Chapter VI: Preface (5)

You demand of me the name or names of such person or persons as
have given me information in reference to you. Reconsider this
demand, if you please, and ask yourself if, under all the
circumstances, it is not a cool piece of impudence. I have
published nothing about you upon the authority of others, but
upon my own authority and responsibility. You _suspect_ some of
your neighbors for writing to me, and hence you make this
demand. It is true, I have friends in Fincastle, and some of
these write to me, and when I publish any thing about you, or
any one of your associates, and give these friends of mine as
authority, I will give you their names, if called upon to do so;
or I will assume the responsibility myself. What I have said in
reply to the wicked, slanderous, and cowardly assault upon me,
in the dirty paper controlled by you, I have said upon my own
responsibilities, as a man, and as a member of the same Church
to which you belong; and whether my "peace as a citizen" is
preserved or destroyed, I am not the man to be intimidated or
driven from my position. My failure to give you the names of any
citizens of your vicinity, who may have written me private
letters, relating to your war upon young Hall, the Circuit
Preacher, "will detract largely from the estimate you have
placed upon my character." This I am sorry to hear, as I do not
wish to fall below the "estimate" placed upon my character in
the two issues of your paper, now before me! This would be
reaching "a lower deep," as the poet classically styles it!

Now, sir, I have a letter from a town in Virginia, not far
distant from Fincastle, written by a gentleman of as "great
personal courage" as you or myself, who states, that a gentleman
who was present at the trial of Rev. Mr. Hall, heard you make
the assertion, on that occasion, that you alone were responsible
for all the editorials that appeared in the "Democrat," and that
the "Junior" partner was not! If you think proper to make an
issue with this gentleman, you can have his name!

I am, Dr. Hopkins, your humble servant,

W. G. BROWNLOW,

_Editor of the Knoxville Whig._

[From the Knoxville Whig.]

TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE.

VILLAINOUS SIR:--Letters from my friends in the West inform me that you are making a full team in the service of the Devil, Locofocoism, and crime, in portions of Missouri and Kentucky! You have recently held forth in Charleston, a pleasant post-village, the capital of Mississippi county, Missouri, about six miles south-west of the "Father of Waters!" In that town you undertook to inform the good people, the Circuit Judge being present, _who I am_, and to demonstrate that I am not entitled to credit in any thing I say! You claimed to have once lived in East Tennessee--to know the people and the country--and to have known William T. Senter and James Y. Crawford, two other Methodist preachers, whose _pedigrees_ you pretend to give!

Mr. Senter was an able man--a moral and upright man--and a Whig Representative in Congress, from the District you represented _in the jail of Sullivan county_, for a long time previous to your being _branded in the hand and on the cheeks_, for MANSLAUGHTER, the particulars of which I will remind you of before I close this familiar letter! Mr. Senter could have gone to Congress longer, but voluntarily retired. Mr. Crawford was a brother-in-law to Mr. Senter, and was a preacher of respectable talents, and in good standing in his Church. They are both in their graves, beyond the reach of your malice, where the sound of your infamous voice, and the words of your lying tongue, can never penetrate their ears! But I am still above ground, daily kicking, and making war upon the Locofoco Paupers and Foreign Catholics, as well as Native Traitors, with whom you are associated, and with whom you act in politics. I acknowledge myself to be game for you to hunt down!

You are now a _Campbellite preacher_ as well as a _Sag Nicht Missionary_; and the garb of religion you wear, gives a degree of weight to your falsehoods and slanders, among strangers, that they otherwise would not have. The idea of "_Stev Tribble_," who ingloriously fled from this country for crimes he could not meet in open court, being a preacher, and itinerating through the West, "in search of the lost sheep of the house of Israel," is so ridiculous, as scarcely to be believed at all, although there is no doubt but what he has been regularly installed in Kentucky, and now has the "care of souls."

Why, you unmitigated old villain, your whole career, from your "youth up," has been one of crime and revolting blackguardism. While a boy and a young man, where Hoss's school was taught in Washington county, your vulgar conversation, immoral practices, indecent habits, and blackguardism, disgusted the entire neighborhood, and rendered you so odious that no decent family would board you! All the waters of the far-famed _Jordan_, in the palmiest days of that bold stream, were not sufficient to wash your sins away! If the Lord Bishop of London were to _immerse_ you as often as "seventy times seven," in the waters of "bold Jordan," and in the name of the holy Trinity, you would still remain what you were when you fled from this country to avoid the extreme penalty of the law--one of the greatest scoundrels for whom Christ died!

Yourself and half-brother _Havron_ were confined in Blountville Jail, for the murder of _William Humphreys_, a promising young man, whom you brutally assaulted and murdered in open daylight in the streets of Kingsport, in Sullivan county, and without provocation! _You_ were tried and convicted of _manslaughter_, and branded in the _hand_ and on the _cheek_. After being branded, you _bit the letters out of your hand_, and _clawed them out of your face_, but the _scars_ are to be seen in both. Indeed, I have been written to, to know why these scars are on your face! I take this method of answering those inquiries; and publishing them in my "Whig," which has a circulation of 5,000, and our "Campaigner," which circulates 7,000 copies, I shall be able to introduce you to as many persons as may have heard you preach my funeral.

