most spirit live the greater number of days. The will to live and the determination not to die, make the most efficacious antidote against the poison of the "lethal dart." The hopelessness of fear is that poison itself.

So is it with the torment of fear during a financial crisis. There are men, and women too, God bless them! who, when the wolf prowls round the house door, open that door wide, issue boldly forth, and do battle with the hungry beast of poverty with any weapon that lies handy. If they cannot do this bit of work, they do that. If gold is not to be shoveled in by the scoopful, they manfully set themselves to pick up silver, nay, even copper, by the piece. If their cloth does not allow of a luxurious cloak, they content themselves with a skimped jacket. Come what may they have "a heart for every fate," and will not own themselves conquered. And these always succeed in the long-run. The pluck that braves danger and the energy that overcomes difficulties are the two pots of gold on which the rainbow rests. But the hysterical despair which folds its hands and weeps when a crash comes and the wolf howls near and ever nearer, which takes to its bed with the fever born of anxiety, with the softened fiber, the paralyzed nerves, also born of anxiety-what can you do with it? What can you say of it? Contempt is perforce mitigated by compassion; but what illimitable contempt you have for the weakness which cannot accept the consequences of, may be, a deliberate act of folly and miscalculation! The carter who drove his wagon into the rut, then shouted out to Hercules to come and help him to pry it out, is the prototype of these fainéants who ruin themselves by their carelessness or their folly, then tumble into a helpless mass like so many limp rags, and have to be upborne by their friends, who are unwilling to see them die. The world is full of these wretched apologies for men; and scarce a family exists which does not own, at the least, one among its members who is always coming to grief and falling back, like the stone of Sisyphus, from any safe ledge where he may have been lodged. Nothing can be done with him. By the united strength of the company a post has been found where flows a sufficiency of milk and honey for the remainder of his life. By some inexcusable act

of folly this post is lost, when the miserable being takes to his bed and lies there till he is lifted up by main force and set on his shaky legs again. Fear wraps him round as in a Nessus garment, and he can do nothing of himself against its fatal influence. But within a stone's throw lives a cheery, self-respecting little woman, who struggles and does not cry out; who masks her essential poverty with flimsy coverings of brave device; who confesses to no fear and submits to no vicarious torment; and who does not add to the smart of the thorns wherewith she is undeniably scratched the fear of asps and adders which are not to be seen, which may not exist at all, and which, if even they are there, are best met by courage, not by cowardice.

Fear and Hope there they stand, the two presiding deities over men's minds. To the pessimist the former straddles all across the highway of life, formidable as Apollyon when he met, assaulted, and sought to destroy Christian; to the optimist Fear sinks into a dusky shadow of non-terrifying aspect, while Hope sings like a lark and shines like a star above his head. The pessimist, standing stock-still in his own past, sees naught but evil in every change of public feeling or private custom that has taken place since Plancus was his consul; the opti mist forgets himself and looks both before and after, and before because he looks after. He sees where humanity stands to-day, and where it stood when the paleolithic man chipped his fints and learned to keep himself upright. He contrasts the times of the great Pharaoh, when slaves were held as machines, and not treated with so much humanity as we treat our beasts of burden, and says: "The term has not been reached. What has been will be, and those dead selves ever lie as stepping stones for higher things." The pessimist gives up all as lost when society seeks to readjust old conditions in accordance with new developments. He sees a reign of terror in every association of discontented have-nots, planning how to lift themselves into the charmed circle of the haves. Maddened with terror he calls aloud for staves and grapeshot as the best quietuses he knows; and when the optimist says: "Let be; let the discontented speak out and the wounded show their hurts," he accuses him of complicity with treason or of blindness to

