ought to know no distinction of creed in all this. Even if the Word of the Lord has never sounded in the ear of our fellow-man, still we have been created by a common God; the blood of the Saviour has been shed for him as well as for us; and that Saviour may yet raise him much above ourselves. Even as Saul, who held the garments of the men who stoned St. Stephen, afterwards became the greatest of the Apostles, as by a flash from heaven; so may the same power which caused his conversion, make him who differs widely from us now go far beyond us in the path which we pursue. Hence, that spirit which would denounce those who differ from us, is one destructive of Christian charity and inimical to the principle of good. It was not in this spirit that the Constitution enacted that there should be no preference of one religion over another; it was in direct opposition to it that the enlightened minds who framed that instrument yielded to the better conviction of their hearts, and blotted from the statutebook all exceptions to the great principle of right which has granted to all full freedom of conscience and worship. Their declaration was: "Let each, according to his own conscience, worship his Maker; but let not the spirit of persecution be found."

This caused the healthy action of the infant republic; but, unfortunately, we have seen in later times a disposition to forget the great lesson thus inculcated, and to revert to a persecuting spirit. I care not from what this arose-under what pretext it was urged-by what reasons or excuses it was defended or palliated. It is lamentable that in any man it should be found to exist. But wherever it does exist, its evils are two-fold. It injures him who cherishes it and him who is its victim. In the one it engenders a spirit of domination over his fellow, and in the other a perpetual temptation to hatred and revenge. It is a spirit which separates brother from brother and induces mutual distrust. It may even graft itself upon political feeling or partisanship; it may cause political principles to be blended with religious distinc

tion; and then we have at once a union of Church and State, the antagonist of civil liberty.

Let me entreat all who hear me, first to seek to eradicate this spirit from their own hearts, and then to destroy it wherever it may be found. The good of the nation at large requires the sacrifice of individual preferences, and they who have been the victims of a spirit of persecution hitherto, should lay their sufferings, as an obligation, upon the altar of the common good; so that they who forgot for the moment their true principle and caused the evil to exist, may cause it to be obliterated as SOOD as possible. Thus, instead of being a collection of persons professing to be one brotherhood, and yet different in opinion and hostile in feeling, we shall be, in truth, one for the benefit of our common country, for the promotion of our mutual happiness, for our highest welfare here and hereafter.

In a large portion of the civilized world, charges are prevalent against the Catholic religion as being incompatible with civil and religious liberty. On what are these charges founded? From the pages of history it is inferred that the Roman Catholic religion is at war with the spirit of republicanism. But allow me to ask in what way? The principle of republicanism is the equality of men. We teach that all Christians have a common Parent; that all are equally redeemed by the blood of the Saviour; that all must appear before a common God who knows no distinction of persons. Where, then, is the inconsistency? Look through the records of the world, and see where the principles of true republicanism are first to be found. They had their origin in Christianity, and their earliest instance is in the Church of which we are members. Her institutions are eminently republican. Her rulers are chosen by the common consent; her officers are obliged to account strictly to those over whom they preside; her guide is a written constitution of higher force than the will of any individual. What call you this? Aristocracy? Monarchy? It is republicanism. Look again. Where were

the bulwarks found that stayed the ravages of the barbarians of the North, when they devastated the South of Europe? In the republican Catholic States of Italy Go to a nation still more familiar to you-search the pages of English history. One strain pervades them all-a perpetual assault upon the memory of the prelates of the Catholic Church. Charges overbearing, haughty and proofs? There are none.

are brought that they were tyrannical. Where are the Go to the records of parliament, and you will find the same thing there. Look at Britain in more ancient times, before the Norman conquest. One of her kings sent to Rome-he addressed the Pope, and requested of him a code of laws for the government of his realm. What was the the answer of this haughty, tyrannical, all-grasping potentate, who is represented as having his foot upon the necks of kings and emperors? It may even now be found in her archives. "I can give you principles, but not laws. Your duty as a monarch is to consult your men of wisdom, acquainted with the wishes and necessities of your people; regulate your conduct by their advice, but govern your land in your own way. Nations differ widely, and that which is proper for one might be highly injurious to another." The principles of the common law, that mighty fabric in which English liberty is said to reside, have been traced back to the Catholic Church. In this, then, is the germ of liberty to be found. After the Norman Conquest-then it was that the conqueror dictated to his captives his own laws. But who refused to bow down in tame submission to his usurpation? The bishops of England were the men. They rested their claims upon the ancient compact; they took the laws of Alfred and of Edward, and from these they demanded of the conqueror himself an acknowledgment of the rights secured to the people by Edward. And when the base hypocrite, John, endeavored still more closely than before to fetter the people, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England that resisted his power. At the field of Runnymede they wrung from

his reluctant hand the Magna Charta, which is regarded as the English constitution, but which is only a part of what the people enjoyed under the laws of Alfred.

These are the men who have been stigmatized as proud, as haughty, as ambitious. They were ambitious-just as your Hancocks were ambitious-just as your Warrens were ambitious-just as your Montgomerys were ambitious-just as those other men were ambitious who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to the support of that declaration whose successful maintenance wrested from the monarch of England the political rights which we now enjoy. But the historians of England, even while the word of liberty was upon their lips, filled their pages with misrepresentations of the principles of the Catholic prelates and calumnies upon their characters. Why was this? Because the Catholic religion was prescribed law. Hence it is that the pages of history have been garbled and distorted by the British historian, because the Catholic prelates resisted to the utmost the unjust encroachments of the British kings. The history of the American colonies, before they became an independent nation, more especially during the earlier years of their settlement, exhibits marked indications of the same spirit of intolerance towards the Catholic religion; and this, too, on the part of those who themselves fled to this continent as a refuge from religious persecution. In this we find the explanation why, for generation after generation, the same charges against Catholicism have been made; because the same dynasties have been set up, and its opposition has been the same to all. But if we endeavor to correct this source of evil, if we say: "Let history be divested of its prejudices and misrepresentations; let education be separated from sectarianism; let the truth alone be recorded and taught" then are we told we have been told-that we are turbulent and discontented. Even in this country attempts have been made to divide the republic on account of religious differences; but, thank heaven! the public mind. is becoming more and more enlightened on this point,

and men are beginning to perceive that the greatest curse which could be fall our country, would be the encouragement of any spirit of sectarian persecution. Let us beseech God, in His infinite mercy to avert from us all such a spirit of uncharitableness and unkindness. Before heaven, let us always avoid it. Let us be a band of brothers as to our common rights; as to our religious differences, let us bury them. Would to God that we may always act in this manner that we may overcome the spirit of our nature and imbibe only the spirit of Christian charity. Oh! that we all may, with reference to our opponents, enter into the blessed spirit of that prayer: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Let us, then, endeavor with all our might to reduce these principles to practice, and in the discharge of our duty to the republic, regard it as a duty to God. Thus shall we achieve the great object of our Constitution; thus shall we obtain of God His blessing. If we are assailed from abroad, let us join together as a band of brothers to repel the assault. Thus shall peace, and happiness, and prosperity reign among us; thus shall we be contented with the things and the liberty given to us in this transitory scene, having our eyes fixed on the better things and the true liberty, promised to us in heaven, as the children of God.