. - *
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 )