33D CONG....2D SESS. Mediation in the Eastern War-Mr. Chamberlain. the European wars have resulted in successful revolution, or the advancement of the cause of freedom. That European revolutions have always occurred in times of peace!" Grant it, and it is also true, that all these revolutions have consequently resulted in abortion. The separate and isolated nationalities, whose struggles for independence and freedom have checkered the otherwise uniform history of European despotism, have, consequently, been crushed in detail, for want of concert of action on their part, and by comparative preparation and vigor on the part of their oppressors, resulting from a season of peace. "Order reigns in Warsaw," has therefore become the proverbial language in which the disastrous termination of these revolutions has been announced. Yes; quiet has been restored to Ireland; but it is the quiet of exile, of starvation, and the grave. Yes; the storm of revolution has swept by, and repose is given to Hungary; but it is the repose given by Austrian bayonets, presenting the alternative of obedience or death. reckless and ruinous adventure, she will have such an enormous accumulation of the material of war on hand, that, thinking it a pity that it should go to waste, and remembering her postponed menaces, to check, on this side of the water, what she is pleased to term the insolence of our aggressive democracy, and having some old grudges against us yet ungratified, we shall find that our intervention will prove but an invitation to her and her allies to interfere in our affairs. Though it is true that we should be more than abundantly able to pay her off, in kind, for all the many valuable lessons she may have taught us, yet hold that our duty is very clear, to stand aloof and let this war work out its own legitimate ends. This much, sir, we owe to ourselves. But, Mr. Chairman, there is another duty we owe to the world. Let despotism exhaust itself. This is but another blasphemous war waged in the name of religion. And who are the belligerents? There, upon the one hand, stands old Nick, boasting himself to be God's vicegerent in the holy Yes; peace reigns in the Eternal City, and work of human butchery, that he may bring addiRome once more is quiet; but it is peace giventional empires at his feet, in abject and blaspheher by the Imperial armies of Republican France. mous idolatry. And there, upon the other hand, stands old John Bull, in sleek, yet burly hypocrisy, still mocking the forbearance of Heaven, seeking to countervail the designs of his enemy, that he may prostitute these same coveted empires to his own vile uses. Yes; "Order reigns in Warsaw;" but it is order dictated by the despoiler of Poland, at the point of three hundred thousand Russian bayonets. Sir, does the gentleman hope to gain strength to his cause by calling up to our recollection reminiscences like these? Is this the fruit of the boasted peace which he holds out to awaken, for our kind offices, the gratitude and "great consideration of the masses of Europe?" If so, then, sir, in full answer to him, I would also recall to his recollection the counterpart to that blushing page of history, thus passed into a proverb, and ask him to remember, that "Ilope, for a season, bid the world farewell, And freedom shrieked when Kosciusko fell." Mr. CLINGMAN. I understand the honorable gentleman from Indiana to assume the position that the people of Europe suffer greatly from these military despotisms, because they are forced to support vast armies in the field. Then, let me ask, how, by getting these Governments at war with each other, and having more men called out and killed, and a heavier taxation, the masses are benefited? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am just coming to that point, and the gentleman will perceive that almost the entire residue of my remarks will be in direct response to his inquiry. And I will now pass to the more practical consideration of this question. Great Britain has never allowed any opportunity to pass unimproved to strike us at every vulnerable point, as if to remind us of her great supposed superiority, both in wisdom and prowess. Well, sir, let us now quietly take her at her word, and admit to this extent-both that we need teaching and are teachable. As mere spectators, if not pupils, apparently indifferent, yet very far from being so in fact, let us quietly look on, and avail ourselves of the benefit of her present valuable experience. She is, even herself, learning some salutary lessons of experience, and we are taking the same lessons at her cost. Every gun that is fired upon Sebastopol, either of ordnance or small-arms; every shot that strikes, and every shell that explodes, is, in the present advanced state of the arts and sciences, demonstrating either the effect or necessity of some new and more efficient principle, both of projectiles and explosion. And with her experience and our observation, coupled with our remarkable aptness both for imitation and invention, she will find us in advance of both herself and the world, at the end of this conflict, in all that appertains to perfection in the science of war, and with this additional and marked difference: she will come out of the war in a state of exhaustion, while we shall be in the very prime of vigor. This, sir, will furnish us the very best guarantee of our own safety from her encroachments, and the preservation of the subsequent peace of the world. She will be content with her laurels, at the price they will cost her, and find abundant useful employment in repairing her own shattered fortunes. But if, by our obtrusive intermeddling, we furnish her with a pretext to back out of her present And then his Allies! "A kite in an eagle's nest," a bastard adventurer, all reeking in the blood of his victims, crushed out at the very altars of civil and religious liberty, in his overthrow of the only two Republics which have sprung up in modern Europe; one of them his own fair France; the other springing, Phoenix-like, from the ashes of old republican Rome. And he, as if to tempt the vengeance of Heaven, and test to its utmost the forbearance of an insulted world, proclaims himself "the protector of the Holy Places.' And Turkey! poor Turkey! waning remnant of the empire of the false prophet! Yet more magnanimous and Christian than them all! Alas! alas! whoever wins, she must perish! Vile, perfidious Austria! she has not yet won her place in this roll of infamy. These are the belligerents in this blasphemous war. And shall we interpose here? Shall we become partakers in their abomination, by interfering in this war of demons, in the name of civilization and Christianity? Shall we, too, tempt Heaven, by our presumptuous intervention, in the puny effort to thwart its just retributions? For, if there be such delight in the infernal regions as that of devils in tormenting each other, who can doubt the source from whence this war had its origin? Let them alone! Hands off! Stand back! Give them scope and margin enough to play out this diabolical game. In a word, 1 repeat it, let despotism exhaust itself, and then there will be hope for the world; and not till then. Sir, we have nothing to do with dynasties. Destiny is our field of operations. Yes, sir, we have a destiny, not a dynasty, to subserve-a mission to fulfill; and this round world, blasted with the curse of despotism throughout its whole expanse, is the field of our missionary labors; and while moral and not physical force is our instrument for its accomplishment, it will be made available only by its application in altogether another direction than that proposed by this resolu tion. Mr. Chairman, I have pointed you to the means; and now for the end. Once more I repeat, let despotism exhaust itself, and then the people, "the masses of Europe," crushed prostrate to the earth beneath its iron heel, will