Chapter IV: Preface (3)

Sir, the American party, if in power, would put a stop to that proscription from office that has always characterized the party with which you act, and which has made the present Administration so very and so justly odious to the country. Proscription, indeed! Was there ever such _glaring_ and _actual_ proscription for the sake of religious and political creeds committed as by the present Administration? The infamous Sag Nicht party with which you act, and of which you are a leader and a High Priest, though the "son of a now sainted father," has applied the political guillotine to almost every man in office who has dared to differ with them in their high estimate of foreign paupers and Catholic vagabonds, in many instances turning out native-born Protestants, and filling their places with foreign Catholics. And yet, with a degree of effrontery that throws the Devil far into the shade, you turn round and charge the American party with proscription, and ask the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church, "by their hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--and by their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their country," to come out from a party so proscriptive! Why, sir, you out-Herod old Herod himself! Your teachings contrasted with your practice, would cause a crimsoned negative to settle on the cheeks of old Pilate! And still you are the "son of a now sainted father"--you "approve" the "creed" of Methodism, and have "witnessed its growth and prosperity for years, with the highest satisfaction!"

You quote from the Declaration of Independence, to show that toleration should be extended to Catholics and foreigners, and then insultingly add, as if you supposed no Methodist minister had ever perused the writings of Mr. JEFFERSON:

"These are the words of Mr. Jefferson, but the immortal
sentiment springs directly from the word of the living and true
God. No: persecution at the stake, or by exclusion of Catholics
from office, is not the weapon to be wielded by the Protestant
Churches."

_You_ know that the notes of warning given to his countrymen by the sage of Monticello, and the great APOSTLE of American Democracy, are in harmony with the doctrines of the Know Nothing party. But you choose to conceal this fact from the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the Methodist Church, in the vain hope that their numerous pressing and official engagements will not allow them time to look up the documents. In Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, written in 1781, and published in 1794, pages 124-5, I find the following _Know Nothing doctrine_:

"But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale
against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers
by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of
those united in society to harmonize, as much as possible, in
matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil
government being the sole object of forming societies, its
administration must be conducted by common consent. Every
species of government has specific principles. Ours, perhaps,
are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It
is a composition of the freest principles of the English
constitution, with others derived from natural right and
natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the
maxims of absolute monarchs. Yet _from such we are to expect
the greatest number of immigrants_. They will bring with them
the _principles of the government they leave, imbibed in early
youth_: or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange
for an _unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from
one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop
precisely at the point of temperate liberty_. These principles,
with their language, they will transmit to their children. In
proportion with their numbers, they will share with us the
legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and
bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent,
distracted mass. _I may appeal to experience during the present
contest for a verification of these conjectures._ But if they
be not certain in event, are they not possible? are they not
probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven
years and three months longer for the attainment of every
degree of population desired or expected? May not our
government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?"

Again, Mr. JEFFERSON, whilst our Minister to the Court of St. Cloud, addressed a letter to JOHN JAY, dated November 14, 1788, in which he uses this language:

"With respect to the _Consular_ appointments, it is a duty on
me to add some observations, which my situation here has
enabled me to make. I think it was in the spring of 1784, that
Congress (harassed by multiplied applications from foreigners,
of whom nothing was known but on their information, or on that
of others as unknown as themselves) came to the resolution that
the interest of America would not permit the naming of any
person, not a citizen, to the office of Consul, or Agent, or
Commissary. _Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are
preferable to aliens, or citizens alien-born._ Native citizens
possess our language, know our laws, customs and commerce, have
general acquaintance in the United States, give better
satisfaction, _and are more to be relied on in a point of
fidelity_. To avail ourselves of our native citizens, it
appears to me advisable to _declare, by standing law_, that no
person but a native citizen shall be capable of the office of
Consul. This was the rule of 1784, restraining the office of
Consul to native citizens."

In 1797, Mr. JEFFERSON drafted a petition to the Legislature of Virginia, on behalf of the citizens of Amherst, Albemarle, Fluvana, and Gouchland Bounties, in which he uses the following language:

"Your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly,
whether the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth, in
their persons, their property, their laws and government, does
not require that the capacity to act in the important office of
_Juror, Grand or Petty, civil or criminal_, should not be
restrained in future to native citizens, or such as were
citizens at the date of the Treaty of Peace which closed our
revolutionary war; and whether ignorance of our laws, and
natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not
reasonable causes for declaring this to be one of their rights
incommunicable in future to adopted citizens."--_Jefferson's
Writings, Vol. IX., page 453._

Now, Sir, answer me in candor, are you not ashamed of having quoted Mr. JEFFERSON, and of having so basely misrepresented his position on this great American question? Did not Mr. JEFFERSON propose to carry his opposition to foreigners much farther than the American party now do?

