terests, let us now see in what way the power thus gained is to be employed; whether for the promotion of "the cause of civil and religious freedom," or for its overthrow.

The first authority which I will cite is the Freeman's Journal, the mouthpiece of Archbishop Hughes. That journal, in speaking of the labors of Mr. Hastings, the Protestant chaplain of the American consulate at Rome, amiably remarked that if he made a single convert, "He would be kicked out of Rome, though Mr. Cass (our Minister) should bundle up his traps and follow him."

The Pittsburgh Catholic Visitor, referring to the same subject, said:

"For our own part, we take this opportunity of explaining our hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant Chapel in Rome. This may be thought intolerant; but when we would ask did we ever profess to be tolerant to Protestantism, or to favor the doctrine that Protestantism ought to be tolerated? On the contrary, we hate Protestantism; we detest it with our whole heart and soul; and we pray that our aversion to it may never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City no worship repugnant to God should be tolerated, and we are sincerely glad the enemies of truth are no longer permitted to meet together in the capital of the Christian world."

There certainly is a strong odor of religious freedom about these most Christian sentiments.

The Rambler, another Catholic journal, thus expresses itself:

"You ask if he (the Pope) were Lord in the land and you were in a minority, if not in number, yet in power, what would he do to you? That we say would depend entirely on circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you; if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you, possibly hang you; but be assured of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the 'glorious principles' of civil and religious liberty."

This is undoubtedly marked by a most commendable degree of candor. The Boston Pilot very ingeniously ob

serves:

"No good government can exist without religion; and there can be no religion without an inquisition, which is wisely designed for the promotion and protection of the true faith."

Brownson says:

"Protestantism of every form has not and never can, have any rights where Catholicity is triumphant," and again, "Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the world, and instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of the State, summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the Church, its divinely constituted judge."

On the 15th of August, 1852, the Pope addressed to his followers an Encyclical letter of which the following is an

extract:

"The absurd and erroneous doctrine or raving in defense of liberty of conscience is a most pestilential error-a pest of all others most to be dreaded in a State."

The Shepherd of the Valley, a leading paper, formerly published at St. Louis, Missouri, said:

"Protestantism of every description Catholicity inserts in her catalogue of moral sins, she endures it when and where she must, but she hates it and directs all her energies to effect its destruction."

Again, on the 23d November, 1851, that paper says: "The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when and where she must, but she hates it and directs all her energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So our enemies say. So we believe."

On the 22d of October, 1853, the same paper says: "We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respect

able, and less respected than they have been since the Reformation, and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read, and communicated the disease to a large portion of the English nation, of which, in spite of all our talk, we are too often servile imitators.'

The Rambler, in 1853, says:

"Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by every man to choose his religion, is one of the most wretched delusions ever foisted on this age by the Father of all Deceit."

Brownson, in his October number, 1852, page 456, says:

"The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not right. * * All the rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the State and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of Nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived of liberty, if the State refuses to grant them any rights at all."

I shall now close with two extracts from the Paris Universe, which Professor McClintock, in his reply to Mr. Chandler, speaks of as a leading Ultramontane journal. It says:

"A heretic, examined and convicted by the Church, used to be delivered over to the secular power and punished to death. Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy of Wickliffe; a still greater number for that of John Huss; and it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by Luther; and it is not yet over."

"As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against Protestantism."

These citations will show which party has manifested the intolerant and aggressive spirit; which party is opposed to the cause of civil and religious freedom.

you.

I offer no comments of my own, but leave every reader to judge for himself. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The remark applies to religious as well as to civil liberty. All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not be so engrossed with the ordinary business of life as to close your eyes to the important events that are transpiring around Watch with jealously every measure which is calculated to abridge your political or religious freedom, and resist it at the threshold. Prevention is easier than cure. There are some measures that are so monstrous as to seem incredible; but history tells us that bloody persecution has, in former times, been the order of the day. Martyrdom has been suffered, and the massacre of St. Bartholomew's did take place for religious opinion's sake. What has happened once may happen again. Let us, being forewarned, be likewise forearmed. Whilst we make no assaults on the liberty of others, let us not, by a blind sense of security and a culpable neglect of duty, suffer our own to be put in jeopardy. Such is the position of the American party. They feel no disposition to interfere with the faith or worship of the Ultramontane Catholics, but they are unwilling, by elevating them to positions of trust and influence, to give them the power to trample upon the rights of Protestants.

I have now completed my defense of the American party against the charge of being hostile to "the cause of civil and religious freedom." It will be for an impartial public to decide how far the vindication has been successful.

I propose to close the series by two additional numbers, one of which will be devoted to the examination of the grounds on which Mr. Wise stigmatizes the American ticket as "a mongrel" or "mulatto ticket," and the other to the claims of the Democratic party to the title of the "white man's party."

MADISON.

CHAPTER XX

MADISON LETTER NUMBER ELEVEN--GROUNDS UPON
WHICH THE AMERICAN TICKET WAS STIGMATIZED
AS A MONGREL TICKET

AVING vindicated the principles of the American party from the more serious. charges preferred against it by Mr. Wise, this number will be devoted to a commentary upon certain other passages of his letter, and more particularly to the subject of renegades, conscientious Whigs, and the mongrel or mulatto ticket.

Mr. Wise in his letter, says: "We gladly took them (the Whigs) in exchange for the renegade Democrats who sneaked away from their former friends, and took a test oath in the secrecy of the culvert by the light of a dark lantern."

It seems to me that Mr. Wise is somewhat harsh upon his old political friends. The term "renegade," to say the least of it, is by no means courteous, and the charge that they "sneaked away" is liable to the same criticism. It is true that many independent and upright Democrats, dissatisfied with the principles and policy of the Democratic party, left it, as did many of the Whigs, and joined the American party. But I was not before aware that it was such a heinous offense for a free citizen of this great Republic to change his party relations. I did not know that the shackles of party allegiance were not to be thrown off without incurring the odium of being "renegades," and subjecting themselves to the denunciation of having "sneaked away." I had thought that with all true patriots the obligation to country was stronger than that to party; that parties