spring to their feet again; and once more upon their feet then comes the final struggle. "Thrice armed is he who has his quarrel just." Thrice sure is rendered their assurance of final triumph. Thrice guarantied their guarantee of freedom. England will have her Ireland, Russia her Poland, Austria her Hungary, and France her modern Rome, and all these blood-cemented despotisms, their swarming millions rallying, with the war-cry of vengeance, to the standard of freedom. And then, sir, when this seventh vial of wrath is poured out, another book will be opened. The thousands of patriots, the champions of liberty, Ho. OF REPS. the best men of Europe, who, for long, long years, have escaped martyrdom in exile, and in that exile have been learning, until they have become competent teachers of the true doctrines and principles of constitutional liberty, will hasten back, each man to his appropriate post of duty in the deliverance of his country, in obedience to her call. Then Hungary will have work for her Kossuths; Italy for her Mazzinis; Ireland for her Mitchels and O'Briens; France for her Rollins and her Hugos; Poland for her living Kosciuskos. And all these resuscitating nationalities will, this time, act in concert, and in that concert of action, find the guarantee of their triumph thrice guarantied. They will no more be cut off and perish in detail. Their wandering exiles returned, now the apostles as well as the champions of liberty, having all learned their duty at the same school, will concentrate the mighty_energies of the universal spirit of freedom in Europe, and guide it to the same end, as with one head and one heart. Then their trembling tyrants will learn for what end Providence has made their own acts of abomination in driving these men into exile, instrumental in hastening the consummation of their own doom. Shudder as we may at the carnage with which the fields of Europe are now being crimsoned by this war of tyrants, "the end is not by-and-by." No, sir; this is but "the beginning of the end." The blood now poured out as a libation to the blind fury of belligerent despots, will then-when the end does come-rise as frankincense from the altars of liberty. The dead bodies of the slainof those now driven in hosts, like cattle to the shambles, not knowing the end for which they are butchering each other, will then be seen and canonized as so many martyrs to her cause. Then another kind of shout shall go up from Ireland than the groans of murdered men, and the feeble, hopeless wail from women and childrenof starvation and despair. Then the announcement, when "bloodiest picture in the book of crime"-Poland was blotted from the list of nations, that "Order reigns in Warsaw," shall be chaunted to the notes of quite another requiem. Then other voices will startle the echoes of the plains of Hungary than the shrieks of patriot women, "scourged naked" through the land. Then other thunders shall resound from the Vatican than the fulmination of anathemas for political offenses. Another anthem will rise from the temples of Rome than Te Deum, for the triumph of brazen villany and cruel outrage, intensified by the three-fold abomination of perjury, treason, and despotism. And, as Paris is France, so shall France once more, in the streets of Paris, proclaim her deliverance, in vivas to liberty, and not to the libertine; and her bastiles shall once more fall before the avenging fury of her barricaders; and then, when Paris ceases to be France, France will cease to be despotic. Sir, this day is coming, and the assurance of its fulfillment makes no demand upon prophetic ken. The womb of human destiny, big with these events, is already pained for deliverance. For one, sir, I have only to say, God speed that day. And, now, having suggested our present duty, I come to the main point: the true policy and duty of our own Government when this crisis comes. And I conclude as I commenced. As I now insist that she shall let the despotic belligerent sovereigns of Europe alone, so I demand that she shall let the independent sovereigns of this Union alone. I deny the right of this Government to anticipate my motives, and its power, under the Constitution, to restrain my movements. I demand by what right it presumes to question an American citizen as to where he is going, what he is going for, or what he intends to take with him— whether his Bible, his hoe, or his musket, or all three, and whatever else he pleases, if it is but his own? It is high time, sir, that we had an American interpretation of the law of nations. The whole policy of our Government, with few notable exceptions, which have been winked at, in restraint of this unquestionable, and inalienable, and constitutional right of the citizen, has been just so much flagrant usurpation; and every treaty we have made, and every law we have enacted, in contravention of this right, ought to 33D CONG....2D SESS. be abrogated and repealed as soon as may be. Yes, sir, the blood of the murdered Crittenden and his men is upon our hands. And it is the duty, not of this generation merely, but of this House, and now, to wash away its stain. In the language of another, "let us perform a lustration, let us purify this House and this country from this sin." Mr. Chairman, I repeat it, the blood of the murdered Crittenden and his compatriots in the cause of freedom is upon our hands. There is no point on which the policy of our Government has been, and still is, so pointless as on this. One of two things is certain: either the Government, in assuming the power to restrain and control the migratory right of American citizens, renders herself responsible for their ultimate protection, or else, if she would absolve herself from this responsibility, she must leave them free and untrammeled to migrate and expatriate themselves at will. In the one instance, as in the case of Crittenden and his men, by cutting off the resources and means on which they rely for protection she assumes the responsibility of that protection herself; and the difficulty, and, indeed, dilemma in which-in the effort to discharge the duty-she at once finds herself involved, demonstrates the fact that the policy, in the first instance, is wrong. But, upon the other hand, by disclaiming, in the first instance, all right to interfere with their motives and movements, she absolves herself from all responsibility to other Governments for their acts, as well as for their protection, further than as a duty to humanity demands a right to a fair trial under the laws of the country which they may have violated. But she has done neither. On the contrary, she has degraded our chivalric Navy to the base uses of police service to the Queen of Spain, in blockading our harbors and rivers to keep back our own citizens from rushing to the rescue of their patriot comrades, and then looked on in cold indifference while Spanish cruelty satiated its thirst for their blood. Sir, if I shoulder my musket and march to Canada, and shoot down the first man I meet, I ask you, to the laws of which country am I amenable for the crime? Why, sir, who would presume to controvert the conclusion, that my own Government, upon the one hand, incurs no responsibility for my act, and has no business with me; or that, upon the other hand, I have no right to look to her for protection against the legal consequences of my crime. I think she would conclude, that, whether the British Crown was or was not competent to the vindication of its own violated laws, it would be no concern of hers, and would leave me to the consequences. Well, sir, how could it so affect this principle as to change the nature of her liability, if there were ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand, guilty of identically the same offense? You would, in this Temporal Power of the Pope-Mr. Chandler. of its truth and its triumph. And again let me Of the event