But, you vile old demagogue, though "son of a now sainted father," I am determined you shall not escape the indignant powers of those "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you have wickedly sought to deceive. It is known to you, and to the world, in what veneration all American Democrats hold the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and '99, and the fame of Mr. MADISON, who was the ruling spirit of that session of the Legislature. That Legislature passed the following Resolution, which you may find by consulting Henning's Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, New Series, page 194:

"That the General Assembly, nevertheless, concurring in opinion
with the Legislature of Massachusetts that every Constitutional
barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign
influence into our National Councils,--_Resolved_, That the
Constitution ought to be so amended that _no foreigner, who
shall have acquired the right, under our Constitution and laws,
at the time of making the amendment, shall hereafter be
eligible to the office of Senator or Representative_, in
Congress of the United States, nor to _any office in the
Judiciary or Executive_. Agreed to by the Senate, Jan. 16,
1799."

I shall next consider two extracts from your Address, under one general head, relating to the _temporal_ power of the Pope. You say:

"But the genius of sophistry may fly to the rescue of
Know-Nothingism, by pretending that it is not on account of
_his religion_ that the Catholic is to be excluded from office,
but because he is subjected, not merely to the spiritual but
the _temporal dominion_ or jurisdiction of the Pope. No error
has been wider spread than this."

Again:

"A late distinguished Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien,) in a
recent address to the public, has copied a letter of Mr.
Wesley, which may require a few observations. That letter was
dated in January, 1780. All its conclusions were founded on the
ASSUMED AND POPULAR OPINION of that day, that the Pope _did_
claim a civil jurisdiction beyond his own dominions--that he
_could_ absolve the subjects of other governments from their
oaths of allegiance, and _that there was_ a principle in one of
the tenets of that Church, that Catholics were justified in not
keeping faith with heretics. Against these ASSUMED AND POPULAR
OPINIONS, the Catholics of England in that day, as they now do
in this country, were solemnly protesting."

This is a modest way of giving Mr. Wesley the _lie_, but it is nevertheless quite _direct_, and is the more surprising, as it comes from the "son of a now sainted father," who was a follower of Wesley, a "co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers" he was instrumental in starting out into the world--aye, the son of a "father who, for forty years, ministered at the altars" this same Wesley erected! In holding up John Wesley as the _vile calumniator_ of the Catholic Church in England, it is well enough, Governor, to be modest about it, and cautious in the selection of your words, as you are addressing a class of men who believe in John Wesley, as a faithful man of God, and one incapable of misrepresenting the Catholics of England, the Pope of Rome, or any other sect or individual! John Wesley ministered at the sacred altars of religion for more than sixty years; he had with him the power of God, and the witness that he pleased Him; and the last words he uttered, with his hands clasped, and his eyes raised toward heaven, were these: "_The best of all is, God is with us!_" And yet the sons and grandsons in the gospel, of this venerated and sainted man of God, are insulted in Tennessee, by being told by an _impertinent old sinner_, and a _vile old party hack_, that he was A LIAR, while living, and the _slanderer of the Catholic Church_, now that he is no more! If Mr. Wesley "_assumed_" falsehoods in reference to the Romish Church in England, he either did it in _ignorance_, or with _a guilty knowledge_ of the fact. He was a man of too much learning and information for his friends to get him out of such an indictment under a plea of ignorance. He is therefore, though dead, A WILFUL LIAR, according to "Ex-Gov. A. V. Brown," for the Governor goes on to argue the cause against him, and, on page 19 of his address, quotes _Catholic_ authority to _prove_ him a liar! Shame on the "son of a now sainted father," and on the _holy seer of Pisgah_! O! Aaron, thou priest of corrupt Democracy, you need not endeavor to gull "bishops, elders, and other ministers," with your _whining cant_, while you thus traduce their great spiritual head, who, under God, taught them the lessons of salvation!

Gov. Brown, go with me, as one of the admirers of John Wesley, to the humble dwellings of the miners of Cornwall, to the homely tents of the colliers of Kingswood and Newcastle, and to the equally humble workshops of the manufacturers of Yorkshire, in England, who are rejoicing in God their Saviour that a Wesley was ever born into the world, and ask them if they believe him capable of slandering the Catholics! Go with me among the backwoodsmen of North America, and examine them in their lone tents--go among the honest and virtuous settlers on our Western frontiers, amid the interminable forests of the far off West, whose thousands are brought into the fold of Christ, through the instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, and ask them if they think the founder of their Church was _a wilful liar_!

Go with me to the rich pastures and luxuriant harvest-fields of your own native Middle Tennessee: enter the neat cottages and stately mansions of that glorious division of our State, and ask the intelligent and educated females, who are rejoicing in God, in hope of future and eternal life, through the prayers and sermons of Wesleyan ministers, as instruments in the hands of God, if they believe the founder of their Church was _a wicked calumniator_! Go to the islands of the sea, to the burning sands of Africa, and ask the benighted converts from heathenism, through the instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, if they believe the venerable founder of their Church was a man of truth!

