and not in conflict with the divine law. In case of doubt on any of those points, however, the presumption, as with other legislators, is in his favor.

Bishops have, however, a similar law-making. power in their own dioceses, and their laws do not require the Pope's approval that they may go into effect; but the Pope has the right and the power to modify or change the laws of bishops, and to oversee and control their action as he may deem expedient. As a rule, however, he does not exercise this power or interfere with their legislation.

It would be beyond the scope of a work like the present one to bring up the proofs that the Pope is really entitled to this supreme jurisdiction. Whole books have been written on the subject, and can be consulted by any one so inclined. The principal texts of Holy Scripture on which this doctrine is based have been given in the chapter on the infallibility of the Pope; I would merely remark here that there seems to be no reason why our Lord, after twice saying, "feed my lambs," should say the third time, "feed my sheep," unless the word sheep" meant something different from the word "lambs." The sheep are understood by Catholics to be the prelates of the Church, the lambs the laity.

But the principal argument in its favor is to

be derived from the actual history of the Church, and from the impossibility of such an enormous usurpation of power as this would be, without the force of arms to carry it out.

The supreme power of the Pope is also in accordance with the requirements of common sense. For the Church, to maintain its position in the world, and to discharge effectively the office committed to it by Christ, must necessarily have some general government; and that government cannot well be by means of a congress or parliament, on account of the difficulty of calling such a body together in an institution which is world-wide; the monarchical form seems then necessary for it; and the dangers of the extraordinary powers residing in its head are well compensated, to say nothing of the special divine supervision by Christ the invisible head of the Church, by the weakness of its visible head the Pope, as far as the arms of this world are concerned.

But now an important point must be considered; and it is this. The sphere of the Papal government is spiritual, not temporal. The Pope, as such, has no right to command in matters which simply concern the temporal wellbeing of men in general, or even of Catholics in particular; in other words, he has no power to make laws on those subjects with which the State is legitimately concerned. On the con

trary, his whole influence, and that of the Church in general, is rightfully used, and as a matter of fact has always been used, to inculcate obedience to existing governments, even though their strict right to govern might be questioned. It has always maintained the doctrine taught by St. Paul (Rom. xiii. 1-2): "Let every soul be subject to higher powers; for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation."

It is perfectly clear to any one who will read history that disobedience to the laws of the State has been always regarded by the Church as sinful, as long as the State keeps within its legitimate province. But if the State arrogates to itself powers which belong to the direct government of God over the individual soul, or to the province of the Church itself as the guide of its members in spiritual affairs, such an usurpation the Church cannot sanction. The State cannot lawfully command us to blaspheme the name of God, or to commit adultery; neither can it command us to deny the Christian faith, as the emperors of heathen Rome and other persecutors have endeavored to do. Nor can the State make laws directing the consciences of Catholics in the matter of a divine

institution like marriage, which has a spiritual as well as a temporal aspect, except so far as the merely temporal part, such as the inheritance of property, is concerned.

This was the basis, for example, of the resistance of Catholics to the attempts of the English sovereigns, specially of Henry VIII., Elizabeth, and James I., to enforce the oath of allegiance to the sovereign as head of the Church as well as of the State. This Catholics knew to be an intrusion, an usurpation of power; and they suffered heavy penalties, and often a most horrible form of death, rather than submit to it. I shall have more to say of this matter of persecution later on. For the present it may merely be remarked that what may be called persecution on the part of the State, of openly expressed opinions and of practices which are contrary to its well-being in the temporal order, are obviously sometimes necessary, as in the cases of anarchists and polygamists; though the victims may complain that their consciences are trampled on, and if they really believe that their consciences speak to them in the name of God, may be properly called martyrs to what appears to them to be the truth.

The relations of the Pope and of the Catholic Church to the State, or in other words, to the political government of the country, are a matter most important to understand, and one which

has always occupied a foremost place in the minds of Englishmen and Americans. It is not too much to say that the real reason of the success of the Reformation in England was not so much any attachment to its doctrines on the part of Englishmen, as a fear and jealousy of Papal interference in the government of the country. And it is the same here. We hear continually that the Catholics care more for the Pope than for America, that the priests manage and control their vote in the interests of the Church, and other stuff of this kind, which would be simply amusing to us from the absurdity of many forms in which the idea is expressed, did we not know that, strange and ludicrous as it seems to us, it is considered quite a serious matter by our fellow-countrymen. If they only knew a little, or would make themselves a little acquainted with the way things really work, they would see that priests do not and cannot direct the Catholic people politically, except where some moral question is involved in which the voice of the Catholic Church may be quite clear, as, for example, the matter of temperance, or of the laws of marriage; and they would notice if they would follow the priest in his daily life in his house and in the church, that politics played much less of a part in it than in that of the Protestant minister, especially in these latter days; that