. - * THE STARjfiF THE NORTH/" Bra = : == T ~ rr " I Troth and Right God and onr Country. [Ttro Dollars pel* Annua R. W. Wearer Proprietor.] , 9 _. r _ ... . _ VOLUME 7. BUSINESS DIRECTORY. . ~ Bfoomobnrg. J?o- M HIRAM W. THOINTON. ..irtJrHANT. Store on the South side of M Main Street, second square below Mar ket. DAVID LOWEMJERG, CLOTHING STORE, on Main street, two doors above the 'American House. SIMOITDREIFIISS, & Co. CLOTHING STORE in the 'Exchange Block,' opposite the Court house. EVANS & APFLEMAN. "ItytT.RCHANTS.—Store on the upper part jYR of Mam street, nearly opposite the . Episcopal Church. — g SUITE. MANUFACTURER OF FURNITURE AND CABINET WARE—Waremom io Shive's Block, on Main Street. ~ A.M. RU'ERT, TINNER AND STOVE DEALER.— Shop on South side of Main street, be low Market. JOSEPH 8W ARTZ. BOOKSELLER. Store in the Exchange Block, first door above the Exchange Hotel. RTW- WEAVER. ATTORNEY AT LAW.— otfice on the first floor of the "Star" Building, on Alain street. SHARPLKSS & MEI.ICK, I-sOUN DEBS ANN MACHINESTS. Bni'd ? ings on the alley between the "Exchange and "American House." ' BARNARD RUPEKT. rrtAILOR Shep on the South Side of Mair. X Street, first square below Market. MENDENHALL& ~ MEXSf n, MERCHANTS. —Store North West corner of Main and Market Streets. HIRAM C. 110WEIL CjUKGEON DENTIST.—Office near the IS Academy on Third Street. NTRELVY, NKAL & CO., MERCHANTS.— Northeast corner of Main and Market streets. ~ SUARPLESS & MELHK, MANUFACTURES AND DEALERS IN STOVES, TINWARE Establish men', on Main street, next ottilding r.bove he Court-house. HENIT VZL PPI ,\ (TE K , CLOCK and WATCHMAKER, south side of Main street, above the Railroad. Every kind of disorder in jewelled or oth er newly invented Escapements faithfull re paired. PUR DON'S D 7 G ES T . ANY Justice of the Peace wishing to pur chase a copy of l'urdon's Digest, can be accommodated by applying at lie this off (8 liiOTMSOiw" EAGLE HOTEL, No- 139 North Third street above Itacc PHILADELPHIA. SAMUEL A. BRADY. GEORGE 11. BROW*. [June Bth 1854-ly. TLANKB ! BLANKITIT BLANKSTTr DEEDS, SUMMONS. EXECUTIONS, SUBFFENAS. and JUDGMENT NOTES, paper and desirable forma, fo* sale at the of bee f the '"■ Bar of the North" Justices of llic I'ciice AND CONSTABLES can find all kind of blanks desirable for their use, in proper farm, at the office of the "STAR or THENOBTU fancy Iaicr, Envelopes, Pens, Ink, Writing sand. &c an be found at the cheap Book store of JOSEPH SWARTZ. NEIP ROUTE TO PHILADELPHIA Cattawusi,' H'iUiamsport and Erie Railroad OPEN TO MILTON. B*hour& between Pkil'a. and Milton. ON and alter Monday, Sept. 25th, and until extension to Williamsport, pass enger trains will be run every day (Sundays excepted) as follows : Leaving Milton at 11 A. M., connecting with Reading Rail Road, at Port Clinton, ar riving at Philadelphia at 7 30, P.M. Leaving Philadelphia, at 7 30, A. M.; ar rive at Milton at 4 30 P. M. A Freight Train will leave Milton, on Monday, Wednesday & Friday, and Port Clinton on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, * of each week. , Freight is carried to and from Pliladelphta without transhipment, from Reading Rail Road Freight Depot corner of BtoaJ and Cherry streets. y McKISSOCK) Sept. 38, 1854—tf. NEW O RIST-NIILL AT MILL GBOVE! rIE subscriber has refitted his Grist- Mill at Mill Grove, near Light Street, Columbia county, and ta readv to do any and ail kinds of grinding- He has three ran of stones, and the Mill will work to gen era-! Malefaction. A competent miller has has charge of the establishment, nnd the patronage of the public is respectfully eo ted" THOMAS TRENCH. MiU Grave, Sept. 9,1854. XJffABLE CUTLERY—A Splendid asso ■* merit received and now on hand at MENDENHALL & MKNBCH'S -"PANCY GOODsToFeVery description sad variety new styles, and Iresh lrom New Yotk -a "'JyEl'dT BOOTS, Shoes and resdy made clothing chesp for ^ denhall & MENSCH. • •BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PA., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1..1555. TUE STAR OF THE NORTH It published every Thursday Morning.by n. w. WEAVER, Off ICE—Upstairs, in the new brick building oft the south side of Main street, third square below Market. TFHMS:—' Two Dollars per annum, if paid within six months from the time of sub scribing ; two dollars and fifty cents if not paid within the yoar. No subscription re ceived for a less period than six months: no discontinuance permitted until all arrearages are paid, unless at the option of the editor. AnvKßTisFMßXTs'not exceeding one square will be inierted three limes for one dollars and twenty-five cents for each additional in sartion. A liberal discount will be made to those who advertise by the year. The Temporal Powcroflhe . Pope. SPEECH or HON. JOS. R. CHANDLER, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. January 11, 1855. In the National House of Representatives on Thursday, the House being in Commit tee of the Whole on the State of the Union, (Mr. ORB in the chuir) on the bill "to pro vide for the establishment of railroad and telegraphic communication from the Atlan tic States to the Pacific ocean, and for other purpo.