Enter the dwellings of the rich and fashionable planters of the South--ride around their sugar and cotton plantations, among the sable sons and daughters of Africa, and witness the blessed fruits of the pious life, Christian integrity, and triumphant death of John Wesley! Come over to East Tennessee, Governor, and enter the log-cabins of the virtuous, happy peasantry of the "hill country," and ask them whether they believe Mr. Wesley or your Catholic authorities, touching the temporal power of the Pope of Rome!

Alas! Gov. Brown, the Reformation dawned with LUTHER in Germany, but the sun of its glory rose with Methodism in England; the first streaks of _Protestant_ light were seen on the horizon of the sixteenth century, but the meridian sun of the Reformation dawned in all his brightness on the Wesleys and Whitefield! But America has been the land of the glory and triumph of the doctrines of the man you labor to convict of the awful sin of lying!

But you deny that the Pope of Rome, in _temporal_ matters, claims what Mr. Wesley attributed to him in the letter copied by Senator Berrien. You also deny that the Popes claim and have exercised the right to interfere with matters of government, and the right to absolve their followers in other countries, and under other governments, from their allegiance to such rulers and governments. I will proceed to vindicate Mr. Wesley, and, by the proof, saddle the lie on you! Whilst John was King of England, he had the "Magna Charta," the great charter securing, among other things, the right of trial by jury, wrung from him at the point of the bayonet. This great charter was annulled by Pope Innocent. Here is the proof:

"While the king was employed in the siege of Rochester, he
received the pleasing intelligence, that according to his
request the charter had been annulled by the pontiff. Innocent,
enumerating the grounds of his judgment, insists strongly on
the violence employed by the barons. If they really felt
themselves aggrieved, they ought, he observes, to have accepted
the offer of redress by due course of law. They had preferred,
however, to break the oath of fealty, which they had taken, and
had appointed themselves judges to sit upon their lord. They
knew, moreover, that John had enrolled himself among the
crusaders; and yet they had not scrupled to violate the
privileges which all Christian nations had granted to the
champions of the cross. Lastly, England was become the fief of
the holy see; and they could not be ignorant that if the king
had the will, he had not at least the power, to give away the
rights of the crown, without the consent of his feudal
superior. He was therefore bound to annul the concessions which
had been extorted from John, as having been obtained in
contempt of the holy see, to the degradation of royalty, the
disgrace of the nation, and to the impediment of the crusade.
At the same time he wrote to the barons, re-stating his
reasons, exhorting them to submit, requesting them to lay their
claims before him in the council to be held at Rome; and
promising that he would induce the king to consent to whatever
might be deemed just or reasonable, to take care that all
grievances should be abolished, that the crown should be
content with its just rights, and the clergy and people should
enjoy their ancient liberties."--_Lingard's History of
England_, vol. ii., page 71.

Will it be said that this was not interfering with _temporal_ matters? Will it be said that the right of trial by jury was a _spiritual_ matter? Will it be said that the tyranny of King John, and his oppressions, of which the barons justly complained, were _spiritual_ matters? No sensible advocate of Romanism will say this!

The next instance of an interference by the Pope in temporal affairs, to which I shall call your attention, Governor, is his excommunication of Elizabeth, Queen of England. She was immediately preceded on that throne by her sister Mary, who was a Catholic. For no other reason than that Elizabeth was a _Protestant_, and would not submit her rights and kingdom to the control of the Pope, Pius V. thundered forth at her devoted head the following anathema, from his throne at the Vatican, situated at the foot of one of the seven hills upon which Rome is built:

EXCOMMUNICATION AND DEPOSITION Of QUEEN ELIZABETH OF ENGLAND.

"Pius, etc., for a future memorial of the matter. He that
reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on
earth, committed one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, _out
of which there is no salvation_, to one alone upon the earth,
Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the
Bishop of Rome, to be governed in _fulness of power_. Him alone
he made prince over all people, and all kingdoms, to pluck up,
destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, etc. But the number
of the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no
place left in the whole world which they have not essayed to
corrupt with their most wicked doctrines. Amongst others,
Elizabeth, _the pretended Queen of England, a slave of
wickedness_, lending thereunto her helping hand, with whom, as
in a sanctuary, the most pernicious of all men have found a
refuge; this very woman having seized upon the kingdom, and
monstrously usurping the place of the supreme Head of the
Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction
thereof, hath again brought back the same kingdom to miserable
destruction, which was then newly reduced to the faith, and to
good order. For having by strong hand inhibited the true
religion, which Mary, the lawful queen, of famous memory, had,
by the help of this See, restored, after it had been formerly
overthrown by King Henry VIII., a revolter therefrom, and
following and embracing the errors of _heretics_, she hath
removed the royal council, consisting of the English nobility,
and filled it with obscure men, being heretics; hath oppressed
the embracers of the Roman faith, hath placed impious
preachers, ministers of iniquity, and abolished the sacrifice
of the mass, prayers, fastings, distinction of meats, a single
life, and the rites and ceremonies; hath commanded books to be
read in the whole realm, containing manifest heresy, etc. She
hath not only contemned the godly requests and admonitions of
princes concerning her healing and conversion, but also bath
not so much as permitted the Nuncios of the See to cross the
seas into England, etc. We do, therefore, out of the fulness of
our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being
heretic, and a favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the
matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema,
and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And,
moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended
title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity,
and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects, and
people of the said kingdom, and all others which have in any
sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from any such
oath, and all manner of duty or dominion, allegiance and
obedience; as we also do, by the authority of these presents,
absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her
pretended title to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid.
And we do command and interdict all and every one of the
noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they
presume not to obey her, or her admonitions, mandates, and
laws; and those who shall do the contrary, we do innodate with
the like sentence of ANATHEMA.

"Given at St. Peter's at Rome, in the year 1569, and the fifth
of our pontificate."--_Dowling's History of Romanism_, p. 564.

One more: Sixtus V. thunders his bull of excommunication at this same Queen of England--incites Philip of Catholic Spain to make war against her country--and graciously _gives_ the British Isles to Philip! Here is the bull of Pope Sixtus:

"We, Sixtus the Fifth, the universal shepherd of the flock of
Christ, the supreme chief, to whom the government of the whole
world appertains, considering that the people of England and
Ireland, after having been so long celebrated for their
virtues, their religion, and their submission to our see, have
become putrid members, infected, and capable of corrupting the
whole Christian body, and on account of their subjection to the
impious, tyrannical, and sanguinary government of Elizabeth,
the bastard queen, and by the influence of her adherents, who
equal her in wickedness; and who refuse, like her, to recognize
the power of the Roman Church: regarding that Henry VIII.
formerly, for motives of debauchery, commenced all these
disorders by revolting against the submission which he owed to
the Pope, the sole and true sovereign of England; considering
that the usurper Elizabeth has followed the path of this
infamous king, we declare that there exists but one mode of
remedying these evils, of restoring peace, tranquillity, and
union to Christendom, of re-establishing religion, and of
leading back the people to obedience to us, which is, to depose
from the throne that execrable Elizabeth, who falsely arrogates
to herself the title of Queen of the British Isles. Being then
inspired by the Holy Spirit for the general good of the Church,
we renew, by the virtue of our apostolic power, the sentence
pronounced by our predecessor, Pius the Fifth and Gregory the
Thirteenth, against the modern Jezebel: we proclaim her
deprived of her royal authority, of the rights, titles, or
pretensions to which she may lay claim over the kingdoms of
Ireland and England, affirming that she possesses them
unlawfully and by usurpation. We relieve all her subjects from
the oaths they may have taken to her, and we prohibit them from
rendering any kind of service to this execrable woman; it is
our will, that she be driven from door to door like one
possessed of a devil, and that all human aid be refused her;
we declare, moreover, that foreigners or Englishmen are
permitted, as a meritorious work, to seize the person of
Elizabeth and surrender her, living or dead, to the tribunals
of the inquisition. We promise to those who shall accomplish
this glorious mission, infinite recompenses, not only in the
life eternal, but even in this world. Finally, we grant plenary
indulgence to the faithful who shall willingly unite with the
Catholic army which is going to combat the impious Elizabeth,
under the orders of our dear son Philip the Second, to whom we
give the British Isles in full sovereignty, as a recompense for
the zeal he has always shown toward our see, and for the
particular affection he has shown for the Catholics of the Low
Country."--_De Cormenin's History of the Popes_, p. 262.

Here is what Macaulay, a reliable historian, says of the baneful effects of Romanism:

"From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Empire
to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the
Church of Rome has been generally favorable to science, to
civilization, and to good government. But, during the last
three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been
her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has
been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts
of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been
in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most
fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk
into poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual
torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for
sterility and barbarism, have been turned, by skill and
industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes
and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what
Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what four hundred years
ago they naturally were, shall now compare the country round
Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form
some judgment of the tendency of Papal domination. The descent
of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths
of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many
natural disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so
small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. Whoever passes,
in Germany, from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality,
in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in
Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds
that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of
civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic the same law
prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far
behind the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The
Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the whole
continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity
and enterprise."--_Macaulay's History of England_, vol. i., p.
37.