While in the Blountville Jail, with your half-brother, Havron, whose blow killed Humphreys, after you had weakened him, you caught hold of the jailor, Montgomery Irvin, and held him in a scuffle, when he entered the room with your dinner, until Havron made his escape. Havron would have pulled hemp, had he not escaped; and had our penitentiary system existed at that time, you would have been sentenced for life! But you would not have remained there longer than the past summer, as we have a Governor who pardons out all such men, and has more sympathies for them than any other Executive Officer in the nation. You have a half-brother who is a Sag Nicht member of our Legislature, and a great friend and supporter of our Governor and his foreign associates, and he could have turned you out and procured for you an office if you had remained. But then you followed the teachings of "the spirit" of Sag Nichtism, in leaving between two days, and emigrating to Kentucky, as many precious souls would never have "heard the word," or had their sin washed away, but for you!

In an unmentionable and disgraceful enterprise, you became possessed of a _broken leg_, and were mean enough to abscond without paying the bill of your physician, Dr. Patton, whose unremitting attention saved you from your grave, and from the clutches of the Devil, sooner than the old fellow was prepared for your reception! If you had the honor of a first class thief, you would pay this medical bill out of the proceeds of the first public collection you take up, either in Missouri or Kentucky. And if you suffer it to go unpaid until your infinitely infernal career is wound up, the Day of Judgment will disclose the manner of your breaking your leg! If I were you, I would sooner pay this bill now, than to be asked in the great day how my leg was broken!

Disgraced as you are, unprincipled and villainous, you have gone into Kentucky, taken upon yourself "holy orders," and married a wife, imposing most shamefully upon the family into which you married. The woman you have thus imposed upon, would be justifiable now, in the eyes of both God and man, in forsaking you and applying for a divorce. And no court or jury would refuse her application, when made acquainted with your character.

It is a remarkable fact--one that I desire to call, not so much to your notice, as to the notice of the public generally--that while all the members of this Foreign Democratic party are by no means villains, destitute of principle; yet, all the assassins, cut-throats, thieves, and hypocrites in the country have crowded into the ranks of that party! Fawned upon, fostered and pampered by the villainous leaders, demagogues, and tricksters of the party, who need the services of all such scavengers, you are encouraged to act with them. These leaders, who are really no better than you are, _generously_ admit you to a fellowship, and _courteously_ acknowledge all such abandoned rascals to be their equals! Such men, to a great extent, now constitute the free-democracy of the country--they desecrate the ballot-box--disgust decent men wherever they come in contact with them--blaspheme the name of God--and swear that they will either rule or ruin the country!

But, Sir, it was said of a certain man in the Scriptures, that he was a "sinner above all the sinners that dwell in Jerusalem." So it may in perfect truth be said of you, that you are a scoundrel above all the scoundrels in the hateful ranks of Sag Nichtism. You deserve, for your depraved course of life, a greater punishment than you have received or are likely to receive in this life. The guilt of foul calumny, of the most black and odious kind, attaches to every sentence uttered by your lying tongue. Guilt, the offspring of fiend-like malice, shamefully false, deeply corrupt, and badly matured: perfidy, dishonesty, and rank poison--hot incense of murder, theft, inhuman spoliation, and deep, dark forebodings of damnation have been rooted and grounded in your heart, for lo! these many years! Dark despair, endless death, inexpressible misery, manifold, and worse than death, follow in the ghastly train of your crimes, and riot in your corrupt bosom, as with infernal drunkenness of delight! The record of your deep depravity, of your utter want of principle, and of your ten thousand villainous exploits, is _stereotyped_ upon the burning sands of eternity, and stamped on the imperishable walls of the _rotunda_ of the Devil's Hell, to which you are driving at railroad speed! In upper East Tennessee, where you are known, it would disgrace an _Algerine Bandit_ to sit and hear you pretend to preach! _You_ pretend to preach Christ and him crucified, and _immerse_ persons in the name of the Trinity! Shrouded in the _sackcloth and ashes_ of disgrace, enclosed in a _vault_ filled to the brim with _buried and putrefied venality_, and steeped to the very nose and chin in crime, how dare you attempt to preach!

I repeat, you vile slanderer of the living and the dead, that, in justice to the cause of God and of civilization, I will keep spread the unfurled banner of your infamy on every breeze, and cause it to float in the atmosphere of every State in this Union, until your very _name_ becomes a mockery and a by-word! And I call upon the people of Kentucky and Missouri to ring the loud knell of your infamy, from steep to steep, and from valley to valley, until their swelling sounds are heard in startling echoes, mingling with the rush of the criminal's torrent, and the mighty cataract's earthquake-voice!

W. G. BROWNLOW,

_Editor of the Knoxville Whig._

June 7th, 1856.

AN EXPOSE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

The following articles, setting forth the DESIGNS and TENDENCY of Romanism in the United States, appeared in the "KNOXVILLE WHIG" of May and June, 1856, and will speak for themselves. The writer has opposed the Papal Hierarchy for twenty years; and in a series of articles, now filed in a number of the "JONESBOROUGH WHIG," published _sixteen years ago_, he _predicted_ that the very state of things we are now realizing would come upon us as soon as the year 1860, and that the party calling itself by the revered name of _Democrat_, would identify itself with political Romanism!