danger, and predicts the armed and bloody revolution as a certainty like to-morrow's sun. Whenever fear reigns just judgment abdicates. No eyes see straight looking through these distorted lenses; and no rose is red, no grass is green, when viewed through smoked glass which shears his very rays from off the sun. We may be sure of this: fear is the arch enemy of truth, of happiness, of success. It is the lingering inheritance of the jungle and the plain, of savagery and social chaos, before law was evolved out of the dawning consciousness of justice, and the world was given up to the tyranny of might. Fear is not the attribute of a free man nor of a philosopher; it belongs to the slave and the child, the weakling who is forced to confess his own impotence in the presence of superior strength, and who has naught but craven submission to oppose to brutality. "While we live let us live," says the old Latin proverb. Good. But we do not live while we fear. We exist in a state of constant deliquescence; and when our heart fails us and our knees smite together we are practically only half alive, and by our own cowardice turn danger into death and fear into destruction.

E. LYNN LINTON.

TEMPORAL POWER AND THE PAPACY.

THE recent events at Rome, and the sympathy so generally shown toward Pope Leo XIII. on the occasion of his priestly Jubilee, have again called attention to the question of the temporal power of the pope, which by many had been judged a thing of the past. Emilio Castelar, in his article on the subject, published not long since in the "Fortnightly Review," may be taken as the exponent of this class of persons, and very fairly. He has a facile pen and ready speech, but this is not enough to guarantee a writer from going wide of the mark. Were Emilio Castelar not a Spaniard, that is, born and bred in the midst of a Catholic atmosphere, where he could or ought to have known better, little fault could be found with his taking the views he does. But nearly every line betrays the partisan of ideas which cannot but be condemned by the church, in the bosom of which he is supposed to have been baptized in his first days of existence. He moreover makes evident his want of knowledge of Catholic principles in his observations on the encyclical, Immortale Dei, which is no new departure, but the affirmation of the old teachings of the church. He is superficial, too, in his criticism of Pope Leo XIII.'s course with Italy and with Germany. He has lost his bearings, and misjudges, in consequence, the action of the pontiff, who is bound by every reason to seek the welfare of the church, which absolutely calls for the very steps he has taken in both countries; steps which in Germany have already produced such useful results, and have made the German Chancellor declare that the papacy is not a foreign institution in the German Empire. Señor Castelar, instead of looking on “the abrogation of the laws of May" as a triumph of papal diplomacy, holds it up as a proof of the fact that there still exists in Germany hostility to the papal "tiara," and opposition to the pope's spiritual jurisdiction, because this abrogation has only "just" taken place.

The partisanship displayed here makes the writer, despite his experience and reputation, an unreliable judge in the matter we are about to consider.

We propose to place before the reader, in these remarks, what may enable him to form his own judgment on the question of the necessity of the temporal power of the pope, free from all undue influence. To effect this we must clearly give adequate reasons to make it evident that, if the church is to be free and untrammeled, and not under "hostile domination," the temporal power is a necessity. There is no need to go into details as to the origin of the temporal power. It is enough to know that no one can dispute the legitimate claims of the temporal dominion of the popes in the past, which was the outcome of the circumstances of the times. The subject is narrowed down just now to this: Is the restoration of the temporal power advisable, in view of the greatly increased influence of the papacy since September 20, 1870? Is it a necessity to the church? If we succeed in showing that it is necessary, its advisability becomes a matter of course.

What is this Catholic Church, for which we are claiming something so incompatible with modern ideas as the possession of temporal sovereignty for its head? An answer sufficient for the case is, that the Catholic Church is a necessary union of the people of the earth; necessary because the church is a body under one visible head, the successor of the Apostle Peter, as is the fundamental teaching; and for all nations, because Christ gave the command to the apostles, with Peter at their head, "Go teach all nations;" and for these reasons it is the strongest, the most compact and necessary moral organization on the face of the earth, embracing over two hundred millions of the most enlightened men, and with all the moral force that such an organization means. It follows that every individual of this vast multitude is directly concerned in the welfare, the relations, and the position of the head of the church. It is a vital question with the members of the body whether the head is in good condition. The office of the pope is to teach and to rule his spiritual subjects, and temporal sovereignty is a secondary and accidental adjunct to this, though one that is morally necessary. Why? Because it is necessary that his power to teach and rule be so