claim the benefit of the second section of the fourth Article of the Constitution, and the right, under the second section of the first Article, to vote for Congressmen.

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, having been adopted as a part of the reconstruction measures rendered necessary by the war, introduced a radical change in this respect in our form of government. The Fourteenth, declared ratified in the summer of 1868, prescribes a penalty for denying the suffrage to certain classes of citizens, while the Fifteenth, proclaimed in March, 1870, substantially guaranties the elective franchise to those classes in all the States, at all general elections, State as well as national.

From this brief history of the amendments made up to the present time, it will sufficiently appear that the first ten were substantially a part of the original Constitution, while the last five have been made to meet certain exigencies in the history and administration of the government.

The civil war rendered necessary the exercise of extraordinary powers on the part of the general government, for its own preservation. But it did not entirely change our form of government, nor did it destroy the autonomy of the Southern States. Their continued existence as States was implied in the very term "reconstruction."

No Republic with a single government-what may be called a centralized republic-has ever endured for any considerable period of time, except San Marino, a Republic of 22 square miles in extent, and containing about eight thousand inhabitants; and no federative or non-centralized republic has endured for any great length of time; those now in existence being all of comparatively recent formation.

The republican form of government is, therefore, still upon

trial.

Of the federative republics which have perished, the two most notable examples have been, the Grecian States under the Achaian League, and the Hanseatic Federation. While other things contributed to the downfall of these republics, no candid inquirer can fail to come to the conclusion that one of the most potent causes was the difficulty of maintaining

a proper balance of power between the general and local governments.

The Fathers of our Republic studied carefully this balance of power, and guided by the light of history, they placed such safeguards against encroachments of federal jurisdiction on the one hand, and against usurpation of power by the States on the other, that the mixed government thus established has, for a hundred years, commanded the respect and admiration of the world. There is every reason to believe that the perpetuity of the Republic depends largely upon the preservation of this balance of power.

To say that the Federal Government is one of delegated powers, is simply to repeat what every student well understands. But the powers of the State Government are inherent in the people of the State, and in the State Legislature, as representing the people. There are certain limitations placed upon the exercise of that power. Some of these limitations have been established by the people of the United States in the Federal Constitution-some by the people of the State in the State Constitution-others necessarily result from a republican form of government. But within these limitations the States are sovereign. They possess what has been well designated by jurists as quasi-sovereignty; while as to foreign States or communities, the people of the United States, represented by the Federal Government, constitute the State.

This State sovereignty, except as limited in the manner described, should be sacredly respected. It is just as dangerous for the Federal Government to encroach upon the rights of the States as it would be for the States to usurp the power of the general Government. Every disturbance of this balance of power is fraught with danger to our institutions.

The motto of Illinois is, "State Sovereignty-National Union." But the States can maintain their sovereignty only by acting in concert. Let, therefore, the motto of Kentucky be added, "United we stand-divided we fall."

Every amendment to the Constitution is a change in our form of government; and every change tending to the centralization of power, is a blow at the liberties of the people. Under our

form of government, the rights and liberties of the citizens can only be preserved by maintaining the rights of the States. Let the people once become habituated to surrendering the rights of their States to the general Government, and they will soon reconcile themselves to the surrender to the same power, of their rights as individuals.

The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, taking jurisdiction over subjects which, under our system of government, were, with the exceptions stated, under the control of the States, could only be justified by the condition of the country after the war, and should not be regarded as precedents for the still further derangement of our federative system.

The Blair Amendment, proposed in a time of profound peace, is a plain encroachment upon the rights of the States, and is not called for by any such emergency as gave rise to the other amendments. The right to legislate upon the subject of education, is in that vast reservoir of rights which are reserved to the States, not only by the 10th Amendment but by our very form of government.

The original Constitution gave to Congress no power over the subject of religion or of education. The Blair Amendment proposes for the first time to give Congress such power. Where is this encroachment upon the rights of the States to stop?