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.--NO. I.

The American Party and the Religious Test--The Louisiana
Delegation and the Gallican Catholics--The vote of the
Philadelphia Convention to admit the Louisiana Delegates--The
American Councils in Louisiana--Catholics proper cannot be true
citizens of a Republic.

It is sometimes said by the Anties, that the American party, at their late Philadelphia Convention, dismissed the Catholic Question from their platform, and that they admitted into their Council a Catholic Delegation from Louisiana. We were in that Convention, from the hour of its opening until its final close, and we deny both statements. The fifth and tenth sections of the platform adopted at Philadelphia, and for which we voted, are in the following words, and they express all our platform says upon that subject:

5th. No person should be selected for political station,
(whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any
allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign
prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the
Federal and State Constitutions (each within its sphere) as
paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no
interference with religious faith or worship, and no tests
oaths for office.

The American party was against political Romanism--against all who acknowledge any allegiance to a foreign Prince, Potentate, or Power; or who acknowledge any authority on earth, higher and more binding than the Constitutions of our States, and General Government. And those who are familiar with the temporal assumptions of Popery, and the political intrigues of the Order of Jesuits, can have no other feelings than those of disgust, upon hearing the Locofoco demagogues of the country cry out against the American party for their opposition to the poor Catholics! Against Popes confined to _Rome_, we make no war; but against Popes usurping civil and spiritual authority, in America, we protest most solemnly, and intend to make war, unrelenting and unceasing war!

The Louisiana Delegation, five in number, were _two_ Methodist--_one_ Old School Presbyterian--one Episcopalian--and the other, Mr. Eustes, a member of Congress, not a member of any Church. Those gentlemen presented their credentials for admission, and they were objected to, because Roman Catholics were admitted into the Order by the Louisiana State Council. A warm debate ensued, on a motion to admit the Delegation, on their credentials, which finally prevailed, by yeas 67, nays 50, many of the members having left for their lodgings, because of the lateness of the hour, and of their fatigue. _We_ were in favor of their admission, and so was Mr. Nelson, of East Tennessee, and we both claim to be _ultra_ Protestant, if the reader please.

The "Catholicism" of Louisiana, we wish it borne in mind--that is the Gallican wing of the Church--is a very different species of "Catholicism" from that of our Irish and German Hierarchy taught in this country, under the training of Archbishop Hughes and Monseigneur Bedini, the Pope's villainous Nuncio. The French Gallican Church has so little respect for the Pope of Rome, that when the King of Sardinia was in Paris, less than twelve months ago, though he was under the interdict of a Papal Bull of excommunication from Pius IX., the Gallican Archbishops of Pius, and other Priests associated with them, visited him regularly, and tendered him unbounded courtesies and honors. The Gallican wing of the Catholic Church of France is liberal, as well as hostile to the insulting claims and pretensions of the Pope. But it is diluted still more with liberality, and with opposition to these claims of the Pope, among the French Creoles of Louisiana. Most of them, though Roman Catholics by name, from being educated in the forms of the Roman Church, have just about as much respect for Rome, and confidence in the Pope, as we have, and God knows that is very little. They denounce Papal Bulls, interdicts, and Nuncios. They throw off all temporal and spiritual allegiance to the Pope--the civil authorities of the United States with them are supreme--they are American born--and hence, our platform does not exclude them, and consequently they were admitted at Philadelphia, or, which is the same, their representatives.

In 1652, under Louis XIV., the Gallican clergy met in Paris, and adopted the following point: "That the Pope has no power, of _Divine right_, to interfere with the temporal affairs of independent States." Thus, the Catholics of Louisiana rejecting the doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope, are not proscribed by the American party. They constitute a sound portion of the American party.

Mr. Lathrop, a Presbyterian Elder, and a Delegate from Louisiana, read to the Convention from the ritual of the subordinate organizations of the American party of Louisiana, and showed that, while it admitted those to membership who professed the Roman Catholic religion, IT REQUIRED OF THEM THE DENIAL OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANY TEMPORAL AUTHORITY NOT COGNIZABLE IN THE STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; and from each secured a pledge, UPON OATH, that they would not divulge the secrets of the Order! He defended the Louisiana Catholics, as being true Americans, recognizing no civil or spiritual power in their Priests, and resisting every attempt, whether by a Bishop or Priest, to interfere with the institutions of our country. He cited cases which had occurred in Louisiana, of controversies between the Clergy and Laity, for the control of Church property, and the decisions of courts over which Gallican Catholic Judges presided, in favor of titles and control vesting in Trustees, the Laity. He showed that the native Catholics of Louisiana were the friends of common schools, and the advocates of popular education. He proclaimed aloud that the native Catholics of his State recognized no persons as proper depositaries of office, who acknowledged an allegiance to any person, civil or ecclesiastical, superior to that of the laws and Constitution of our country. He proclaimed that the Nuncios of the Pope of Rome hated these Louisiana Catholics, with a more perfect hatred than they did the "apostle heretics" called Protestants! This speech was received with unbounded applause, the question was called, and, as we have before stated, it was sanctioned, very properly too, by a vote of 67 to 50!