referred to-Colonel Kinney's ex- "In the absence of any information that the alleged company contemplate occupying any lands which are claimed, or have ever been claimed, by Costa Rica, the warning contained in Mr. Molina's note would seem to be premature. From the tenor of that note, however, the undersigned does not infer that the Government of Costa Rica apprehends any hostile intention on the part of the organization in question, but that it simply declines to recognize the validity of any title which this company may have obtained from other sources than from the Government itself. "In this view of the case, Mr. Molina will permit the "When the parties to this expedition shall have with- Now, sir, the Government has but one more TEMPORAL POWER OF THE POPE. OF PENNSYLVANIA. case, ape the gratuitous interference of the despots SPEECH OF HON. J. R. CHANDLER, Sir, there is a "higher law" above and beyond all human law-the law of destiny-or, more properly speaking, the law of Providence, by which the world's progress is controlled. This law you can neither repeal nor modify. And, in His own good time, the Maker of this law will, in spite of you, be both judge and executioner. Mr. Chairman, “the world does move," all the conventionalities of despotism and priestcraft to the contrary, notwithstanding. And the resistless spirit of freedom implanted in the human heart is but the manifestation and outbirth of that law by which progress is governed. This spirit you cannot, you must not, attempt to control. Your interposition, or attempted intervention for this purpose, will be found as futile as it is impertinent and presumptuous. Let us, therefore, so shape our deeds by our manifest duty, as that, when the approaching crisis comes, America and Americans may be felt and found wherever destiny may direct, or duty demand. Mr. Chairman, I hail with joy every indication I see of an approximation, even, to the adoption of this policy, which has long been a cherished sentiment of my heart. The whole history of Texas stands out as an enduring monument, both IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 10, 1855. The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. CHANDLER said: I rise to express my opinions on a subject which ought never to have been introduced into the Congress of the United States; but, having been brought hither and discussed, the suggestions of many friends lead me to believe that it is my duty to present, not merely my opinions. but certain facts, in relation thereto. I purpose making some reply to the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] who recently addressed this House, in committee, on some of the prevailing topics of the day, and made special and inculpatory allusion to the creed of the Roman Catholic Church; involving a charge of latent treason against its members, or at least imputing to them an article of religious faith that overrides all fealty to the Government of the country, and would render them unworthy of public trust-suspected citizens, and dangerous officers. Before I commence my direct reference to the subject of my remarks, let me say that, whatever may be my religious belief and connections, I trust that all who know me in this House will Ho. OF REPS. acquit me of the charge of any attempt to obtrude those opinions upon others, or to press upon my associates, publicly or privately, any defense of the creed of my church, or the peculiarity of its forms and ceremonies. Believing, sir, that religion is a personal matter, I have avoided public exhibition of my pretensions; and, knowing the unpopularity of my creed, I have been careful not to jeopard my means of usefulness, in their legitimate channel, by any untimely presentation of irrelevant and unacceptable dogmas. But now, sir, I think I cannot be deceived in supposing that a well tempered reply would not only be patiently received in this House, but that an attempt at such a reply as the charge of the gentleman from Massachusetts would suggest to a Catholic, is expected from me, as the oldest of the few, the very few, (I know but one besides myself in this House,) who are obnoxious to any censures justly made against professors of the Catholic religion, and who may be directly interested in a defense from imputations of a want of fealty to the Government of the country, in consequence of the nature of their obligations to the Catholic Church. If, Mr. Chairman, I had not long been a member of this House, and thus become able to form an opinion of the honorable gentlemen who compose it, I might startle at the risk of presenting myself as the professor of a creed "everywhere evil spoken of," and standing almost alone in the assertion of a fact which seems to be everywhere doubted. 1 stand, too, sir, without the sympathies of a host of partisans to sustain me in my weakness, and to pardon me the infirmities of my defense in consequence of their attachment to the principles I advocate. I stand alone, indeed; the generous defense offered by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. KEITT,] and the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. BARRY,] was the magnanimous effort of men who would defend the professors of a creed which they do not hold. I, sir, speak for a creed which I do hold. I stand alone, sir; but I stand in the Congress of the nation. I stand among gentlemen. I stand for truth; and how feeble soever may be my effort, I feel that I may continue to depend, at least, upon the forbearance of a body that has always entitled itself to my gratitude by its unfailing courtesy to my humble exertions. Mr. Chairman, I understand the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] in his defense of the secret combination to put down the Catholic religion in this country, by denying to its members the full rights of citizenship, to assert that he does not bring into discussion the general creed of the Catholics, but only that portion which, it is asserted, makes the professor dependent upon the Bishop of Rome, not merely for what he shall hold of faith towards God, but what he shall maintain of fealty towards his own political Government. Let me read a paragraph from the published remarks of the honorable gentleman: "Mr. BANKS. I have no objection to any man of the Catholic Church, or faith. Here is our friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CHANDLER,] an amiable, learned, and eloquent man; I might be willing to vote for him, Catholic as he is, in preference, perhaps, to others nearer my political faith than he is. What he thinks of the Seven Sacraments, or how many he accepts, is no concern of mine. To me it is no objection that he receives the interpretations of the Council of Trent as to the doctrines of original sin and justification. It cannot concern me, and it can concern no man, that, as a matter of faith, any person cherishes the doctrine of transubstantiation, accords the full measure of Catholic veneration to sacred relics or images, and accepts every article of the Nicene creed. Each man is accountable for his own faith, as I for mine. And even though my name were appended to the declaration, read to us by the gentleman from Mississippi, from the Pennsylvanian, I might still vote for such a man, if otherwise it lay in my way to do so." I thank God, and the honorable gentleman, for that. I may think as I please on matters purely spiritual. But the gentleman proceeds: "But there is another branch of this subject. It is a current belief that the Pope, the head of the Roman Church, who stands as the Vicar of God, and is invested with his attributes of infallibility, is not only supreme in matters of faith, but has also a temporal power that can not only control Governments, but, in fitting exigencies, may absolve his disciples from their allegiance. I am aware, sir, that this is disputed ground. But it is a well attested historical fact, that