The joint resolution introduced by Senator Blair, proposing his Amendment, provides, that

"Each State in this Union shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools adequate for the education of all the children living therein, between the ages of six and sixteen years, inclusive, in the common branches of knowledge, and in virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion."

What are the principles of the Christian religion? If the question could be determined by reference to the teachings of Christ, there would be less difficulty attending the matter. But Jesus had far less to do in establishing the Christian religion than Paul; and Paul said, "If any one preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Is this one of the principles of the Christian religion? It was the hypocrites whom Jesus denounced; but Paul denounced also

those who honestly differed with him in opinion.

In some respects Paul was one of the most remarkable men that ever lived. In his moments of enthusiasm and of spiritual exaltation, he gave forth some of the grandest utterances recorded in the pages of history. Nevertheless he was a persecutor, by temperament and practice. Before his conversion he had persecuted the Christians, making havoc of the church, entering into every house, haling men and women, and committing them to prison, (Acts 8. 3), pursuing them relentlessly, even unto death. (Acts 26. 10.)

There is sufficient reason to believe that in this respect his nature, after conversion, was essentially the same as before. He hurls his anathema at heretics, not only in the passage cited, (Gal. 1. 8, 9), but in various others. In 1 Cor. 16. 22, he says, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maran-atha." In 2 Thess. 1. 8, he pictures the Lord Jesus as "taking vengeance" on those who obey not his gospel. In 1 Tim. 1. 20, he says that Hymeneus and Alexander, who had departed from the faith, he had "delivered unto Satan." In 2 Tim. 4. 14: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works." In Titus 1. 11, referring to those in the church who were unruly, and vain talkers and deceivers, he declares that their "mouths must be stopped," and in Galatians, 5. 12, he says, "I would they were even cut off, who trouble you."

An attempt has been made to break the force of this passage, by claiming that the apostle meant only that the offenders should be cut off from the church; but that he had power to direct. This is something which he "would" could be done. The Greek verb is apokopsontai, from kopto, "to strike, smite, cut." Apokopto, "to cut off, to hew off." It is manifest that the words "I would, that they were even cut off," had a deeper significance than mere expulsion from the church, coming as they did, from one who had been accustomed to persecute even unto death, those holding a different religious faith from his own.

This disposition of Paul must have been well understood by the author of the story related in Acts 13. 8-11, where the

apostle is represented as punishing with blindness that "child of the devil," Elymas, who withstood Paul, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

The inquisition, which did'its bloody work for so many hundred years, like every thing else, had a cause. It found at least some excuse in the fierce denunciations of heretics by Paul, and in the reported killing of Ananias and Sapphira at the word of Peter. As late as the middle of the present century, an approved Catholic historian commented upon this transaction in the following terms:

"The sudden death with which they [Ananias and Sapphira] were smitten at the feet of the prince of the apostles, demonstrated to the faithful, that they could not with impunity deceive the ministers of the Lord."-(Darras, Hist. Cath. Ch. vol. 1, p. 31.)

The History of the Church by Darras, was indorsed by Pope Pius IX, August 8, 1855.

The inquisition found still further support in a document in general circulation in the early ages of the church, and then considered of high authority. It was called the Epistle of Clement to James; and a translation of it may be found in the 17th volume of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library.

In this epistle Clement describes his ordination. He says when Peter was about to die, the brethren being assembled, (at Rome), he laid his hands on Clement, as the Bishop, and communicated to him the power of binding and loosing, etc., and as to him who should grieve the President of the truth, after declaring that such a one sins against Christ, and offends the Father of all, Peter proceeded as follows:

"Wherefore, he shall not live; and therefore it becomes him who presides, to hold the place of a physician; and not to cherish the rage of an irrational beast."

When, afterward, the Church, having grown strong and dominant, found itself possessed of civil power, or safe from interference, what more natural than that it should undertake to rid itself of those making trouble in the church by employing the means for which it found such sanction?

The Spanish inquisition of the 15th century was the successor of the Dominican inquisition of the 13th century. This in its turn was the legitimate outgrowth of the papal and episcopal