibility with which she has been invested in order that she may fulfil her teaching function, and thus secure, not frustrate, the purpose for which it was given.

It is evident, therefore, that the influence of the Catholic Church (without regard now to the moral character of that influence), upon those whom that influence controls, is definite, positive, and authoritative. Indeed her enemies charge this upon her, as a ground of objection and opposition.

2. We showed the want of restraining, correcting, and controlling power in Protestantism, as regards the family relations. Let

us now examine Catholicity with reference to the same point. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is a sacrament, that the relation is of perpetual obligation; that it is God who joins together husband and wife, and that no human power can dissolve the union; that though the State assumes that it may decree divorces, it is an act of usurpation, and that such decrees are invalid. in conscience and in the sight of God.

Departure from this principle of the indissolubility of the marriage relation is always fraught with evil. It is acknowledged to be so, even by those who deny that marriage is indissoluble, Our legislatures and courts discourage divorces, because of their pernicious effects upon public morality.

We cannot enter here into details to show how the Catholic doctrine of marriage practically operates in preventing the immoralities which grow out of looser and lower ideas. It is universally felt that it does. Every husband and wife married to a Catholic knows that his or her partner in marriage will never seek a divorce, unless he becomes utterly reprobate in conscience, and an apostate to his religion.

The very different manner, too, in which the passion of love is treated by the Catholic Church, from that in which it is practically regarded outside the Church, contributes most powerfully to preserve those who accept her teaching from sins of impurity. There is no deification of the mere passion of human love, no recognition of the popular idea that its very violence will excuse indulgence, if not, indeed, sanctify it. On the contrary, it is to be ever held in check, and kept in constant subjection. Love for God is the only affection that can be allowed unlimited sway in the human heart, and all other feelings and affections, from whatever source they spring, and towards whatever object they tend, must be held entirely subordinate to the honor and glory of God, to whom all thoughts, feelings, desires, and emotions must be directed as their last end. Then, too, another sacrament, that of penance, or as it is commonly called confession, comes in to exert a most effective specific influence and constant restraint from sins involving violations of the sixth commandment (or, as Protestants enumerate it, the seventh). The seeds of conjugal infidelity and of impurity under every form, are nipped in the bud. They cannot find lodgment in the mind of a Catholic who regularly attends to his religious duties, as unconscious thoughts and desires, unrecognized until, growing through indulgence, they take the form of immoral actions, open or secret. The examination of conscience, which forms a part of the daily devotions of pious Catholics, and always precedes confession, brings them to light, puts the person who is tempted by impure thoughts, upon his guard, making him conscious of the