often, in time past, the claim to secular power has been made; and I am yet to learn, that by the Pope, or any general council speaking with his acquiescence-the only authorized exponents of the true faith—that this claim has 33D CONG....2D SESS. ever yet been disavowed. IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND. * 1 will say that, if it be true that the Pope is held to be supreme in secular, as in sacred affairs, that he can absolve men from their relations with others not of the true faith, it is not strange that men should hesitate in support of his followers. I would not vote for any man holding to that doctrine, and, I doubt not, other gentlemen here would concur with me in that feeling." The charge, then, against the Roman Catholics of this country is, that their views of the supremacy of the Pope renders them unsafe citizens, because it renders them liable to be withdrawn from their allegiance to their own civil Government by the decrees or ordinances of their spiritual superior. Of the cruelty of disturbing the public mind with such questions, and disfranchising well-disposed citizens, I shall not now speak. I shall leave to other times, and other persons, and in other places, too, the task of impeaching and of developing the motives upon which such discreditable and unrighteous proceedings rest. I shall leave to those who have more bitterness of temper than I possess, to show that, though newly revived, the charge is as old as the hostility of Paganism to Christianity; and that those who are vitiating public sentiment in thus ministering to the appetite which they have made morbid, have their prototype in the malignants who would crucify the Saviour "lest the Romans come and take our city from us," or in the Titus Oats of later times, who disturbed the public mind of England by discoveries of plots that existed only in his infamous invention, and who, by his perjuries, sent men to the scaffold whose innocence is now as generally admitted as is the corruption of the court in which such fantastic tricks were played, and as the infamy of the wretch who could destroy the peace of an excellent portion of the community, and send to the scaffold and block men of immaculate purity, merely to give himself a temporary notoriety, and a sort of political aggrandizement. That branch of the discussion I turn from, with loathing and disgust at the offensive details, and with horror at its intimate association with the men, the motives, and the means of modern times. I leave such considerations to others, and proceed to take notice of that part of the subject which concerns the political relations of American Catholics with the head of the Roman Catholic Church-the character of the fealty which I, and all of the Catholic creed in this country, owe to the Bishop of Rome. Temporal Power of the Pope-Mr. Chandler. censure, and feel that I stand charged, a national And, sir, that this disavowal of a divided fealty The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ORR) reminded gentlemen that applause was not becoming in a deliberative body. Mr. CHANDLER. Or, if the spirit of conquest and cruelty should seize upon the wearer of the tiara, and he should seek to subjugate Italy by improper assumptions, and, by crime, provoke the arms of other nations against his own city, I could look on the chances of the defeat of his army as coolly and as complacently as on the misfortunes and punishment of any other ambitious monarch, and, safe in my love of right, and in the enjoyment of my religious creed, and the comforts of my home, I could say, "Let the Volscians plow Italy and harrow Rome." Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to attract attention by declamation; I wish to state simply and distinctly, but very emphatically, what are the opinions of a Roman Catholic as to the influence of the dogma of Papal supremacy on political allegiance, and my own opinion I have given. But since some exception was made in my behalf-an exception which I cannot admit, though I thank the honorable gentleman for the courtesy with which it was expressed-and since it may be asserted that, as a Republican and layman, 1 could not be supposed to understand all the rela acy of the Pope, let me add, that what I assert The question raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts is one of political power, and that, I imagine, is the leading objection to Catholics and to Catholicity with gentlemen who venture on the dangerous movement of dragging religion into the political arena. Mr. Chairman, I deny that the Bishop of Rome has, or that he claims for himself, the right to interfere with the political relations of any other country than that of which he is himself the sovereign! I mean-and I have no desire to conceal any point-I mean that I deny to the Bishoptions and influences of the dogma of the supremof Rome the right resulting from his divine office, to interfere in the relations between subjects and their sovereigns, between citizens and their Governments. And while I make this denial, I acknowledge all my obligations to the church of which I am an humble member, and I recognize || all the rights of the venerable head of that church to the spiritual deference of its children; and I desire that no part of what I may say, or what I may concede, in my remarks, may be considered as yielding a single dogma of the Catholic Church, or manifesting, on my part, a desire to explain away, to suit the spirit of the times, or the prejudices of my hearers, any doctrine of the Catholic Church. I believe all that that church believes and teaches as religious dogmas, but I am not bound by the imputations of its opponents. I am not bound by the assertions of those who would make political capital out of denunciations of her children, or misrepresentations of her creed. Nay, more, sir; and I ask the attention of gentlemen to my disavowal. I am not bound by any action which the Pope takes as a temporal sovereign, or which he performs as Bishop of Rome, or Pope, when he is only carrying out a contract with Kings and Emperors to secure to them the integrity of their possessions, and the perpetuity of their power. As I cannot accept the honorable gentleman's discrimination between me, as a Catholic, and other members of the Church as Roman Catholics, I must regard myself as involved in the general I have not time here to quote from the writings Extract from a letter of Bishop England to an "This charge which you make upon the Papists is ex- kingdom is not of this world-and whilst we render unto HO. OF REPS. not give it to the President; we do not give it to the Governor; we do not give it to the Congress; we do not give it to the Legislature of the State-neither do you; nor do they claim it-nor would we give it, if they did, for the claim would be unfounded. We give to them everything which the Constitution requires; you give no more-you ought not to give more. Let the Pope and cardinals, and all the powers of the Catholic world united, make the least encroachment on that Constitution, we will protect it with our lives. Summon a general council-let that council interfere in the mode of our electing but an assistant to a turnkey of a prison-we deny its right; we reject its usurpation. Let that council lay a tax of one cent only upon any of our churches; we will not pay it. Yet we are most obedient Papists-we believe the Pope is Christ's Vicar on earth, supreme visible head of the church throughout the world, and lawful successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. We believe all this power is in Pope Leo XII., and we believe that a general council is infallible in doctrinal decisions. Yet we deny to Pope and council united any power to interfere with one tittle of our political rights, as firmly as we deny the power of interfering with one little of our spiritual rights to the President and