The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-03-15

| have at heart, subscribe mysei1, very reSpect
| fully, your co-laborer, j. +. SNoDGRAss.
Office Of the "American Settlement Com
pany" and "the Nep York Kansas
League" No. ITO Broad,oay, N. T.,
Feb. &c, 1855.
THE P0PEs TEMPORAL POWER.
Letter from Professor MoClintock to Hon. JOSEPH
| r. Chandler.
To the Hon. Joseph r. Chandler:
DEAR SIR: l beg leave to offer few re
marks upon your speech made in Congress Oh
the lth instant. 1t has been widely circula
ted among "the people," and is therefore open
to criticism from the humblest citizen. Per
NIT to say, in the beginning, that can sympa
thize with no efforts made or to be made, Ell
| ther by "secret combination" or by an open
| political party, to deprive Roman Catholic cltl
zens, as such, from any political rights which
| other American citizens do or can enjoy. / be
long to no secret political organization, whether
| called Know Nothing" or otherwise shall
belong to none, for have as profound a sense
of their dangerous tendencies as you can posi-
bly, have. ] do not write to you in the interests
ofeany party, but solely to vindicate the truth
of history, which you have Il trust unwittingly)
violated.
You deny to the Bishop of Rome any right,
resulting from his divine Office, to interfere in
the relations between subjects and their sover-
eigns, between citizens and their Governments. "
Had you confined yourself to this denial, ex-
pressing it merely as your own private and per-
sonal opinion, or even as that of many jurists,
theologians, and doctors of your church, you
would have shown only that You and they were
bad Papists,* nothing more. But the very aim
and essence, so to speak, of your speech, is that
your UieU as that of the Roman Catholic
Church.; that it is maintained by all her au-
thorites, from layman to priest, from priest to
bishop, from bishop to archbishop, and from
archbishop to Pope and that the contrary
opinion, if held in the church at all, is held
only by certain weak persons y" individuals
of less discretion than ZEAL" and is taught only
" in the careless writings of some Catholic
scholars"
In maintaining such thesis as this before
the American people, you have shown yourself
either exceedingly disingenuous, or else thor
oughly ignorant of the history Of the question,
and of the state of opinion in your own church.
For many years l have been accustomed to rely
upon your integrity. l am still willing to give
you credit for candor, and therefore nothing re-
mains for me except to conclude you ignorant,
and to offer you some information. Certainly,
your own selfrespect mot to speak of the risk
of detection and exposure) would have requir-
cd you to tell your auditors that there are two
parties in your church on this question; one
1.-THE Ultramontane party affirming, and the
other 1.-THE Gallican or Liberal party denying
that the Pope, "by reason Of the spiritual po,o-
er, has also supreme power, at least indirect
ly, even in temporal matters."f (Some of the
Ultramontane writers even 60 further, and as
SORT direct temporal power, as well as an an
direct but you and the GalIicans deny both. J
You would have told your hearers, also, that
the Ultramontane party is vast majority, in
Guiding the Pope, all the Cardinals, all the Jes-
uits, and a large part of all the Bishops while
the Gallican minority is considered and de-
clared by strong Papists to be "the halfway
house to Professionalism" to be "stingy, mar
minded and frozen-hearted, always study
ing to split the difference between Peter and
Caesar, God and the devil" Had you made
this statement clearly and distinctly, and had
you then avowed yourself one of this despised
Gallican minority, your position would have
been an intelligibe and manly one, consistent
at once with the truth of history and with your
own high reputation man of culture and
of integrity. Instead of this. your speech seeks
to substitute Gallicanism for Romanism; the
doctrine of small and constantly diminishing
faction for the doctrine of the church. 1t is as
if a Baptist should deny that his church holds
to the practice of " close communion" because
Robert Hall and other eminent men have writ.
ten against it.
The rhetoric of your speech is quite effect
i've. One piece of it seems to have touched
the sensibilities of your audience so strongly
that [ cannot forbear to quote it, and to fur
nish you with criticism on it, from Roman
thnl,a Izc.
speech was delivered, with prophetic foreknowl
edge of what Z" was to be-" " IT," you say
"If by any providence, the Bishop of Rome
should become possessed of armies and feet,
and, in spirit Of conquest any other spirit,
should invade the territory of the United States,
or assail the rights of our country, he would find
no more earnest antagonists than the Roman
Catholics. And for myself, if not here in this
Hall to vote supplies for a defending army, or if
too old to take part in the active defence, l
should, if alive, be at least in my chamber or at
the foot of the altar, imporing God for the safe
ty of my country, and the defeat of the inva-
ders"
The anticipatory criticism on this eloquent
passage" you will find in Review edited by
the ablest Roman Catholic writer in America,
and endorsed on its cover by nearly every Bish-
op of your church in the country:
sit has been customary here e. e., among
Catholics in Great Britain and America to deny
in the most positive terms all authority of the
Pope in temporals er jure diUino, and to indulge
in no little abuse of the Sovereign Pontiff hypo-
thetically. We have read in Catholic journals,
and heard from the rostrum, and even from the
pulpit, expressions with regard to buckling on
ones knapsack and shouldering ones musket,
and marching against the Pope, in case he
should do SO or so, that have made our blood
run cold-expressions which we should hardly
have ventured on ourselves, even when Prot
estant The writers or speakers knew very we'll
that the case they supposed could never occur,
and that therefore they were safe but they little
considered, we must believe, the impression they
conveyed, or the effect they were producing on
the minds Of the simple Catholic public. or that
they we're teaching, or at least favoring, that
very doctrine of courtiers and demagogues
which creates so many difficulties for the Holy
See, and which apparently justifes the nom
Catholic world in its war against the Papacy."-
.BrOWnson's Rerieo, Apra, 1854, p. 2i4.)
So much for your rhetoric; now for what
logic and history can be found in your speech
You admit that the Pope has proceeded to
dethrone kings, and thus to relieve Subjects
but at the same time you deny that this was
"ever done under claim of divine right" You
adduce, as crucial instance, the case of Greg.
DRY VII, mot Ganganelli, as you unfortunately
style him, but Hidebrand, that great, and, in
many respects, good man, whose life was spent
in efforts to correct abuses in the Church, and
at the same time to consolidate the Papal pow
er. Your startling assertions about Hildebrand
are enough to disturb his mighty bones in their
grave. He "deposed Henry w." you admit !;
but "he did not claim that his action in depo-
sing the Emperor ras Of Dirine right" This
is sufficiently explicit. You shall be held to this
declaration. True, you qualify the assertion