The American party not only advocate religious toleration, but religious liberty, which is a very different thing. Toleration is not the word in our vocabulary--it does not express enough, because it implies the right to _permit_ or _prohibit_. We contend for LIBERTY, the meaning of which is, that men are not responsible _to each other, to Popes, Bishops, or Priests_, for their religious opinions or practices, and that consequently religion is not a subject of toleration.

The Catholics, proper, have taken an oath of allegiance to the Pope of Rome, a "foreign prince, potentate, and power," and their obligations to him are higher, more sacred, and more binding, than any obligations they can take upon them to support the laws and Constitution of this country. These are the men that we refuse to vote for, or put in office. They are not and cannot be true Americans. The oaths of the priests bind them to war upon all Protestant sects, and upon all Republican powers of Government. These oaths bind them to the foot of the Papal Throne; and with these oaths upon their souls, they cannot be true citizens of this Republic without perjury. And if guilty of perjury, the State prison should be their residence.

In our next, we shall consider this subject more at length, in connection with the oath of allegiance to our country, and the Catholic evasion of that oath.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 2.

Ambiguous terms in swearing--The case of Judge Gaston--Temporal
power of the Pope--Catholic authorities in Europe--The spirit
of the Catholic press in America!

We are told by the Democratic sympathizers with the Catholics, that all Catholic emigrants to this country take an oath of allegiance to the United States upon becoming naturalized. Yes, they do, and the oath after it is taken, has no more weight with them, than has a regular-built Know Nothing speech.

Here is a paragraph from SANCHEZ, the highest authority in the Catholic Church, Pope Pius only excepted. This writer, "by authority," shows how this oath of allegiance is evaded by a mental reservation:

"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 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."

Here, then, we have it from the highest Catholic authority, that Catholics are absolved from all allegiance to this government, because they take the oath of allegiance without committing perjury, by the holy process of a mental reservation--the use of "ambiguous terms," setting forth one thing while they swear another! We have no doubt that Chief Justice TANEY, a devoted Catholic of Baltimore, and now at the head of the Supreme Court of the United States, took his oath of office requiring him to support the Constitution, with this same mental reservation. We have no doubt that those Catholic Judges upon the Federal Bench in several States in the Union, and those Catholic Attorney Generals, appointed to office by Mr. Pierce, so understood their oaths of office, and of allegiance! And the practice of Post-Master General Campbell, a bigoted Catholic, and a member of the order of Jesuits, proves that he so understood his oath to support the Constitution. As true Catholics, they are bound to swear with this mental reservation, because they could not owe allegiance to a government of "heretics," such as they believe ours to be. As Catholics, they are bound to overthrow our Constitution, and aid in the destruction of our government.

It is a matter of history that when the Legislature of North Carolina elected Judge GASTON to the Supreme Bench in that State, he hesitated as to whether he would take the oath or not. And why? He was, although an able man, and in all the private relations of life a most excellent man, a decided and devoted Roman Catholic. This is not all. The oath of a Judge in that State, which is not common in other States, requires the man taking it to avow his belief in the Protestant religion. Judge Gaston asked for a few days to consider--he went instantly to Baltimore, as was believed, to consult the Catholic Bishop, who then resided there--obtained a dispensation, as was supposed--wrote back that he would accept the office--returned, was qualified, and to the day of his death was on the Bench! This affair illustrates Romanism. And what Rome was, she is, and always will be. Can Rome change? Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

Here is what Philopater, an approved Catholic authority of the first grade, says, touching the principle in controversy:

"All theologians and ecclesiastical lawyers affirm that every
Christian government, as soon as it openly abandons the _Romish
faith_, is instantly degraded from all power and dignity: all
the subjects are absolved from the oath of fidelity and
obedience which they have taken, and they may and ought, if
they have the power, to drive such government from every
Christian State, as an apostate, heretic, and deserter from
Jesus Christ. This certain and indubitable decision of all the
most learned men is perfectly conformed to the most apostolic
doctrines."

Our Locofoco advocates of Romanism deny that the Pope lays claim to the supremacy charged by the American party. On this point, we desire that the Catholics may speak for themselves. One of their standard writers, FARRARIS, in his Ecclesiastical Dictionary, a work endorsed by their Council of Bishops and Cardinals, under the article headed "Pope," uses this emphatic and expressive language:

"The Pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is not
simply man, but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God. Hence
the Pope is such supreme and sovereign dignity, that, properly
speaking, he is not merely constituted in dignity, but is
rather placed on the very summit of dignities. Hence, also, the
Pope is rather father of fathers, and he alone can use this
name, because he only can be called father of fathers: since he
possesses the primacy over all, is truly greater than all, and
the greatest of all. He is called most holy, because he is
presumed to be such. On account of the excellency of his
supreme dignity, he is called bishop of bishops, ordinary of
ordinaries, universal bishop of the Church, bishop of diocesan,
of the whole world, divine monarch, supreme emperor, and king
of kings."

PETER DENS, of Maynooth College notoriety, whose "Theology" is the highest Catholic authority known this side of the Vatican at Rome, gives entire the Bull of Pope Sixtus V. against the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde, whom he styles the _sons of wrath_. In this Bull, issued in the year 1585, he says:

"The authority given to Saint Peter and his successors, by the
immense power of the eternal King, _excels all the power of
earthly kings and princes_. It passeth uncontrollable sentence
upon them all. And if it find any of them resisting God's
obedience, it takes more severe vengeance on them, casting them
down from their thrones, however powerful they may be, and
tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the
ministers of aspiring Lucifer."

Here is what _Daniel O'Connell_ said so late as 1843, and he was a true Catholic and a true exponent of this faith:

"You should do all in your power to carry out the intentions of
His Holiness the Pope. Where you have the electoral franchise,
give your votes to none but those who will assist you in so
holy a struggle.

"I declare my most unequivocal submission to the Head of the
Church, and to the hierarchy in its different orders. If the
Bishop makes a declaration on this bill, I never would be heard
speaking against it, but would submit at once unequivocally to
that decision. They have only to decide, and I close my mouth:
they have only to determine, and I obey. I wish it to be
understood that _such is the duty of all Catholics_."--_Daniel
O'Connell_, 1843.

Here comes one of the Pope's organs in France:

"A heretic, examined and convicted by the Church, used to be
delivered over to the secular power and punished with death.
Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one
hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy
of Wickliffe; a still greater number for that of John Huss; and
it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by
Luther; and it is not yet over."--_Paris Univers._

"As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did
not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn
Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince
sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against
Protestants."--_Paris Univers._

But here is the Pope himself arguing with the authorities already quoted:

"The absurd or erroneous doctrines or ravings in defence of
liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error--a pest, of
all others, most to be dreaded in a State."--_Encyclical Letter
of Pope Pius IX., Aug._ 15, 1852.

Now, let us hear their organs in our own country:

"Heresy and unbelief are crimes, and in Christian countries,
like Italy and Spain for instance, where all the people are
Catholics, and where the Christian religion is an essential
part of the law of the land, they are punished as other
crimes."--_R. C. Archbishop of St. Louis._

"For our own part, we take this opportunity of expressing our
hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant chapel at
Rome. This may be thought intolerant, but when, we would ask,
_did we ever profess to be tolerant of Protestantism_, or favor
the doctrine that Protestantism _ought to be tolerated_? On
the contrary, we hate Protestantism--we detest it with our
whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may
never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City no
worship repugnant to _God_ should be tolerated, and we are
sincerely glad that the enemies of truth are no longer allowed
to meet together in the capital of the Christian
world."--_Pittsburg Catholic Visitor_, 1848.

"No good government can exist without religion; and there can
be no religion without an _Inquisition_, which is wisely
designed for the promotion and protection of the true
faith."--_Boston Pilot._

"You ask, if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were
in a minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he
do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on
circumstances. If it would _benefit the cause of Catholicism_,
he would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison
you--banish you--possibly, _hang you_--but be assured of one
thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the
_'glorious principles' of civil and religious
liberty._"--_Rambler._

"Protestantism of every form has not and never can have any
rights where Catholicity is triumphant."--_Brownson's Quarterly
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_."--_Ibid._

"I never think of publishing any thing in regard to the Church
without submitting my articles to the Bishop for inspection,
approval, and endorsement."--_Ibid._

In view of the foregoing, and other facts and arguments which we will hereafter present, we cannot be mistaken in our views of Roman Catholicism. We cannot tamely surrender our dearest rights as Protestants, without a struggle. We cannot cry peace, peace, when there is no peace!

"Protestantism, of every kind, Catholicity inserts in her
catalogue of moral sins; she endures it when and where she
must; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to effect
its destruction."--_St. Louis Shepherd of the Valley._

"Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by
every man to choose his religion, is one of the most wretched
delusions ever foisted on this age by the father of
deceit."--_The Rambler_, 1853.

"The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when
and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her
energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense
numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an
end. So say our enemies. So say we."--_Shepherd of the Valley._

"The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not a right.... All the
rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the State,
and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of
sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of
nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived
of liberty, if the State refuses to grant them any rights at
all."--_Brownson's Review, Oct., 1853_, p. 456.

"The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap,
and shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"--_Ibid, October, 1852_,
pp. 554-8.

"We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respectable,
and less respected, than they have been since the reformation,
and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years,
since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read
and communicate the disease to a large proportion of the
English nation; of which, in spite of all our talk, we are
often the servile imitators."--_Shepherd of the Valley, Oct.
22, 1853._

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 3.

The Catholic Church supreme over all authorities--Meddling in
Political Contests--Brownson's Review and the Boston Pilot
reflecting the sentiments of that Church--Protestants
advocating Romanism--The Nashville Union in 1835.

The Anti-American, Foreign-loving, Catholic admirers of the Locofoco school of politics, everywhere seek to frighten native Protestant citizens with the bugbear cry of religious proscription. But let Americans and Protestants watch with increased vigilance both the Roman and Locofoco Jesuits around them. To call the damnable and accursed system of political intrigue practised for past centuries by the Roman Church by the term _Religion_, is a solemn mockery of the hallowed word. Religion teaches love and obedience to God, and the legally constituted authorities of the country. Romanism teaches fear of and obedience to a crowned potentate called the Pope, and opposition to all Protestant governments, as worthy to be cast down to hell! The one tends to free and ennoble the soul: the other to enslave and debauch every faculty of man's nature which likens him to the Almighty! The one is republican: the other is barbaric, and at war with every principle of free government!