I must be permitted to add, just here, that in 1848, when the people of France expelled Louis Philippe from the throne in Paris, and established a Republic, the present old drunken, goutified debauchee, Pope Pius IX., hurled at the French nation a fearful bull of excommunication, and denied them the right of revolution! Was this interfering in temporal matters? But no longer ago than the year 1854, this same old vagabond, Pope Pius, issued orders absolving his followers from all allegiance to the Sardinian Government, because that government chose to abolish the infamous monasteries, which had been so long supported at the expense of an oppressed people! Was this not interfering in temporal matters? I could multiply authorities, Governor, to an indefinite extent, sustaining Mr. Wesley's views, and falsifying all you say, but this would swell my reply beyond what I intended in the outset. Let me call your attention to Brownson's Review, for July, 1853, where you will find all this power, and even more, claimed for the Pope, over temporal sovereigns and their subjects, the world over! This _Review_ is the acknowledged organ of _Archbishop Hughes_, the head and front of the Catholic Church in North America.

You state that our Declaration of Independence absolved from every possible obligation to the Pope in temporal matters. Your language is:

"The moment it was read and proclaimed from old Independence
Hall in Philadelphia, obedience in temporal matters, if it ever
existed, ceased for ever, as to every native-born son in
America."

You further add that the Constitution of the United States set aside all temporal power of the Pope in this country, and that if any doubts remain, the finishing touch is given by the following oath of naturalization, taken by our naturalized citizens:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
the United States, and that I do _absolutely and entirely_
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, or state, or sovereignty _whatever_."

Sir, do you suppose that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you have the impudence to address, are all fools? Do you suppose they are men of no reading or information? If they know any thing, they certainly know that the oath of naturalization they, the Catholics, take, weighs no more with them than a feather. A Catholic can evade the force of any oath, by a _mental reservation_. Here is what Sanchez says, the very highest Catholic authority, whose teaching, including this interpretation of oaths, has been endorsed by the Council of Trent:

"It is lawful to use _ambiguous terms_ to give the impression a
different sense from that which you understand yourself. A
person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,
though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on
a certain day, or before he was born, or by concealing any
other similar circumstances; which gives another meaning to it.
This is extremely convenient, and always very just, when
necessary to your health, honor, or prosperity."

In addition to this, let me tell you, if you never before knew the fact, that Judge Gaston, a distinguished Jurist, and a gentleman of excellent character, though a rigid Roman Catholic, of North Carolina, was appointed to a seat upon the Supreme Bench of that State. The Constitution of that State, unlike those of almost all other States, requires every Judge to take an oath, among other things, that HE BELIEVES IN THE TRUTH OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. Mr. Gaston asked time to think over the matter--he repaired to the Archbishop at Baltimore, doubtless obtained a dispensation--wrote back to Raleigh from there, that he would take the oath--returned, and in due time solemnly swore that _he believed in the truth of the Protestant Religion_. He died in Raleigh, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court--but lived and died a Roman Catholic!

During the past month, in this city, W. G. McAdoo, the Attorney General for this Judicial Circuit, had some Irish Catholics brought before the Grand Jury, to testify in cases of unlawful gaming and the retailing of ardent spirits. The Clerk swore them on a common English Testament, and they returned to the Jury room, and testified that they knew of no cases! The Attorney for the Commonwealth then procured the _Catholic Douay Bible_, with a large _Cross_ upon its outside, swore them upon this--sent them in, and they _disgorged_, telling of various cases, and enabling the Jury to find bills against even some of their own folks! An oath, then, is nothing with strict Roman Catholics, who believe their Priests can absolve them from the obligations of any and all oaths. For notwithstanding your denial of the fact, it is notoriously true, that the members of the Catholic Church believe their Priesthood to exercise, by Divine right, the power to fix and determine their eternal destiny. Nay, every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the absolute control of the Catholic Priesthood, by considerations not only of a temporal, but an eternal weight. This is what gives their Priesthood such power and influence in elections; an influence they are using in every State, against the American party. And it is this faculty of concentration, this political influence, this power of the Priesthood to control the Catholic community, and cause a vast multitude of ignorant foreigners to vote as a _unit_, and thus control the will of the American people, that has engendered this opposition to the Catholic Church. It is this aggressive policy and corrupting tendency of the Romish Church; this organized and concentrated political power of a distinct class of men; foreign by birth; inferior in intelligence and virtue to the American people, and not their religion and form of worship, objectionable as these are known to be, which have called forth the opposition of the American party to the Catholic Church.

But, sir, you occupy several pages in copying and commenting upon the several oaths administered to the members of the American party--oaths which, as you tell us, are revolting in their character, and lead to the indiscriminate proscription of all foreigners. I meet all your conjectures and wild speculations in reference to these several oaths and obligations, by saying, just here, that I have taken them all, and that they express my sentiments and feelings to the very letter; and I am willing, for the remainder of my days, to go before an acting Justice of the Peace, for the county of Knox, and have all three of these oaths administered every Monday morning, upon the "Holy Bible and Cross."

You have failed, in your zeal to advocate Romanism and oppose the American party, to tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you address, that we resort to our oaths and obligations to combat successfully the most powerful oath-bound organization the world ever knew. The oath of every _Roman Catholic Bishop_ and _Archbishop_ binds him to absolute and unquestioned obedience, not only to the present Pope but to his successors, "canonically coming in," and to "oppose and persecute" all who do not submit to his authority! The oath of every _Priest_ binds him to the Church of Rome "as the chief head and matron above all pretended Churches throughout the whole earth," and to "further her interests more than his own earthly good." The oath of the _Jesuit_ binds him to the Pope, as "Christ's Vicar-General," by "all the saints and hosts of heaven," and to "denounce and disown any allegiance as due to Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or officers." The oath of the _San Fedisti_, a secret Order established by the Papal government in 1821, binds them to sustain "the Papal altar and throne, and to exterminate heretics, without pity for the cries of children, or of men and women." The oath of the _Irish Ribbon Men_, an Order established by the Papal government, and introduced into this country by _Bedini_, the Pope's Nuncio, but a few years ago, binds him "to extirpate all heretics, and all the Protestants, and to walk in their blood to the knees." Is it not time to take the alarm, Governor, and to combine to resist all these secret oath-bound associations, which now threaten us with the loss of all that freemen and Protestant Christians hold dear on earth?

It is a matter of utter astonishment to find a great political party in this country, most of whom are native-born Protestants, taking sides with a foreign Church, whose designs against this country, according to the avowals of the Duke of Richmond, lately Governor-General of Canada, are of the most wicked and fearful character! Speaking of this government, the Duke said in a public address, on our northern border:

"It will be destroyed: it ought not, and will not be permitted
to exist. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent
wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its
example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon
his throne; and _the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_, and
they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an
understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means
to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed, by
SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_. All the low and surplus
population of the different nations of Europe will be carried
into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad
and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted
for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of
Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus
and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;
and they will bring with them their principles, and in nine
cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former
governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will
transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate
them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and by
the Constitution and laws will be invested with the right of
suffrage. Hence, discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war
will ensue; and some popular individual will assume the
government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,
the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him. The
Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in
time be the established religion, and will aid in the
destruction of that Republic. _I have conversed with many of
the sovereigns and princes of Europe; and they have unanimously
expressed these opinions relative to the government of the
United States, and their determination to subvert it._"

The monarchs of Europe, says the Duke of Richmond, will aid in sending us a surplus of "low, excitable, bad, and disaffected men," who will bring with them their principles, and will adhere to their foreign notions of government, laws, manners, customs, and religion--and that religion Catholic; and yet _you_, the "son of a now sainted father," of Protestant raising, have the brazen effrontery to call upon the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of an American Protestant Church to aid you, your corrupt party, and the monarchs of Europe, in destroying both our government and Church!

Sir, it is passing strange that Protestant Christians and their children should be found side by side with you, Bishop Hughes, Gov. Johnson, and the thousands of bad men who are seeking to build up a Roman Hierarchy in this free country of ours! What do you promise the country and yourselves, if Romanism proves successful in this contest? The history of the past informs us that Rome has slain 1,000,000 of Albigenses and Waldenses; 1,500,000 Jews, in Spain; 3,000,000 Moors, in Spain. France will never forget St. Bartholomew's Night, when 100,000 souls perished in Paris alone! The blood of Protestants has fertilized the soil of England, Germany, and Ireland. I mean by this, that enough of Protestant blood has been shed to _enrich_ all the poor lands of England, Germany, and Ireland, if it were properly distributed. In all, the authentic records of the Romish Church show, (and of this she makes her boast,) that she has put to death SIXTY-EIGHT MILLIONS of human beings, for no other offence than that of being _Protestants_ in their religious faith! Average each person slain at four gallons of blood, and medical writers say a healthy person yields more, and it makes TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-TWO MILLIONS OF GALLONS!--enough to overflow the banks of the Mississippi, and destroy all the cotton and sugar plantations in Mississippi and Louisiana!

But you argue, in your blasphemous publication, that this is no longer a characteristic of the Romish Hierarchy. Why is it not? Has she ever changed for the better? When did she ever renounce these doctrines and practices? Never, no, never! Hers is the same tyrannical system now--where she has the power--that it always has been, and always must be, in the very nature of things! It is her boast, and the boast of her standard authors, that she is always right, and knows no change! And wo to this land of ours, if ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her whole system is adverse to our Republican institutions, and she hesitates not to declare it! _Brownson_ says in his Review:

"Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the _lying
world_, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of
the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the
Church, its divinely constituted judge_."

No wonder, sir, that the American people are aroused! Such bold and startling avowals are calculated to arouse and unite the somewhat divided bands of Protestant Christians; to wake up a host of Luthers, Calvins, Cranmers, and Wesleys; to bind together "the heretics condemned in a mass." The very latest thing I have seen is the "Pastoral Letter" of the Bishops of the Province of St. Louis, just issued. That document explicitly says:

"We maintain the superiority of the _spiritual_ over the
_temporal_ order. We maintain that the temporal ruler is
_bound_ to conform his enactments to the Divine law. We
maintain that the Church is the supreme judge of all questions
concerning faith and morals; and that in the determination of
such question, the _Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ_,
constitutes a tribunal from which there is no appeal; and to
whose award all the children of the Church must yield
obedience."

Now, sir, after this authoritative and official announcement, I don't want to see any more of your wire-drawn distinctions between spiritual and temporal allegiance to the Pope. These Bishops say that both are alike binding. Nor do I want to see any more of your malignant efforts to fix the _lie_ upon Mr. Wesley, for affirming in Europe, during the past century, what the Bishops of the United States have announced, in a Pastoral Address, in the present day!

Pope Pius IX. has, by a special act, made the Virgin Mary the special patron of these United States; but the Protestants of this country have also made a decree, and that decree is, that Jesus Christ, and not the Virgin Mary, shall be the patron of these United States.

And I am happy to have it in my power to inform you, notwithstanding the influence of your Address, that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the Methodist Church, both North and South, are ready to make a common, determined, prayerful effort to save our native land from the threatened slavery of submission to the decisions of the Council of Trent, and the equally corrupt conventions of Progressive Democracy!

Assuming what is notoriously _false_--that the Know Nothings are in favor of all measures fatal to the South, and destructive to the Constitution--you ask on page 25 of your _infinitely infernal_ Address:

"What if a proposition be pending to repeal the Fugitive Slave
Law--the Kansas and Nebraska law--the rejection of a State
asking admission into the Union, because its constitution may
tolerate slavery?"

You know, sir, that the 12th Plank in the Philadelphia Platform of the American party is a safer guaranty upon this slavery question, and the perpetuity of existing laws, than is to be found anywhere in the creeds of political parties. Here it is in full:

"The American party having arisen upon the ruins, and in spite
of the opposition of the Whig and Democratic parties, can not
be held in any manner responsible for the obnoxious acts or
violated pledges of either; and the systematic agitation of the
slavery question by those parties having elevated sectional
hostility into a positive element of political power, and
brought our institutions into peril, it has therefore become
the imperative duty of the American party to interpose, for the
purpose of giving peace to the country, and perpetuity to the
Union. And as experience has shown it impossible to reconcile
opinions so extreme as those which separate the disputants, and
as there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the
National Council has deemed it the best guaranty of common
justice and of future peace, to abide by and maintain the
existing laws upon the subject of slavery, as a final and
conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in
substance.

"And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon
a subject so important, in distinct and unequivocal terms, it
is hereby declared as the sense of this National Council, that
Congress possesses no power, under the Constitution, to
legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States where it
does or may exist, or to exclude any State from admission into
the Union, because its Constitution does or does not recognize
the institution of slavery as a part of its social system; and
expressly pretermitting any expression of opinion upon the
power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any
Territory, it is the sense of the National Council that
Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery
within the Territories of the United States, and that any
interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the
District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and
intention of the compact by which the State of Maryland ceded
the District to the United States, and a breach of the national
faith."

In the "wild hunt" for territory by the progressive Democracy, and their efforts to settle our Western lands with foreigners who are to a man Free Soilers and Abolitionists, the South has more to fear than from all other considerations. What is Gov. Johnson's iniquitous Homestead Bill, but a bid for foreigners? He proposes to give to the heads of families one hundred and sixty acres of land, thus _hiring_ all the convicts and paupers of Europe to come and settle in our Western States and Territories! Sir, but let your progressive, sublimated, double-distilled, converging-lines, Johnsonian Democracy bring into this Union one million of Spanish Papists--black, brown, sorrel, and tawny--under the guise of acquiring Cuba for the South: let them bring eight hundred thousand French and English Papists, under the name of acquiring Canada for the North: let them bring two millions of Mexican Papists--brown, tawny, red and black, being a mixture of all colors and all nations--under the specious pretence of "extending the area of freedom"--let all this be done--and your party, made up of native traitors, and foreign vagabonds, and Catholic paupers, are aiming at it--let it be done, I say, and farewell to liberty, and all that is sacred in this country! With five millions of Papists in our midst--four millions and a half being of foreign birth, and four millions speaking a foreign language--all taught from infancy to hate and detest Protestantism as a crime--an American party would become an absolute political necessity. Well do the Free Soil papers comprehend this matter. Hear the infamous but influential _Chicago Tribune_, one of your Douglass organs--one of your foreign Catholic organs. I quote from the paper itself:

"It is now a well-attested fact, that Atchison is a member of
the Superior Order of the Spangled Banner, or Know Nothings,
and that his infernal villainy in Kansas has been carried on
under the protection and patronage of the lodges in Western
Missouri. This is a matter that all men in the North should
understand, that Northern voters may be exceedingly cautious
how they give countenance or support to an Order that, in any
of its phases or localities, is capable of producing such
results. It is further said, that the members of that Kansas
Legislature, now outraging all sense of right and justice by
their devilish enactments, are the chosen men of the affiliated
Know Nothings in Missouri and Kansas, who back then up in
whatever thing they do. Atchison and his gang are the friends
of the Order, and through it and Southern Know Nothing support
they are sure that their efforts to establish a despotism in
the Territory, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet, will
be successful. These facts account for many things heretofore
inexplicable, and they develop the true reason of the hostility
of the border-ruffians to the foreign immigration that would,
under other circumstances, people that vast and fertile country
west of the Missouri."

Thus it appears that a host of _lousy_ foreigners, fresh from the emigrant ships, in which they are brought over to this country as _ballast_--having the right to vote conferred upon them by an infamous _progressive_ Democratic feature in the Kansas Bill, were expected to get the control of affairs in Kansas. It further appears, however, that Senator Atchison and his pro-slavery associates supposed that, though fresh from their farms, and crossing the line of their State into the new Territory, they too had the right to vote without being _naturalized_ in Kansas. Hence, in the estimation of this Sag Nicht organ at Chicago, a great outrage is committed upon Germany, Ireland, and Italy!

Sir, you need not lay the flattering unction to your soul, that you can drive the clergy generally from the noble stand they have taken upon this great question. Nor need you suppose, for one moment, that the American party are conquered, though defeated in several States in the recent elections. The party will remain true to its ends. Though it fail to command office, it cannot fail to exercise large power. Office is not always strength; but sometimes, nay, frequently, as in the case of the present Administration, weakness, as time will prove! The aim of the American party is, by fair party means, to correct a great social evil and political wrong; and if they cannot do that, to mitigate the evil and the wrong; if they cannot do that, to prevent its _further increase_; and if neither can be done, why, then I confess to you, the party will have failed. But, sir, if such a failure take place, rest assured that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the Methodist Church, South, will not help to bring about such a failure! We can afford to let such minions of party as you are, rave and rant, and publish their expositions, and issue their warnings to Churches: they will all serve to swell our ranks. All true American hearts, not chained to the car of party, or bound down by the cords of plunder, think alike upon the great questions that have called the American party into existence. Little do we regard the slanders of the pensioners of party. Let their speeches and publications teem with wholesale slanders of our creed: the political jockeyism of these thimble-riggers, as in your own case, is too apparent!

From Maine to the shores of the Pacific the country is convulsed with intense excitement upon this subject. Shall Americans govern themselves, or shall Foreigners, unacquainted with our laws, and brought up under monarchical governments, rule? Shall those who are temporally and spiritually subject to a foreign prince be our legislators, post-masters, foreign ministers, and military leaders, and change our laws as they are directed by the Pope of Rome? Such results the American party have set out to prevent. The present excitement will not cease; true Americans and Protestants will labor and pray until our distracted country shall be redeemed from the influence of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny.

Now, Governor, I have noticed all your charges, arguments, and appeals, but one, and that is the allegation that Methodist clerical Know Nothings are _conspirators_. Your argument is--and I wish to represent you correctly--"The offence of conspiracy is not confined to the prejudicing of a particular individual; it may be to injure public trade, to affect public health, or to _violate public policy_."

You cite Blackstone's Commentary, and other English Law Books, to satisfy the Clergy as to the _law of conspiracy_. This done, you overwhelm them with this sage and logical conclusion:

"The gist of the offence of conspiracy consists in a
confederacy to do an _unlawful act_, and the offence is
complete when the confederacy is made."

I will concede, for the sake of the argument, that this is sound law, and that yours is a logical deduction. Nay, I will concede more--I grant that it is an unlawful act for native Americans, and Protestant Christians, whether ministers or laymen, to resolve, or swear, as we Know Nothings have all done, that we will not vote for Catholics and Foreigners for public offices! I take the ground you do, that a man's vote is not his own, and that it is only to be disposed of by the leaders of the party with which he may act!

And now, if you and I, both great men, and _Doctors of Law_, are correct in laying down the law, and the _privilege of voters in this free country_, what an infamous body of conspirators the Democrats are, and have always been! For a quarter of a century, they have conspired to keep the Whigs out of office--have succeeded in doing so most of that time--and have kept thousands of them who are poor from becoming rich! More recently, they have conspired with Abolitionists, Free Soilers, Fourierites, Spiritualists, Roman Catholics, Irish, French, and German paupers, and all manner of European convicts, to keep the American party out of office, and have succeeded in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and other States--thereby depriving the Americans of "lots" of money and honors, both of which they need, and both of which are their _birthrights_!

The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you address, in opposition to the great sin of _conspiracy_, would more cheerfully unite with you to enforce law and order, and to prosecute offenders, but for the fact that the _Abolition wing of your party_ once conspired against them, to deprive their wives, children, widows, and orphans, of their lawful portion of the great Book Concern in New York, and they were compelled to punish the conspirators, at great expense, however, in the District and Supreme Courts of the United States!