Congress. We will obey each in its proper place, we will resist any encroachment by one upon the rights of the other. Will you permit Congress to do the duties of your convention?" Here is another extract from the writings of the same Roman Catholic prelate: "Kings and Emperors of the Roman Catholic Church have frequently been at war with the Pope. Yet they did not cease to be members of the church, and subject to his spiritual jurisdiction, although they resisted his warlike attacks. Any person in the least degree acquainted with the history of Europe, can easily refer to several instances. The distinction drawn by our blessed Saviour, when he stood in the presence of Pilate, was the principle of those rulers. They were faithful to the head of the church, whose kingdom is not of this world, but they repelled the attack of an enemy to their rights. You, sirs, acknowledge the authority of bishops. Suppose a bishop under whom you were placed, proceeded to take away your property; could you not defend your rights at law without infringing upon bis spiritual authority? Are you reduced to the dilemma of being plundered, or of denying an article of your religion? Can you not keep your property and deny the right of the bishop to take it away, and resist his aggression, at the same time that you are canonically obedient? Can you not be faithful to him as bishop, and to yourself as a man? Thus suppose the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Maryland claimed same right which he neither had by your church law nor by the law of the State. You may, and ought to, resist the aggression. Yet you would not be unfaithful to him. Let the Pope be placed in the same predicament; I can be faithful to the Pope and to the Government under which I live. I care not whether that government be administered by a Papist, by a Protestant, by a Jew, by a Mohammedan, or by a Pagan. It is, then, untrue to assert, as you have done, that a consistent Papist, and a dutiful subject of a Protestant administration, must be incompatible. Dr. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, one of the most learned of the Roman Catholic Church, asserts, positively, that the temporal power of which we speak was never claimed by the Church, and he challenges the production of a single decree or definition in which this power was propounded as an article of faith. "Such," says the learned Bishop, "does not exist." Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, in his Supplement to the Pastoral Instruction, says, "The deposing power of Popes never was an article of faith, or a doctrine of the Catholic Church, nor was it ever proposed as such by any council, or by any Popes themselves who exercised it." Archbishop Hughes, of New York, is equally explicit on this point. And I might fill volumes with citations to prove my position. A council of the Catholic Church in Baltimore has expressed the same idea in the most emphatic terms. Mr. Chairman, since I began to speak here I have received a treatise, by Bishop Spaulding, of Kentucky, on this very subject, sustaining my view. It is a timely and acceptable offering, by a lady in the gallery, to the spirit of truth, and her influence will assist to promote and reward attention throughout the House, as the woman's offering of ointment from the alabaster box was scattered over the head of the Author of truth, while its fragrance was diffused throughout the chamber in which the offering was made. But I shall, of course, be asked, whence the boldness of the assertion against Catholics, and whence the readiness to believe the charges, if they are altogether unfounded? Has not the Pope exercised the power of deposing monarchs, and thus of releasing subjects from their allegiance? Has he not interfered with the temporalities of a sovereign, and thus exercised a power sufficient to justify the apprehensions of the timid, and to give some appearance of probability to the assertions of the bold, reckless, and unprincipled party politician of the present and recent time? 33D CONG....2D Sess. Mr. Chairman, as a Christian man and an American legislator, I have nothing but truth to utter; and I scorn to utter less than the whole of the truth.. Undoubtedly, the Pope has proceeded to dethrone Kings, and thus to release subjects. History declares that more than one monarch has been made to descend from his throne by the edict of the Pope, and that the allegiance of his subjects has been transferred, by that edict, to a succeeding monarch, who, however he may have obtained his crown, might have been compelled to lay it down at the bidding of the same authority that deposed his predecessor. Temporal Power of the Pope-Mr. Chandler. If, then, the Pope has exercised such a right,|| may he not, should he ever have the power, renew that exercise? That, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, depends entirely upon the foundation of the right, and the demand which may be made for its exercise. The question which concerns us here, and which arises out of the charges made by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, is not whether the right has been claimed; but on what grounds this right was asserted. If it was a divine right—a right inherent in the spiritual office of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter-then, sir, I confess it may never, it can never lapse; and its exercise may be renewed with the reception of additional power. But, sir, if it was a right conferred for special occasions, by those interested in its exercise, conferred by monarchs for their own safety, and approved by the people for their own benefit, who were ready, willing, and able, to contribute means for giving its exhibition power, then it would, of course, cease with the change of circumstances in which it was conferred; and those who invested the Pope with the right, because they could assist him with power, and because general safety required the exercise of that power, retained in their own hands the right to withdraw or invalidate their former bestowal, and leave in the hands of the Roman Pontiff only his spiritual rights over Kings or people, dehors the limits of his own temporal dominion. To understand how the Pope ever possessed any power over Emperors and Kings, and by such power, influencing their subjects, we must enter more minutely into the circumstances of the far distant age in which it was conferred and exercised, than the time here allowed for a speech, or the space necessary for an essay, would justify We must enter into the spirit of the middle ages, and see how naturally Christian monarchs (then all of one creed) formed combinations, and how much human rights and Christian principles owe to combinations; and jealousies which, while they distinguished, and really illustrated that period, would now be regarded, if they could exist, as the resort of men of bad principles, to perpetuate tyrannical power. But such was the state of the times, and such the unestablished condition of religion and civil government, that it became a matter of the deepest moment to Christian Princes, that the latter should combine to support the former. And in combining, the Christian (Catholic) Princes formed a league, by which, peace, order, and religion were, as far as possible, to be maintained among them by a reference to the influences which the Pope, as a spiritual sovereign, would naturally have to enforce temporal and temporary power with Kings and people, and with Kings through their people; and this influence was augmented by the submission on the part of individual sovereigns to the decrees of the Pope, founded on the power which the united sovereigns had conferred on the Pontiff, and founded on that alone. Christianity, at that period, had not wrought out its work of social good; vice and disorder were rampant, and the passions of men seemed to be allowed indulgences little realized in these times. To secure something like order, religion, and catholicity, among the Christian nations, and to secure the ultimate social effects of the true principles of religion, the Christian Princes conferred upon the Pope a power, which previously he had not attempted to exercise; never, indeed, claimed to possess. The spiritual power was always admitted as of divine right, the gift of God. The temporal power was conceded, was conferred, by the Emperor and Christian Princes, not to aggrandize the Bishop of Rome, but to enable him NEW SERIES.-No. 8. to decide betwixt them in their various disputes; and to keep alive the faith upon which the power of the Princes evidently rested. No one then pretended that the right to depose a King was a divine right in the Pope. He claimed the power to cut off from the sacraments of the church, all who did not conform to the rules of that church, a right claimed and exercised by all churches, Í suppose; as every church surely must be a judge of the qualifications of its members, and must, so far as its influence extends, exercise the power to bind and loose. That is a question purely theological, and cannot be discussed here. I certainly do no injustice to any one in saying that such was the disorderly state of Europe, that, if dependance had not been placed by sovereigns in the influence of the Pope's spiritual power, no King could have maintained his possessions without an acknowledged physical superiority; and no people could have retained a show of freedom, could have counted on life itself, if the avarice and bloody cruelty of the Barons could have found any advantage or even momentary, gratification by sacrificing either. And this was not all. It was admitted that every crown should be held by the tenure of Christianity in its wearer; and yet Paganism and infidelity were continually grasping at the scepter.* Kingdoms were constantly changing. Monarchs were driven from their thrones by violence; and their successors rarely thought of any other object than the permanency of their own power. Meantime the Papacy was permanent; and, in proportion to the troubles, disorders, and disasters of the times, the Papacy acquired strength; strength in the constant appeals to its arbitration; strength in its unchangeable qualities, and strength, it will be admitted, by a reception and exercise of duties devolved upon it by those who saw in the Papal power the only means of saving Europe from chaos. Having asserted that the political power of the Popes, dehors their special and proper dominion, was conferred by the Christian Princes, and that it was exercised by the demands and appeals of those who were interested in its object, viz: order, religion, and princely right, and sometimes popular rights, I have only to say that, of course no Pope thus receiving and thus exercising his power could, with truth, assert a divine right; or, asserting it, he could not hope to have that right permanently admitted. It hence follows that such a right never was an article of Roman Catholic faith. It cannot be denied that the spiritual power of the Pope, the admitted jure divino, was a motive among others for conferring the political power, and, perhaps, also a motive for exercising that power; and the reverence in which the character of the Pope was held by Princes and nobles, as well as the people, gave great consequence to the decisions of the Pontiff, right or wrong, and insured prompt obedience, when otherwise there might have been hesitancy and even calcitration. No doubt, the temporal power conferred by temporal consent and by a constitution, was mistaken for, and admitted by, certain weak persons at that time as the spiritual power conferred by Christ, and sustained by the Scriptures. But nowhere is the right to such power claimed, as of divine right, by the Catholic Church. In the Catholic Church, as in all other churches, there have been found a few individuals of less discretion than zeal, who have, from a mistaken view of the Christian duties, thought it a merit on themselves to impute to religion a direct secular power which it was never intended by God, nor understood by good, prudent men, to exercise. We see it in the careless writings of certain Catholic scholars, as we find it in the preaching and disci *The Foreign Quarterly for January, 1836, says: "In the eleventh century the papacy fought the battle of freedom." Ancellon, unfriendly to the Pope, says: "In the middle ages there was no social order; it was the influence and power of the Popes that, perhaps, alone saved Europe from a state of barbarism. It was their power that prevented and stayed the despotism of the Emperors, that replaced the want of equilibrium and diminished the inconveniences of the feudal system." Southey says: "The papacy was morally and intellectually the conservative power of Christendom. Politically, too, it was the saving of Europe." And a Protestant writer, in the American Encyclopædia, in an article on Gregory VII., says: "The Papal power was for ages the great bulwark of order amid the turbulence of the semi-civilized people of Europe." Ho. OF REPS. pline of many other denominations. But in the Catholic Church those individual opinions have been discountenanced by the bishops, and in other churches they have grown much out of practice; by all they are considered as rendering unto God the things which are Cæsar's. The assertion by individuals, or the practice by a few Popes, of any power, does not make that power right. That only is of faith which is so declared, and which is for all times and all circumstances. Of The most distinguished instance of the exercise of the Papal power of deposing a monarch, is that by the Pope Gregory VII., who excommunicated and deposed the Emperor Henry IV. The peculiar character of these times I have already noticed. The peculiar character of Henry may be learned from history. He was corrupt, venal, turbulent, cruel, blasphemous, hypocritical. He had violated his coronation oath, and was engaged in enormities that drew, from every part of Germany and the north of Italy, appeals to the Pope for the exercise of those powers which the Pontiff held from the Emperor; and when the Pope was exercising his admitted legal powers against the Emperor, Henry called a council, and caused to be passed and promulgated a sentence of deposition against Gregory, the Pope. course, this drew from Rome a sentence of excommunication, and excommunication, unless removed within a year, was to assist in working out depositions. The Princes of Germany, even, assembled to elect a successor to Henry; but the excommunicated Emperor, in full acknowledgment of the power of the Pope, hastened to Italy, made submission, saved himself from dethronement, returned to his German home, fourfold more a child of the devil than he had been, was deposed, and died a miserable outcast. Though those events took place at a time and under circumstances when little regard was paid to the niceties of temporal distinctions, yet the Pope (Gregory) did not claim that his action in deposing the Emperor was - by divine right, because he knew, and all knew, that, by a law of the Empire, Henry had forfeited the Imperial throne, and that the Pope was as much authorized to depose him for violating a law of the Empire as he was to excommunicate him for open violation of the commands of God and the Church. In a letter from Gregory VII. to the German Lords, he, the Pope, expressly declares that he did not pretend to ground himself merely on the divine power of binding and loosing, but on the laws of men-that is, the constitution or laws of the Empire, as well as the laws of God; and, according to the last named code, as well as the requirement of the former, Henry deserved, not only to be excommunicated, but also to be deposed of his Imperial dignity. The most distinguished writer of the time of Gregory VII., Peter Damier, shows that Gregory did not depend alone upon his spiritual power, but acted upon the authority of the constitution of the Empire. If Gregory had claimed, and others had admitted a divine right alone to depose an Emperor, his apologist would scarcely, at such a time, have presented the smaller right of human authority. The following, from a work on the temporal power of the Pope, by Mr. Gosselin, is directly to the point, and will illustrate this part of my remarks: "From these observations it follows, in fact, first, that Gregory VII., the first that ever pronounced a sentence of deposition against a sovereign, did not pretend to ground his proceeding solely on the divine right, but on laws both human and divine. Secondly, that in the opinion of Gregory VII., and of his successors, as well as of all their contemporaries, the deposition of an excommunicated Prince was not a necessary consequence of excommunication, and did not follow from the divine power of binding and loosing alone, but from a special provision of a human law, and principally from the laws of the Empire, which declared deposed of his throne any Prince remaining obstinately under excommunication during a whole year. "These important facts once proved, there is no difficulty in understanding how the Popes could naturally cite, in support of their sentences of excommunication and deposition against Princes, the divine power of binding and loosing, though not considering it as the sole title of that deposing power which they claimed. It is, in fact, evident that, at a time when constitutional law attached the penalty of deposition to excommunication or heresy, the Pope's sentence against such excommunicated or heretical Prince was grounded both on the divine right and on human law. It was founded on the divine right, not merely in so far as it declared the Prince heretical or excommunicated, but still more, in so far as it enlightened the conscience of his subjects on the extent and limits of the obligation arising 33D CONG....2D Sess. from the oath of allegiance which they had taken to him. It was founded on human law also, in so far as it declared the Prince deprived of his rights, in punishment of his remaining obstinately in heresy or excommunication. It is obvious, also, why the Pope's sentence mentioned only the divine power of binding and loosing; for it was on that divine power that the sentence was really grounded, considered in its principal, direct, and immediate object: for the deposition was effected by excommunication-its natural result, according to the constitutional law then in force." While I have asserted, and, with the little time allowed me, referred you to the authorities upon which my assertions rest, that the Popes of the middle age did not declare that their interference with the temporal powers of Kings and Emperors was authorized by their spiritual commissions, as Bishops of Rome; and that their antagonistic and summary proceedings towards offending sovereigns, with regard to the temporal powers of the latter, were authorized by a constitution formed by these sovereigns or their predecessors, I do not pretend to assert that the power was always rightly used. I do not deny ambitious or vengeful motives to the Popes. Nothing in my creed or theirs presents such a conclusion, and nothing in their conduct renders such a conclusion unreasonable. I only say that the spiritual power here is not in question, and there, and at that time, the power to depose-power humanly conferredwas never called in question by the deposed monarchs. They admitted the constitutional right and power, though they may have called in question the justice of the act. With the justice of the proceeding I have nothing to do here, though I may be allowed to say that, however the Pope may have transgressed the rules of justice as between him and the deposed monarch, it is probable that, as between the monarch and the people, there was little occasion to suppose that any injustice had been done to the Prince, or much likelihood of hearing complaints from the latter. The Pope has struggled sometimes with sovereigns, but never with the sovereignty. He has exercised a power voluntarily placed in his hands by Kings, and invoked by the people; and he has dethroned the monarch, but not anathematized the subject. The Popes, in the fulfillment of what the consent of Kings and the confidence of the people have made a duty, have released subjects from the oath of allegiance to the sovereign, but never have they released the sovereign from his coronation oath to respect, guard, and rightly govern the people. Because I have neither time nor space for such an inquiry, I do not pursue the subject in detail. I have taken the strongest case of the exercise of the power of deposing monarchs-which is now called the power of releasing subjects-and I have shown that the Pope did not rely upon the general spiritual power as head of the Christian church for authority to depose Ithe Emperor, but that he rested on, and was sustained by, the constitution which authorized the eection of an Emperor, and made orthodoxy one condition of holding the Crown. And it would have been equally easy, generally less difficult, to have shown that every instance of such exercise of power by the Pope was authorized by the admitted constitution or acknowledged compact, provided that the offenses of the Prince had brought him within the operation of the laws, which all admitted to exist, and for the execution of which all turned to the Pope. Now, as this kind of secular power had its origin in the consent of the sovereigns, at a particular time, and long after the apostolic age, it follows that not only could it not have carried with it the jure divino, which belongs to the spiritual power of the Bishop of Rome, but that the proof of the existence of the real spiritual power would have been weakened by attempts to prove the right of deposing to be divine. At that time, then-at a time when men were the most willing to yield assent to such species of usurpation, as released Kings from a bad Emperor, and relieved subjects from bad Kings-at that time the divine right was not claimed, and the whole power of deposing rested upon the consent, not merely of the Kings, but of the deposed Princes themselves. But it is charged that Roman Catholics even now admit the right of the Pope to interfere between subjects and their allegiance, and between citizens and their duties to the Republic, in some other form, since the power to depose Kings is no longer possible. I deny it; I have denied it for myself plainly, clearly, specifically. But, in this Temporal Power of the Pope-Mr. Chandler. House, it is said that, though I may be excepted But the Roman Catholic Church is represented "God never gave to St. Peter any temporal power, any authority to depose Kings, any authority to interfere with political concerns. And any rights which his successors might claim, for any of those purposes, must be derived from some other source. A Roman Catholic has no further connection with the Pope than that he succeeds St. Peter. Peter had none of these rights-as a Roman Catholic, I know nothing of them in the Pope. He is equally a Pope, with or without them." In the early part of my remarks, I took occasion to say what would be my course, if, by any remarkable (but really impossible) concurrence of circumstances, the army and navy of the Pope should invade the country. Hear, now, how the Bishop of Charleston sustains my declaration: "The American Constitution leaves its citizens in perfect freedom to have whom they please to regulate their spiritual concerns. But if the Pope were to declare war against America, and any Roman Catholic, under the pretext of spiritual obedience, was to refuse to oppose this temporal aggressor, he would deserve to be punished for his refusal, because he owes to this country to maintain its rights; and spiritual power does not, and cannot, destroy the claim which the Government has upon him. Suppose a clergyman of England were convicted for some crimefor instance, Dr. Dodd-and he was ordered for execution; must the law be inoperative because the criminal is a clergyman? Think you that no one could be found in a Roman Catholic country to sentence, or to execute a sentence, upon a clergyman who was a criininal? All history testifies to the contrary. So, too, does all history show that, upon the same principle, Catholic Kings, and Princes, and peers, and people, have disobeyed improper mandates of the See of Rome, and have levied and carried on war against Popes, and still continued members of the Church." Mr. Chairman, I have thus shown that the Church, in the middle ages, did not claim for the Popes the authority to exercise temporal power over other sovereigns, by Divine right, even when the exercise of that authority seemed to be so great a blessing to the people that it would scarcely seem wonderful if the people should have hailed it as of Divine origin. And I have shown that the best writers of the Catholic Church, of later days, and of the present century, have, in like manner, denied that it was part of a Catholic's belief that the Pope possesses any power to depose Kings, or release subjects, or to violate faith with those who are or are not of the Catholic Church. I now offer other proof that the Church sets up no claim to such power. And, before I do it, I may be permitted to say that, in the pursuit of information with regard to the Catholic Church, it has been my chance to converse with every rank and degree of her hierarchy-Pope, Cardinal, Nuncio, Archbishop, Bishop, and Priest, and I never heard one of them claim any such power, and never heard one of them speak upon the subject who did not disavow any belief of its existence. The vexed question of governing Ireland, and of granting to the people of that kingdom a part of the rights enjoyed by the subjects of Great Britain, has often lead the British Parliament to inquire into the charges made against Roman Catholics, with reference to the asserted right of the Roman Pontiff to interfere with the internal affairs of other Governments. Three propositions were prepared and sent to the faculties of the principal Catholic Universities in France and Spain; those of the University of Paris, of Douay, of Louvain, of Acala, of Salamanca, and of Valadolid. I give the proposition and abstracts of the several answers. Extracts from the declarations and testimonies of six of the principal Universities of Europe, on the three following propositions, submitted to them at the request of Mr. Pitt, by the Catholics of London, in 1789: THE PROPOSITIONS. 1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence whatsoever, within the realm of England? Ho. OF REPS. 2. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature? These propositions, honorable gentlemen will perceive, are skillfully drawn, and cover the whole ground of dispute; and the answer of every University addressed, is spread at large before the world. Solemn deliberation was had upon the propositions, from so respectable a source as Mr. Pitt, and all concur in declaring, that no man nor any body of men, of the Church of Rome, however assembled, has power to interfere with the affairs of other kingdoms. I give the answers. After an introduction, according to the usual forms, the sacred faculty of Divinity of Paris, answer the first query by declaring: Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any other person of the Church of Rome, hath any civil authority, civil power, civil jurisdiction, or civil preeminence whatsover in any kingdom; and, consequently, none in the kingdom of England, by reason or virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or preeminence by Divine institution inherent in, or granted, or by any other means belonging to the Pope or the Church of Rome. This doctrine the sacred faculty of divinity of Paris has always held, and upon every occasion maintained, and upon every occasion has rigidly proscribed the contrary doctrines from her schools. Answer to the second query.-Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any person of the Church of Rome, can, by virtue of the keys, absolve or release the subjects of the King of England from their oath of allegiance. This and the first query are so intimately connected, that the answer of the first immediately and naturally applied to the second, &c. Answer to the third query.-There is no tenet in the Catholic Church by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or those who differ from them in matters of religion. The tenet, that it is lawful to break faith with heretics, is so repugnant to common honesty and the opinions of Catholics, that there is nothing of which those who have defended the Catholic faith against Protestants have complained more heavily, than the malice and calumny of their adversaries in imputing this tenet to them, &c., &c., &c. Given at Paris, in the general assembly of the Sorboune, held on Thursday, the eleventh day before the calends of March, 1789. Signed in due form. UNIVERSITY OF Dovay, January 5, 1789. At a meeting of the faculty of Divinity of the University of Douay, &c., &c. To the first and second queries the sacred faculty answers: That no power whatsoever, in civil or temporal concerns, was given by the Almighty, either to the Pope, the Cardinals, or the Church herself, and, consequently, that Kings and sovereigns are not, in temporal concerns, subject, by the ordination of God, to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever; neither can their subjects, by any authority granted, to the Pope or the Church, from above, be freed from their obedience, or absolved from their oath of allegiance. This is the doctrine which the Doctors and Professors of Divinity hold and teach in our schools, and this all the candidates for degrees in Divinity maintain in their public theses, &c., &c. To the third question, the sacred faculty answers :-That there is no principle of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, who differ from them in religious opinions. On the contrary, it is the unanimous doctrine of Catholics, that the respect due to the name of God so called to witness, requires that the oath be inviolably kept, to whomsoever it is pledged, whether catholic, heretic or infidels, &c., &c. Signed and sealed in due formn. UNIVERSITY OF LOUVAIN. The faculty of Divinity at Louvain, having been requested to give her opinion upon the questions above stated, does it with readiness-but struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body, by inhabitants of a kingdoin that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives. The faculty being assembled for the above purpose, it is agreed, with the unanimous assent of all voices, to answer the first and second queries absolutely in the negative. The faculty does not think it incumbent upon her in this place to enter upon the proofs of her opinion, or to show how it is supported by passages in the Holy Scriptures, or the writings of antiquity. That has already been done by Bossuet, De Marca, the two Barclays, Goldastus, the Pithaeuses, Argentre Widrington, and his Majesty, King James the First, in his dissertation against Bellarmine and Du Perron, and by many others, &c. The faculty then proceeds to declare that the sovereign power of the State is in no wise (not even indirectly, as it is termed) subject to, or dependent upon, any other power, though it be a spiritual power, or even though it be instituted for eternal salvation, &c. That no man, nor any assembly of men, however eminent in dignity and power, not even the whole body of the Catholic Church, though assembled in general council, can, upon any ground or pretense whatsoever, weaken the bond |