The American party does oppose and denounce Romanism _as a political system at war_ with American institutions; and we here ask candid men to weigh the evidence we shall adduce to sustain this charge. We shall quote none other than Roman Catholic authority--the organs of Romanism--so as out of their own mouths to condemn them. Brownson's Review is the accredited organ of Romanism in the United States. He ostentatiously parades the names of the Archbishops and Bishops on the cover of his Review, to give it the stamp of authority, and asserts in the work:

"I NEVER THINK OF PUBLISHING ANY THING IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH
WITHOUT SUBMITTING MY ARTICLES TO THE BISHOP FOR INSPECTION,
APPROVAL, AND ENDORSEMENT."

Let us then look to his pages for an exposition of the doctrines of his Church. In the January number for 1853, he says:

"For every Catholic at least, the Church is the supreme judge
of the extent and limits of her power. She can be judged by no
one; and this of itself implies her absolute supremacy, and
that the temporal order must receive its laws from her."

The uniform practice of the Church of Rome has been, and still is, to assert her power--not in _words_, but in _deeds_--to GIVE OR TAKE AWAY CROWNS--to depose ungodly rulers, and to absolve their subjects from their "horrible" OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE!

Again, in the July number for 1853, Brownson says:

"The Church is supreme, and you have no power except what you
hold in subordination to her, either in spirituals or in
temporals.... You no more have political than ecclesiastical
independence. The Church alone, under God, is independent, and
she defines both your powers and hers."

"They have heard it said from their youth up that the Church
has nothing to do with politics; that she has received no
mission in regard to the political order."

"In opposing the nonjuring bishops and priests, they believed
they were only asserting their national rights as men, or as
the State, and were merely resisting the unwarrantable
assumption of the spiritual power. If they had been distinctly
taught that the political authority is always subordinate to
the spiritual, and had grown up in the doctrine that the nation
is not competent to define, in relation to the ecclesiastical
power, its own rights--that the Church defines both its powers
and her own, and that though the nation may be, and ought to
be, independent in relation to other nations, it has, and can
have, no independence in the face of the Church, the kingdom of
God on earth: they would have seen at a glance that support of
the civil authority against the spiritual, no matter in what
manner, was the renunciation of their faith as Catholics, and
the actual or virtual assertion of the supremacy of the
temporal power."

In the same number, page 301, he says:

"She (the Church) has the right to judge who has, or has not,
according to the law of God, the right to reign: whether the
prince has, by his infidelity, his misdeeds, his tyranny and
oppression, forfeited his trust, and lost his right to the
allegiance of his subjects; and therefore whether they are
still held to their allegiance, or are released from it by the
law of God. If she have the right to judge, she has the right
to pronounce judgment, and order its execution: therefore to
pronounce sentence of deposition upon the prince who has
forfeited his right to reign, and to declare his subjects
absolved from their allegiance to him, and free to elect
themselves a new sovereign."

We might multiply authorities of this kind on this point, to an almost indefinite extent, from the debate between Bishop Hughes and Mr. Breckenridge, and the controversy between Hughes and Erastus Brooks, but it is wholly unnecessary.

As early as 1844, the Catholics took their stand as a body in the arena of political strife; and the illustrious CLAY and the virtuous FRELINGHUYSEN were the victims of their particular hostility. Mr. Frelinghuysen was the President of the Board of Foreign Missions, and this was made the _excuse_ for the bitter animosity of the Catholic press, and of the clergy and membership of the Catholic sect, against Mr. Clay. Brownson, in his July number for 1844, in the very heat of the contest, thus assailed Mr. Clay:

"He is ambitious, but short-sighted. He is abashed by no
inconsistency, disturbed by no contradiction, and can defend,
with a firm countenance, without the least misgiving, what
everybody but himself sees to be a political fallacy or logical
absurdity.... He is no more disturbed by being convinced of
moral insensibility, than intellectual absurdity.... A man of
rare abilities, but apparently void of both moral and
intellectual conscience.... He is, therefore, a man whom no
power under that of the Almighty can restrain; he must needs be
the most dangerous man to be placed at the head of affairs it
is possible to conceive."

The Boston Pilot, another Catholic organ, published under the eye of the Bishop, discloses _the same plot_, in its issue for the 31st of October, 1844, only six days before the election! Here is what this organ said:

"We say to all men in the United States, entitled to be
naturalized, become citizens while you can--let nothing delay
you for an hour--let no hindrance, short of mortal disease,
banish you from the ballot-box. To those who are citizens, we
say, vote your principles, whatever they may be--never desert
them--do not be wheedled or terrified--but vote quietly, and
unobtrusively. Leave to others the noisy warfare of words. Let
your opinions be proved by your deliberate and determined
action. We recommend you to no party; we condemn no candidate
but one, and he is Theodore Frelinghuysen. We have nothing to
say to him as a Whig--we have nothing to say to Mr. Clay or any
other Whig, as such--but to the President of the American Board
of Foreign Missions, the friend and patron of the Kirks and
Cones, we have much to say. We hate his intolerance--we dislike
his associates--and shudder at the blackness and bitterness of
that school of sectarians to which he belongs, and amongst whom
he is regarded as an authority."

Protestants! do you hear that? Old Line Whigs! do you hear that? If so, do you think that Americans are warring upon civil and religious liberty, when they take an oath that they will rebuke such infamous sentiments? These appeals of Brownson, Hughes, and the Pilot, had the effect to defeat the Clay ticket in New York, and that State lost him his election. The Catholics were all at the polls, and voted for Polk and Dallas. On the 9th of November, 1844, Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr. Clay as follows:

"More than 3,000, it is confidently said, have been naturalized
in this city (New York) alone since the first of October. It is
an alarming fact that this foreign vote has decided the great
questions of American policy, and contracted a nation's
gratitude."

And after they achieved the victory of 1844, Brownson came out with this avowal:

"Heretofore we have taken our politics from one or another of
the parties which divide the country, and have suffered the
enemies of our religion to impose their political doctrine upon
us; but it is time for us to begin to teach the country itself
those moral and political doctrines which flow from the
teachings of our own Church. We are at home here, wherever we
may have been born; this is our country, and as it is to become
THOROUGHLY CATHOLIC, we have a deeper interest in public
affairs than any other of our citizens. The sects are only for
a day; the Church for ever."

When Gen. Cass made his speech in the Senate, in 1852, in favor of free worship and the rights of conscience for Americans abroad, reflecting on the Catholics by name, Brownson came out in his October number, and said:

"We are glad to see Gen. Cass laid on the shelf, for we can
never support a man who turns radical in his old age."

In the same number, Brownson continues:

"The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap and
shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"

This too at the very time he was supporting the Democratic party in the Presidential contest! He would sooner have heard the cry, "All hail, Catholicism!" and he was only using Democracy as an instrument to advance his primary wish!

We offer no comments on the foregoing extracts, of our own, but leave every reader to judge for himself. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We apply the remark to religious as well as civil liberty. All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not support men at the ballot-box who are in league with these enemies of our Republic, and of the Protestant religion!

Behold the enemy is at our gates! A foreign priest has been lecturing here in Knoxville, within the last ten days, avowing sentiments similar to these, and claiming that this country would ultimately become a Catholic country! The crisis is approaching! Rouse up, Americans, and hasten to your country's salvation! Not a moment is to be lost! GOD AND OUR COUNTRY, must be the watchword of every Christian and patriot, of every political party in the land. America expects us all to do our duty!

And is there no cause for alarm?

Eighteen months ago, a Protestant minister, Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian, might expose Romanism, and warn his congregation against its corrupting influences, for hours at a time--come down out of his pulpit, and his congregation would, without distinction of party, say, "Well done, good and faithful servant!"

But let him now dare _allude_ to Romanism--he offends one-half of his congregation--he is _preaching_ politics--they will hear him no more; or forsooth, which is more common, they will withhold his support and starve him out! Are not these signs alarming?

But here in Tennessee, _Protestant_ Tennessee, on the 15th of May, 1855, the _Nashville Daily Union_, the organ of the self-styled Democratic party, came out at the Capital of the State with this daring broadside against the Protestant clergy and their religion:

"A Church that can boast of an existence of thirteen
centuries--passing through all the various vicissitudes of her
eventful career unscathed, can certainly show, with all her
atrocious barbarity, many bright spots which may be placed in
favorable contrast with the Protestant Church, with its
thousand and one wrangling sects. Men are beginning to see
through the transparent gauze that veils this Know-Nothing
movement. They are beginning to ask 'What has Protestantism
done for the world? What has she done to alleviate and elevate
the down-trodden? Is the race any better off for having
accepted her faith? THESE REVEREND HYPOCRITES--these scribes
and pharisees, are treading on a terrible volcano. They will
find their treasonable schemes and infernal plotting against
the liberties of man tried and condemned by the pure light of
God's own truth and love, which shines and throbs in every
pulsation of humanity's heart. If Protestantism prove recreant
to her high trust, she will have to pass the ordeal of
enlightened public opinion and be consigned to her merited
obscurity.

"Popery, with all its crimes against God and man, adapts itself
to the times and to the circumstances, and thus saves itself
from being absorbed in the mass of conflicting elements."

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 4.

A Catholic Priest the Minister from the Rivas-Walker
Government--Nicaragua, Texas, and Gen. Jackson--Bishop Hughes
and Orestes Brownson--Buchanan bidding for the Catholic
vote--A. H. Stephens, of Georgia--Lord Baltimore and Religious
Toleration.

Three months ago, PARKER H. FRENCH arrived in Washington, as the Representative of the Walker Government of Nicaragua--an American-born citizen and a Protestant--but the Government declined to recognize him, upon the ground that Walker's Government was not established even _de facto_. Since then, our Government has recognized Walker's Government, and endorsed his war upon Costa Rica, although the former objection of our Government lies with as much force against such recognition now as it did three months ago. That the approach of the Cincinnati Convention, and the importance of conciliating the "Young American" wing, and the Filibustering division of the Democratic party, had great influence in producing this recognition, there can be no sort of doubt. But a still more palpable reason why this Government gave its sanction to the Rivas-Walker Government is, that PADRE VIJIL, the second Minister sent here, is a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, and a shrewd Spaniard--better understands the influences that prevail at Washington. When we remember that a Roman Catholic, and a member of the Order of Jesuits, is a member of Pierce's Cabinet, the Postmaster-General--and when we remember that Democracy now, without the Catholic-Foreign vote, is almost a nullity in the United States, we have a clear solution of this preference given the Spanish priest, PADRE VIJIL, over the American citizen, but a few weeks afterwards! As a sign of the times, the fact is one worthy of note. It shows, at least, that when Protestantism cannot prevail with the Administration of Pierce, Roman Catholicism can; and that hence, when we proclaim the power of the Pope, even in America, we but utter demonstrable facts. Romanism is even carrying Democracy from all its old wayside land-marks. In December, 1836, GEN. JACKSON sent a special message to the Senate of the United States, in relation to a proposition to recognize the new Government of Texas, and he gave reasons _against_ it, which are exactly applicable to this Rivas-Walker affair:

"Upon the issue," he says, "of this threatened invasion by
Mexico, the independence of Texas may be considered as
suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative
situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgments
of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be
considered as consistent _with that prudent reserve with which
we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar
questions_."

The existing Government of Nicaragua is in a far more critical condition now than that of Texas was in 1836, when Gen. Jackson went on to say:

"It becomes us to beware of a too early movement, as it might
subject us, however unjustly, to the imputation of seeking to
establish the claim of our neighbors to a territory, with a
view to its subsequent acquisition by ourselves. Prudence,
therefore, seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof,
and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself,
or one of the great foreign powers, shall recognize the
independence of the new Government, at least until the lapse of
time or the course of events shall have proved, beyond cavil or
dispute, the ability of the people of that country to maintain
their separate sovereignty, and to uphold the Government
constituted by them. Neither of the contending parties can
justly complain of this course. By pursuing it, we are but
carrying out the long-established policy of our Government--a
policy which has secured to us respect and influence abroad,
and inspired confidence at home."

But Romanism is rapidly leading Democracy to the Devil! Archbishop Hughes--the head and front of the Papal Hierarchy in this country--has openly declared the grand aim and object of the Catholic Church is "TO MAKE ROME THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!" This same Archbishop is now engaged in raising an immense fund, for the avowed purpose of ESTABLISHING A COLLEGE IN ROME, for the education of a high order of Priests and Jesuits for the United States; the Roman Pontiff deeming the education of Priests defective if obtained in this land of liberty! This same Archbishop Hughes has now actively enlisted for the Presidential contest, for 1856, in order, to use his own language, "TO BREAK THE SPINAL CORD OF THE AMERICAN PARTY." The Irish Catholic vote is to be fused with the Black Republicans in the North, to prevent the success of the Fillmore ticket, and the Irish and German Catholic vote is to be cast for Democracy in the South and North-West--the Archbishop stipulating for special legislation for Rome, and for promoting this mammoth college!

ORESTES BROWNSON, a leading Catholic authority, and the editor of Archbishop Hughes's organ--one of the most zealous as well as able advocates of Romanism in America--declares: "THE POPE IS MY INTERPRETER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!" The Supreme Court at Washington is subordinate to the Vatican, situated at the foot of one of the seven hills upon which Rome is built! Through the influence of the _Jesuit_ who is a member of Pierce's cabinet, the Papal Nuncio, who was sent from Rome two years ago, clothed with _foreign_ authority, was received by our government at Washington, and sent around the lakes to the North-West at government expense; and allowed to adjudicate upon a secular question AFFECTING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION in the great State of New York!

Mr. Buchanan, one of the several candidates before the Cincinnati Convention for the Presidential nomination, said, in a public speech in Baltimore, just before the meeting of that Convention, _by way of bidding for the Catholic vote_:

"In the age of religious bigotry and intolerance, Lord
Baltimore was the first legislator who proclaimed the sacred
rights of conscience, and established for the government of his
colony the principle, not merely of toleration, but perfect
religious freedom and equality among all sects of Christians."

Lord Baltimore was a Catholic; and with a view to enlist the same influence, HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Georgia, sent forth a published speech last summer, from which we make the following extract:

"The Catholic colony of Maryland, organized under the auspices
of Lord Baltimore, was the first to establish the principle of
free toleration in religious worship on this continent.

"The Colony of Maryland afforded protection to _all_ persecuted
sects."

Now, in order to judge of Mr. Buchanan's "_perfect religious freedom and equality_," and Mr. Stephens's "_principle of free toleration_," let us examine an Act passed April 21, 1649, when Lord Baltimore was in the zenith of his power:

"Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and
confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary (Lord
Baltimore himself!) Persons using any reproachful words
concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or
Evangelists, to be fined £5, or in default of payment to be
publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure of_ his
Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his
Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland at large, by T.
Bacon, A. D. 1765._ _16 and 17 Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.

S. F. STREETER, Esq., of Baltimore, is the author of a work entitled "_Maryland two hundred years ago_." In this work, at page 26, Mr. Streeter says: