order were overthrown and the most sacred institutions swept away in a mad reign of terror and violence. Atheism to-day is constructing nothing, but destroying wherever it can the faith of ages in a higher life. Theism is proving itself, in the founding of hospitals and missions, to be a boon to, as well as a necessity, of civilization.

The cause of the success of one philosophy and the failure of the other is to be sought for in the intrinsic nature of their doctrines. One looks at man from the standpoint of soul as active principle, the other from the standpoint of body as mechanical being. One holds up to him eternal life as a reward of merit, the other assures him of a brief struggle and then oblivion. One brings man up to God—the other lowers him to the beast.

Atheism universally taught and practiced would destroy the ideals of truth, beauty and goodness which the race has been trying for centuries to realize. Leaving man the slave of conditions governed by his appetites and passions and irresponsible to law, either human or divine, would have the effect of bringing about a mad war of selfishness and greed which would destroy civilization in a triumph of might over right.

Theism standing on a platform of God, freedom and immortality would, if universally taught and practiced, build on the sub-stratum of material plenty a higher order of moral and spiritual life. It would eventually serve the purpose of the world and find a solution of its problems in the development of individual character and social justice. It would through the forces of knowledge and righteousness abolish the limits imposed by ignorance and sin, selfishness and want, thus permitting and impelling men to struggle upward and onward towards the goal of perfection in the equal, the ideal and the divine. A. M. Doolix.

Chicago.

ARCHBISHOP IRELAND ASTRAY AGAIN.

Notable among recent events and certainly demanding some attention in this magazine is the resurrection and the bold and brazen reassertion of the cunning sophistries of his grace, the Archbishop of St. Paul. This man in his recent utterances on the relation of the United States Government to the Friars of the Philippines and the Friars themselves and the comment of certain Catholics on the Yjmvea States Government is an admirable and clisgvi sting reincarnation of those ecclesiastics of au ages who Vis/ve made trie name Roman Catholic execrable and nauseating to thousands of the truth-loving and sincere minds of modern Christendom.

1 would liV:e to write his biography just now, and it certainly wouW not t>e exclusively and intensely loyal to the old saying— "speak only good of the dead." But Ireland is alive, and if he has any single element of true manhood, not to speak of Christianity left in Viis soul, I appeal to him to up and show it lest he die in Yiis unpardonable sins.

ArcYvbisnop Ireland's attitude of falsehood is fourfold in the present case. First, as regards the Philippine Friars themselves. Second, as regards the attitude of the Archepiscopal hierarchy of America in regard to said Friars. Third, in regard to the attitude of the Pope regarding their expulsion. Fourth, in regard to the attitude of the American Catholic would-he federation as related to the total question; and his method of dealing with each phase of the question is wholly in sympathy with and characteristic of the despised duplicity of the worst prelates of all times. After fighting the infamous conduct of the American Government in its declaration of war with Spain, and exposing the still more infamous conduct of the American officers and soldiers in the prosecution of the war, especially in the Philippines, the Globe Review led the way in exploiting the fact that the Friars had introduced and nurtured whatever of modern civilization there existed in the Islands at the present time. They introduced the printing press, and encouraged scientific and astronomical studies, observations and records there nearly two centuries before Ben Franklin. Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine tried to print and placard the witch burners and tyrants of New England into such rebellion against the true and lawful government of these lands as finally led to our so-called independence, that is, our slavery to a set of the most unprincipled oligarchs that ever breathed the breath of death.

Nearly a year ago I wrote President Roosevelt personally at his request that he must not take his view of the Catholic sentiment of this country from such creatures as Archbishop Ireland: and moreover that if he and his government undertook to defend the infamous conduct of the American army in the Philippines, above all if he undertook to persecute and rob the Friars of the Philippines of their just rights and honors and resolved to drive them forth and persecute them, he and his government would be broken on the wheel as sure as there is a God in heaven. And they will be thus broken before long.

Meanwhile he has listened to such mouthing land-grabbers and gold seekers and shallow pated creatures as Ireland, rather than to myself, and as God is God and truth is truth, I now swear to him that he shall be broken on the wheel whether the Friars are driven forth or not. Their treatment by the American Government has already out-Heroded Herod. Roosevelt is a greater tyrant than Herod ever was toward any body, and he and Ireland together are simply seeking the corrupt wealth and the shallow honors of worldly fame and gain—the poor imbeciles, as if they had not enough of those already and were better henceforth seeking to be upright and honorable men. What has Ireland and all the servile priests that do his bidding ever accomplished for the citizens of Minnesota compared with the splendid work of these same traduced Friars for the inhabitants of the Philippines anywhere from three hundred years ago to the present time?

His entire attitude toward said Friars and not only toward them but toward all orders of clerical brotherhoods in the Catholic Church is an unblushing and an unpardonable lie. Any of them are better men than he ever has dared to be and most of them could give him lessons alike in piety, scholarship and patriotism. He is a traducer of saints, a blasphemer against the Holy Ghost, and instead of being made a cardinal, he ought to be sent by the Pope as cook and scrub lackey to the Friars whom he, for political gain, or to pay for wholesale robbery done on his own account, is trying to persecute and destroy.

It is more than infamous to see an Archbishop of the Church of Christ doing his level best and for vilest motives to destroy the humblest servants of God. A curse upon the whole existence of such a recreant and unredeemed and brazen soul.

His position is also false as regards the attitude of the hierarchy of America on this question. Granted that up to this date the Archbishops, such of them as have assembled at their annual meetings, have not felt called upon to utter a pronouncement against the conduct of the American Government in its dealing with the Philippines and the persecuted Friars.

The Arc hbi shops are a. \evy conservative body of men, only a smaU number of them have heen present at these recent meetings, and with, exceptions, not to be named here, the latest meetings have been packed gatherings in the interests of Ireland's iniamous plans; moreover they were divided in their political and party allegiance—a difficulty that The Globe has long ago pointed out as militating against any united Catholic action in this country looking to measures in favor of asserting CathoWc rights and claims; and because these same Archbishops have not officially made a pronouncement against the crimes oi the American Government in the matter at issue, is that any reason for the specious argument or assertion of this archsophist and hypocrite that the church in the United States is not against those crimes!

"We can pity the said Archbishops—tied as they were in various ways, for not, as a body denouncing said crimes, but we nave nothing but unutterable contempt for this black sheep of their number when he leaps all the fences of decency and blares out their conduct as an excuse for the crimes themselves, in fact as practically asserting that there have been no crimes at all. Why, the various descriptions of the treatment of said Friars by the American Government are enough to damn the government forever.

In the third place the same sort of logic or argument applies to the attitude of the Pope toward the American Government. The Pope is as cognizant of the crimes in question as is Roosevelt himself, but the Pope, as the head and ruler of the Church, is also a conservative diplomat who, knowing that he cannot undo an accomplished fact though accomplished by hell, gives his whole mind to the problem of how to prevent or modify still further crimes in the same line.

Besides the Pope and the total hierarchy of Rome have withstood the American Government on this one fact of the forcible exclusion of the men who alone are responsible for whatever civilization our recent Yankee adventurers found in the Philippines.

The cry the Friars must go, started by a few wild and infidel Americans in the hire of Freemasonry, has by the Pope's quiet persistence been changed into the opposite cry—the Friars must not go—not at once at all events. And who has hated them in the Philippines but the same infidel native elements whom the Friars have often befriended and tried to teach the ways of life and of honor?

Finally on this phase of the subject Archbishop Ireland's method of argument or statement is exactly the double dealing of the arch fiend of hell. Not a point taken in his sermon— God save the world from such sermons!—has a grain of truth in it, but each point is so twisted as to make the author of the statement appear like a good churchman and an advocate of the latest papal action.

Again his attitude toward certain writers and toward the attempted federation of American Catholic societies in protesting to the American Government, as the assembled Archbishops ought long ago to have protested, is just as specious and infamous as his position toward the persecuted Friars.

It has been palpable all along to wide awake Protestants and Catholics that if the ecclesiastical power of the Roman church in this land had acted with any solid unanimity in opposition to the persecution of the Friars of the Philippines, said persecution would have ceased long ago and the Friars would have been allowed to resume and prosecute their work wherever they were acceptable to the Philippine inhabitants, but I have long ago pointed out the impossibility of securing any such unanimous ecclesiastical action in the United States. The ecclesiastics who should lead in such action are slaves to the United States Government for services rendered or still hoped for. If Ireland and Company had been first of all Catholics—and not mere self-seekers—Republican or Democratic—there never would have been any need of the United States Papal Conference to sit on the case. The Government would not have dared to propose the measure. I am not and never have been an enthusiast on the question of Catholic Federation, not that I have not seen the desirability of such a movement; I have in fact advocated it years before Bishop McFall became the mouthpiece of the movement—here, again, as I am assured, for personal reasons, but I am now delighted to see the vigor put forth by this would-be body against the wrong done by the American Government toward Catholic rights in the Philippine Islands. I do not feel at all sure that the movement is solid and bound to last and work for good, but when the leading