-es," Mr. CHANDLER, of L'A., took the lioor and replied at length lb the recent charges preferred by Mr. RASES, of Mass., against the fealty of the Catholic citizens of the United Stales. Mr. CHANDLER— I rts< to express my opinions on a si bject which ought never to have been introducsd into the Congress of the United States; but having been brought hither and discussed, the suggestions of ma ny fiiend. lead me to believe that it is my duty to present, not merely my opinions, but certain facts, in relation, thereto. I purpose making some reply to the re marks of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,! who recently addressed this House,in commitiee,on some of the prevailing topics of the day, and made special and inculpatory allusion to the creed of the Roman Catholic Church; involving a charge of latent treason against its members, or at least imputing to them an article of re ligious faith that overrides all fealty to the government of the country, and would ren der them unworthy of public trust—suspec ted citizens, and dangerous officers. Before 1 cpmmence my direct reference to ttie subject of my remarks, let me say that, whatever may be my religious belief and connections I trust that all who know me in this House will acquit me of the charge of any mtempt to obtrude those opinions upon others, or to prcse upon ray associates, publicly or privately, any defence of the creed of my church, or the peculiarity of its Inrms and ceremonies. Believing, sir, that religion is a personal matter, I hire avoided public exhibition of my pretensions; and, krowing the unpopularity of my cree l, I have been careful not to jeopard my means of usefulness, in their legitimate channel by any'nntimely presentation of irrelevant and unacceptable dogmas. But now, sir ( 1 thiuk I cannot be deceived in supposing that a well tempered reply would not only be patiently received in this House, but that an attempt at such a reply as the charge of lite gentleman from Massa chusetts would suggesSto a Catholic, is ex pected from me, as the oldest of the few, the very few, (I know but one besides myself in this House,) who are obnoxious to any censures justly made against professors of the Catholic religion, and who may be di rectly interested in a defence from imputa tions of a want of fealty to the government of the country, in consequence of the nature of their obligations to the Catholic church. If, Mr. Chairman, I had DOI long been a member of this House, and thus become able to form an opinion of the honorable gentleman who compose it, I might startle at the risk of presenting myself as the pro fessor of a creed "everywhere evil spoken Of,'' and standing almost alone in the asser tion of a fact which seems to be everywhere doubted. 1 stand, too, sir, without the sym pathies of a host of partistans to sustain me in my weakness, and to pardon me the in firmities of my defence in consequence of their attachment to the principles I advo cate. I stand alone, indeed ; the generous de fence offered by the genlleman from South Carolina, [Mr. KEITT ] and the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. BAaav,] was the magnanimous effort of men who would de fend the professors of a creed which they do not hold. I, sir, speak lor a creed which I do bold. I stand alone, sir; but I stand in the Congress of the nation. I stand among gentlemen. I stand for truth ; and how fee ble soever may be my effort, I feel that I may continue to depend, at least, upon the forbearance of a body that has always enti tled itself to my gratitude by ita unfailing courtesy to my humble exertions. Mr. Chairman, I understand the honora ble gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BANKS,] in his defence of the secret combi nation to put down the Catholic religion in this country by denying lo its members the j full rights of citizenship, to assert that he ' does not bring into discussion lite general creed of the Catholics, but only that potlion which, it is asserted, makes the professor dependent upon Ihe Bishop of Rome, not merely for what he shall hold of faith to wards God, but what he shall maintain of fealty towards his own political government. Let me read a paragraph from tho publish ed remarks of the honorable genlleman : a Mr. BANKS.— I have no objection to any man of the Catholio church, or faith. Here is our friend from Pennsylvania, [Mr. CHAND LER,] nn amiable, learned, and eloquent man; I might be willing to vote for bim, . Catholic as he in, in. preference, perhaps, to others nearer my political faith than he is.— What be thinks of the Seven Sacraments, or how many he accepts, is no ooncern of mine. To me it is no objection that he re ceives the interpretations of the council of Trent as to the doctrines of original sin and justification. It cannot ooncern me, and it can concern no man, that, as a ma'ter of faith, any person cherishes the doctrine of transubstantiation, accords the full measure of Catholic veneration to saored relics or i images, and accepts. still v ri, if otherwise it lay in my way to do so." 1 thank God, and the honorable gentle man, for that. I may think as I please on matters purely spiritual. But the honorable gentleman proceeds. " But there is another branch of this sub ject. It is a current belief that the Pope, the head of the Roman church, who stands as tho Vicar of God, and is invested with his attributes of infatibility, is not only supreme in matters of faith, but has also a temporal power that cannot only control governments, but, in fitting exigencies, may absolve his disciples from their allegiance. I an; aware, sir, thai this is disputed ground. But it is a well attested historical fact, that olten, in lime past, the claim to secular power has been made ; and 1 am yet to learn, (hat by the Pope, or any general council speaking with hia acquiesence—the only antliorized exponents of the true faith—that this claim has even yet been disavowed. IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN ENGLAND. * * # I will Say that, il it be true that the Pope is held lo be supreme in secular, in sacred affairs, that he can absolve men from their relations with others not of the true faith, it ia not strange that men should hesitate in support of his followers. I would not vote for any man holding tn that doctrine, and, I doubt not, other gentlemen here would concur with me in that feeling." The charge, then, against the Roman Cath olics of this country is, that their views of the supremacy of the Pope renders them un safe citizens, because it renders them liable to be withdrawn from their allegiance to their own civil government by the dwMgNlj or ordinances of their spiritual the cruelty of disturbing the publpolßmtl with suoh questions, and disfranchisinJHpM disposed citizens, I shall not now J shall leave to other limes, and other and in other places, too, the lak of impeach ing and developing the motives upon which such discreditable and unrightous proceed ings rest. I shall leave to those who have more bitterness of temper than I possess, to show that, though newly revived, the charge is as old as the hostility of Paganism to Christianity ; and that those who are vitia ting public sentiment in thus ministering to the appetite which they have made morbid, have their prototype in lite malignanls who would crucify the Savior " lest the Romans come and take our city from us," or in fhe Titus Oates of later tjpies, who disturbed the public mind of England by discoveries of plots that exiited only in his infamous in vention, nnd who, by Jbis perjuries, sent men to the scaffold whose innocence is now as generally admitted as is 'he corruption of the court in which such fantastic tricks were played, and as the infamy of the wretch who could destroy the peace of an excellent portion of the community, and send to the scaffold and block men of immaculate puri ty, merely to give himself a temporary no tority, aod a sort of political aggrandize ment. That branch of the discussion I turn from with loathing and disgust at the offen sive details, and with horror at its intimate association with the men, the motives and the means of modern limes. I leave such considerations to others, and proceed to take notice of that part of the subject which con cerns the political relations of American Catholics, with the head of the Roman Cath olic church—the character of the fealty which I, and all of the Catholio creed in this country, owe to the Bishop of Rome. The question raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts is one of political power, and that 1 imagine, is the leading objection to Catholics and to catholicity with gentle men who venture on the dangerous move ment of dragging religion into the political arena. Mr. Chairman, I deny that the Bishop of Roma has, or that be claims for himself, the right to interfere with the po litical relations of any other country than that oi which he is himself the sovereign! I mean—and I have no desire lo conceal eny point— l mean tnat I deny to the Bishop of Rome the right resulting from hit divine office, to interfere in the relations between subjects and their sovereigns, between citi zens and their governments. And while I make this denial, I acknowlenga all my ob ligations to the church of which I am an humble member, and 1 recognize all, the rights of the venerable bead of that church to the spiritual deference of its children: and I desire that no part of what I may say, or what I may concede, in my remarks, may be considered as yielding a single dog ma of the Catholic chqrch, or manifesting, on my part, a desire to explain away, to suit the spirit of the times, or the prejudices of my hearers, any doctrine of the Calbolio church. I believe all that that church be lieves and teaches as religious dogmas, but I am not bound by the imputations of its op- ponente. lam not bound by the assertions of those who would make political Capital out of denunciations of her children, or mis representations of her creed. Nay, more, sir; and I ask ine attention ol gentlemen to my disavowal. lam not bound by any ac tion which the Pope takes as a temporal sovereign, or which he performs as Bishop of Rome, or Pope, when he is only carrying out a contract with Kings and Emperors lo secure to them Ihe integrity of their posses sions, and the perpetuity of their power. As f cannot aCdept the honorable gentle man's discrimination between mo, as a Catli. nlic, and other mrarornigher obligation ; pointed at, sir, as a man who, while he swears to maintain lha Constitution of the country, and profess es to make the fulfilment of hts obligation to that country his paramount political duty, yet cherishes in his heart the principles of latent treason. I may be allowed, without the imputation of vanity, to make one more direct allusion to myself and my creed. And sir, clearly and distinctly do I deny that the power of the Pope extends one grain beyond his spiritual relations with the members of his church, or impresses, in the least degree, upon the political allegiance which any Ro man Catholic of this country may owe to the government and Constitution ol the United States. And, sir, that this disavowal of a divided fealty may not be regarded as a mere gener alily, 1 give it explioitnesg by declaring that if, by any providence, the Bishop of Rome should become possessed of atmies and a fleet, snd, in a spirit of conquest, or any oth er spirit, should' invade the territory of the United Slates,or assail the rights of our coun try, be would find no mere earnest antago nists than the Roman Catholics. And for myself, if not here in this Hall to vote sup plies for a defending army, or if too old to take pan In the active dsfence, I should,if alive, be at least, in my chamber, or at the altar, imploring God for the safely of my country atjd the defeat of the invaders, [ap plause.] Mr. OBR reminded the gentlemen that applause was not becoming in a deliberative body. his" army as coolly and as complacently as on the misfortunes and punishment of any other ambitious monarch, and, safe in my iove of right, and , in the employment of my religious creed, and the comforts of my home, 1 could say, "Let the Volsctans plow Italy and harrow Rome." Mr. Chairman,l do not wish to attract at- i tention by declamation; I wish to slate sim- , ply and distinctly, but very emphatically, i wnat are the opinions of a Roman Catholic i as lo the influence of the dogma of Papal supremacy on political allegiance, and my own opinion I have given. But since some exception was made in my behalf—an ex- ' ception which I cannot ad mit, though I thank the honorable gentleman for the cour tesy with which it was expressed—and since it may be asserted that, as a republican and layman, I could not be supposed to under stand all Ihe relations and influences of the dogma of tho supremacy of the Pope, let me edd, that what 1 assert as my belief of the entire political independence of every Ro man Catholic out of Ihe Papal States—polit ical independence, 1 mean of the Chief Ma gistrate of that State—is fully held, and open ly asserted and approved by every Catho lic bishop and archbishop of ihe United States. I have not time here to quote from the Writings of all those who have published tiieir opinions on the subject, nor shall f have apace to copy them in my published remarks, but I may say that such are the views which I have learned from them in conversation, and such is the view of the late Dr. Eng land, a Roman Catholio Bishop of Charles ton, a divine whose erudition and whose well-established fame gave consequence to all he asserted, and whose lofty position in Ihe estimation of the sovereign PontifT, ren dered it unlikely that he would underrate the Papal power. Extract from a letter from Bishop England to an Episcopal clergyman, vol. 9, pages 950-51! " This charge which you make upon the Papists is exactly the same charge which Ihe Jews were in the habit of making against Ihe Apostles. From that day to Ihe present we have met as we meet it now. We have a kingdom, it is true, in which we pay no obeisance to Cmsar; but our kingdom is not of this world—and whilst we reader unto God the things that are God's,we render unto Ctßsar the things that are Csosar's. To the sue cessori of the Apostles we render that obe dience which is due to the authority left by Jeiiia Christ, who alone could bestow it. We do not give it to the President; we do not give it to the Governor; we do not give it to the Congress ; we do not give it to the Legislature of the Stale—neither do you; nor do tbey claim it—nor would we give it, if they did, for the claim would be unfound ed. We give to tbem everything which Ihe Constitution requites ; you give no mora— you ought not to give more. Let the Pope end Cardinals, and all the powers of the Catholic I world united, make the least encroachment on that Constitution, we will protect it with onr lives. Summon a general council—let that council interfere in Ihe mode of our electing but an assistant to a turnkey of a prison we deny its right ; we reject its usur pation. Let that council lay a tax of one cent ohly upon any of our churches: we will not pay it. Yet we are most obedient Papists—we believe the Pope is Christ's Vicar on earth, supreme visible head of the church throughout the world, and lawful successor lo St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. ■all this power is Pope Leo XII., eve thai a general council is in ctrinal decisions. Yet we deny Council united any power to li one title of our politicnl rights we deny the power of interfe > title ol our spiritual rights to the President and Congress. We will obey each in its proper place ; we will resist any encroachment by one upon the rights of the other. Will you permit Congress to do the duties of your convention Here is another extract lrom the writings of the same Roman Catholic prelate : " Kings and Emperors of the Roman Cath olic church have frequently been at war with the Pope. Yet they did not cease to be members of the church, and subject to his spiritual jurisdiction, although tbey re sisted bis warliko attacks. Any person in the least degree acquainted with the history of Europe, can easy refer lo several instan ces. The distinction drawn by our blessed Saviour, when ne stood in the presence of Pilate, who was the principle of these ruler*. They were faithful to the head of the church, whose kingdom is not of this world, but they repelled the attack of an enemy to their rights. You, sirs, acknowledge the authority of bishops, Suppose a bishop un der whom you were placed, proceeded to take away your properly, could yon not de fend your rights at law without infringing upon his spiritual authority 1 Are you re duced to the dilemma of being plundered, or of denying an article of your religion 1 Can you not keop your property, and deny the right of the bishop to tßks it away, and resist his aggressions, at the same time Ibat you aro canonicaily obedient? Can you not be faithful lo him as a bishop, and lo yourself as a man ? Thus, suppose the bish op of the Protestant Episcopal church o[ Ma ryland claimed some right which he neither had by your church law nor by law of the dilate. You may, andouuhi^^MiMflMh- HHHKiSw/8y tf' Maiiommedan, or by a Pagan. It is, then, untrue to assert, "as you have done, that a consistent Papist, and a dutiful subject of a Protestant administration, must be incompatible." Dr. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, one of the most learned of the Roman Catholic Church, asserts, positively, that the tempo ral power of which we speak was never claimed by the Church, and he challenges the production of a single decree or defini tion in which this power was propounded as an article of faith. "Such," 6ays the learned Bishop, "does not exist." Dr. Troy, Archbishop ol Dublin, in his Supplement to the Pastoral instruction, says: ; "The disposing power ol Pepes never was an article ol faith, or a doctrine of the Cath olic church, nor was it ever proposed as such by any council, or by any Popes themselves who exercised it." Archbishop Hughes, of New York, is e qually explicit on this point. . And I might fill volumes with citations to prove my posi tion 1 A council in the Catholio church in Balti more has expressed the same idea in the most emphatic terms. Mr. Chairman, since I began to speak here I have received a treatise by Bishop Spanl ding, of Kentucky, on this very subject, sus taining my view. It is a timely and accept able offering, by a lady ia the gallery, to the spirit of truth, and her influence will assist to promote and reward altenlidn throughout the House, as the woman's offering of oint ment from the alabaster box was scattered over the head of the Author of truth, while its fragrance was diffused throughout the chamber in which the offering was made. But I shall, of course, be asked, frhence Ihe boldness of the assertion against Catho lics, and whence the readiness lo believe the charges, if they are altogether unfounded ? Has not the Pope exercised the power of de posing monarchs, and thus of releasing sub jects from their allegiance ? Has he not in terfered with the temporalities of a sover eign, and thus exercised a power sufficient to justify the apprehensions of the timid, and to give some appearauce of probability to tho assertions of the bold, reckless, and unprincipled parly politician of the present and recent time t Mr. Chairman, as a Christian man and an American legislator, 1 have nothing but truth to utter; and I scorn to utter less than the whole of the truth. Undoubtedly, the Pope has proceeded to dethrone Kings, and thus to release subjects. History declares that more than one mon arch has been made lo descend from his throne by the edict of the Pope, and that the allegiance of his subjects has been trsns ferred, by that edict, to a succeeding mon arch, who however he may have obtained his crown, might have been compelled to lay it down at the bidding of the same au thority that deposed his predecessor. If then the Pope has exercised such a.right, may he not, should be ever have the power, renew that exercise ? That, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, depends entirely upon the foandation of the right, and the demand which may be made for its exercise. The question which concern* us here, and which arises out of the charges msde by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, is not whether the right has been claimed; but un what grounds this right was asserted. 11 it was a divine right, a right inherent in lite spiritual office of the Bishop of Rome as lha successor of St. Peter, then, sir, I confess it may never lapse ; and its exercise may be renewed with the reception of addition a! power. But, air, if it was a right confer red tor special occasions, by those interes ted tn its exercise, conferred by monarcbs for their own safety, and approved by the people for their own benefit, who were rea dy, willing and able to contribute means for giving its exhibition power, then it virould of course, cease with the change of circum stances ia which if was conferred; and those who invested the Pope with the right, be cause they could assist him with power, and because general safety required the exercise of that power, retained in Iheii own hnnds the right to withdraw or invalidate their for mer bestowal, and leave in the hands ol the Roman PontifTonly his spiritual rights over Kings or people, dehors the limits of his own temporal dominion. • To understand how the Pope ever posess ed any power over Emperors and Kings, and by such power, influencing their sua jects, we must enter more minutely into the circumstances of lite far distant age in which it was conferred and exercised, than the lime here allowed for a speech, or the space ne cessary for an essay would justify. We must enter into the spirit of the middle ages, and see how naturally Christian monarchs (then all of onecreed) formed combinations, and how much human fights and Christian principles owe to combinations; and jeal ousies which, while they distinguished, and really illustrated that period, would now be regarded, if they could exist, aa the resort of men of bad principles, to perpetuate ty rannical power. But such was the slate of the times, and such the unestablished condi tion of religion and civil government, that it became a matter of the deepest moment to Christian Princes, that Ibe latter should combine to support the former. And in combining, the Christian (Catholic) Princes formed a legue, by which peace, order, and religion were, as far as possible, to be main tained among them hy a reference to the in fluences which the Pupa, as a spiritual sov ereign wual.l naturally have to pnforoe tem poral and istniMfor)- ,M..i iiti .nj people, and with Kings through their people; and this influence was augmonted by the submissioh on the part of individual sover eigns to the decrees of the Pope, founded on the power which the united sovereigns had conferred on the Pontiff, and founded on that alone. Christianity, at that period, had not wrought ont its work of social good ; vice and disorder were rampant, and the passions of men seemed to be allowed indulgences little realized in these times. To secure something like order, religion, and cathslic ily, among the Christian nations, and to se cure the ultimate social eflects ol tho true principles of religion, the Christian I'rinces conferred upon the Pope a power, which previously he had not attempted to exercise; never, indeed, claimed to posess. The spir itual power was always admitted as of di vine light, the gilt of God. The temporal power was conceded, was conferred, by the Emperor and Christian Princes, not lo ag grandize the Bishop of Rome, but to enable him to decide betwixt them in their various disputes, and to keep alive the faith upon which the power of the Princes evidently rested. No one then pretented that the fight to depose a King was a divine right in the Pope. He claimed the power to cut off from the sacraments of the church all who da not conform lo the rules of that church, a right claimed and exercised by all churches, I suppose ; as every church surely must be a judge of the qualifications of its members, and must so far as its influence extends, ex ercise the power to bind and loose. That is a question purely theological, at:d cannot be discussed here. 1 certainly do no injustice to any one in saying that such was the disorderly stale of Europe, that, if dependence had not been placed by sovereigns in the influence of the Pope's spiritual power, no King could have maintained his possessions without aa ack nowledged physical superiority; and DO people could have retained a show ot free dom, could havo counted on life itself, if the avarice and bloody cruelly of the Barons could have found any advantage, or even momentary gratification, by sacrificing eith er. And this was not all. Il was admitted that every crowu should be held by the ten ure of Chtistianity in its wearer; and yet Paganism and infidelity ware continually grasping at the sceptre-* Kingdoms were constantly changing. Monarobs were dri ven from their thrones by violence; and their successors rarely thought of any other object lhar. the permanency of their own power. Meantime, Ihe Papacy was perma nent; and,*iu 'proportion lothe troubles, dis orders, and disasters of ti.e times, the Papa cy acquired strength; strength in the con stant appeals to its arbitration; strength in its unchangeable qualities end strength) it will be admitted by a reception and exer cise of duties devolved upon it by those who saw in the Papal power the only meaus | of saving Europe from ohaoe. Having sssertW that the political power of I the Popes, dehors their special and proper do- NUMBER 2. minion, was conferred by she Christian Prince*, mid that it was exercised hv ihe de mands and appeals of ihose who wore inter ened in ita object, viz : order, religion, and princely right, and aometiraea, popular right* I have only to aay that, of course no Pope thus receiving and thoa exercising hi* pow erconld, with truth, assert a divine right; or, asserting it, be could not hope to have that right permanently admitted. It hence follows that eooh a right never waa an arti cle of Roman Cathnlie faith. * It cannot be denied thai the spiritual pow er of the Pope, the adihitted/ure divino, waa a motive among others fbr conferring the political power, and, perhaps, also a motive for exercising that nower, and tho rever ence in whioh the character OR the POOP waa held by Prinoea and noblea, as well as Ihe people, gave great conaeqnenee to die deci siona of ihe Pontiff, right or wrong, and in sured prompt Obedience, when otherwise there might have been hesiianoy and even qalcitralion; No doubt, the temporal power conferred by temporal consent,%nd by B con dilution, waa mistaken for, arid admitted , by, certain weak persona at that time as the | spiritual power conferred by Christ, ahd sus tained by ihe Soripmres. But nowhere is the right to such pewer claimed, as ofdivlne j right, by the Catliojio church. In the Catholid^ ehnrnh, as in ell other churche#, there have been lound a few in dividual of less discretion than zeal, who have, from a mistaken view of the Christian # dutiea, thought it a merit on thefnaelves lb impure to religion a direct secular power which it was never intended by God", nor understand by good, prudent trinn, to e*- ercise. Wo see it in the careless writings of certain Caiholic scholars, as we find It in the preaching and discipline of many other denominations. But in the Catholic chtirCh those individual opinions have been discountenanced by the biihopia, and ir. oth er chuiches they have grown much out of practice; by all they are considered as ren dering unto God the things which are C sar's. The assertion by individuals, or the practice by a few Popes, of any Dower, doee not make that power right. That on ly is of faith which ie so declared, and which is for all times and ell circumstan ces. The most diitingiiished .instance of the exercise of the Papal power of deposing a monarch, is that by Gregory VII., (Gang aneli,) who excoritmunioated and deposed the Emperor Henry IV. The peculiar char aoter of iheae limes I have already noticed The peculiar character of Henly may l>e IftAtu* I wtrrormpiy WW*' nal, turbulent, cruel, blasphemous, hypocrit ical. He had violated his cotooation oath, and was engaged in enormities that drew, from every pari of Germany and the north of Italy, appeals to the Tope for thfe exercise of those powers which the PentifTheld from the Emperor; and when the Tope was exerci sing his admitted legal powers against the Emperor, Henry called a council, and oau sed'io be passed and promulgated a sentence of disposition against Gregory, the Pope. Of course, this drew from Roma a sentence of excomtnnnication, and excommnnioauon unless removed within a year, was to assist in working out dispositions. The Princes of Germany, even assembled to elect a succes sor to Henry ; but the excommunicated Em peror, in full acknowledgement of the pow er of the Pope, hastened to Italy, made sub mission, saved himself from dethronement, returned to his German home, fourfold mote a child ol the devil than he had been, was deposed, and died a miserable outcast. Though those events took place at a time and under circumstances when little regard was paid to the niceties of temporal distinc tions, yet (he Pope (Gregory) did not claim that hie action in depositing the Emperor was by divine right, because he knew, and all knew, that, by a law of the Empire, Hen ry bad forfeited the Impetial throne, and that the Pope was as much authorized to depnsw him for violating a law of the Empire as he was to excommunicate him for open vi olation ol the commands of God and the church. In a letter from Gregory VII., to the Ger man Louis, he, the Pope, expressly declares that he did not pretend to ground himself merely on the divine power of binding and looeiug, but on the la we of men—that is, the constitution or laws of the Empire, as well as the laws of God, and according to the last named code as well as the requirement of the former, Henry deserved, not only to be excommunicate, but also to be deposed of hie Imperial dignity. „ The most distinguished writer of the lime of Gregory VII., Peter Damier, shows that Gregory did not depend alone upon his spir itual power, but acted upon the authority of the constitution ol the Empire. If Gregory bad claimed, and others had admitted a di vine right alone to depose an Emperor, his apologist would soarcely, at such times,- have presented the smaller right of human authority. The following, from a work on the tem poral power of lite Pope, by Mr. Cossefin, fa directly to the point, and will illustrate this part of my remarks : 'From these observations it follows, in fact, first, that Gregory VII, the first that ev er pronounced a sentence of deposition against a sovereign, did not pretend tea ground his proceeding solely on the divine right, but on laws both human and divine. Secondly, that in the opinion of Gregory VII., and of his successors, as well as alt their cotemporaries, the deposition of an excommunicated Prinee was not • neces sary conseqneno* of exoommunicatioa, and did not follow from the divine power of binding and loosing alone, but from a spe cial provision'of a human law, and princi pally from the laws of the Empire, which declared deposed of his throne any Prinoo remaining obstinately under axcommanioa lion daring a whole year. (CONCLUSION NEXT WEEK )
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers