Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-10-30
Hon. Joseph n. Chandler, and Mr.. Browns

during inc present WStk.1
Hon. Joseph II. Chandler, and Mr.. Browns
During last winter, the Hon. Joseph X. Chand-
lerdelyered aspeech in the House ofRepresen-
latiyes In defence Of the doctrines the Roman
Catholic Church, and endcavored to show that
Catholics owed no ri egiancc TO the Pope,
,paramount %, or al confict with the Constitu-
lion Of the United States. We would rejoice
10 be fully satisfied that such Was the case, and
hope ere long to see a schism in the Catho-
tic Church, which will forev@ separate the
American Catholics from the Papacy. If the
Church must have head "a Pope let it be
an American head---an American Pope, who
will owe q direct allegiance To the Constitution
andlaws Of his country. Such we believe to be
the position or the American party, holding that
no King, Potentate or foreign Ecclesastic should
exercise either civil or ecclesiastic power or
influence over either the temporal or spiritual
affairs Of Americana. This constitutes no part
Of amy religious creed; and, therefore, the
American party Is no more hostilet to Catho-
lie Pope, than it would he to Protestant
Pope sItis the influence and authority, not
the being which we oppose But to return to
Mr. Chandor's' speech IL will be recollccted
by orr readers that the |" Tablet" a Dublin
paper, commented with great severity upon
MI. Us speech, and 70 did Brownson both
denying the truth Of the positions assumed by
the Hon. gentleman, and tn deductions made
lherefrom AS further proofof the utter falsi
ty Of the doctrines advanced by Mr., Chandler,
we copy below an article Eom the Boston Pi.
lot which, repndiates Mr.. Chandler asan ortho-
dox exponent Of the dogmas Of the Church,
and expressly declares that he il not only in
competent to defend the Church, but ignorant
of the t,ne doctrines and dcgmas Of tho Church,
al laid down by tho Fathers" ~
rsH.t soma time since, Dr. r, McCIntook published
an elaborate review Of the speech which the Hon.
Joseph X. Chandler made III the Honse, last Jatu-
!, AIRY in reply to Mr.. Banks, who had about that
time become Kn9w-Nothng, and had made In
he House an anti Catholic speech. The intentions.
OF Mr. Chandler were excellent, bnt his effort did
more harm than good, because it was easy fora
Protestant whose studies In ecclesiastical history
we're at all respectable, TO ask questions which il
would puzzle any Catholic who adopts Mr.. Chand.
Isr's method Of argument, to answer DR.. McClin-
tock Isl Protestant minister, an able man, and
close earnest reasoncr With lis argument, and
shat of Mr.. Chandler before us, we cannot but admit
that DIR. McClintock has the best of the argument
A friend Of ours, and theologian of considerable
note observed TO US the other day, that this Is
oae OF the penalties which the church militant has
TO suffer in consequence of having children who
insist upon defending her, not in her own way,
hat in their peculiar fashion, pairing down Catho
lcity 80 az to make il suit Protestant tastes We
q a 4fa y X ijv all ~ 4,
yight Of Catholidtyis decidedly against the ex-
plainers-away Of the Roman Catholic doctrine with
reference to the relation between the spiritual and
tie temporal Even the expainers-away admit this.
They cannot help admitting 1t, since every parish
priest really exercises, and must exercise the au
rhority which they deny 10 the Pope. They who
DENY IL TO him. exert IL themselves. In order To
make out a case, they rely upon two methods.
- One j., to rpisrepressnt the doctrine after the
fashion OF the. Know-Sothings; to create q beast
that never existed, and then to raise the cry Of
mad dogii In this connexion, AZ in one other,
ono may safely apply 70 the reviewer the saving
that q mans worst enemies are often OF his own
household. The Other method is to insist upon
the principle of cxpcdiency They say that Brown
s,n Il right in principle But il is inexpedent to
bring out the doctrine NOR. The prtjudices Of
the people are too warmly enlisted against II. Let
us wait until a more convenient season. Brown
son comes In precisely here. LIP the first place,
he shows that learned and acute Protcstants like
J. Dr. McClintock and others, can cite an overwhem-
Ioe mass Of authority sgainstthe explainers-awIy
ian cite against them thar practice and can
a,cuse them of the fault which by Protestants is
cLed /" yestdtisn," quasi hc,s non l.eepdo,th
q der OF Jesus being as remarkable for. plain aud
logical speaking and scting as for other sound,
good qualities In thenext place, Brovnson shows
that the doctrine which Is called Ultramontane II
tie very doctrine which knerican Catholics should
-,ate to welLdsposed Protestant Americans. n
.sTbey know very well that when we try 10
modify our doctrines 10 suit what suppose 10 be
their tastes, We are acting part through which
they can zee with the utmost ease. Dur part IL
lhe isue, straightforward one 1t h, 70 state our
doctrines boldly and fairly, and TO try to be thor
ourh Catholics 10 every sense OF the word--to
prove. nv our daily actions that Cathoicity Is the
pnly sure pillar State can possibly have In these
d,ys. Brownson enters here into clear and most
conclusive argument 10 prove that this Is the very
ground which We should take with Americans, as
with Al others that Americans are, by their ge-
nins ard their historical antecedcnts, emlnenly
fitted to appreciate and 10 embrace "UitramoD-
tano doctrine; = that no other doctrine will suit
them and that II the conversion Of this country Is
ever 70 be accomplished that event will be due, In
A great measure and under God, 10 full, fair,
clear aud bold persistenre In the enunciaton Of
The doctrine that the temporal Is subordinate TO
the spiritual" ~ 4ltas5fI r-z.sos I'd .eE
Onr City.
The busy season Is just commencing, and
never before have wc known such extensive