HI THE BLESSINGS OP GOVERNMENT, T.nrr; THE DEWS OF HEAVEN, SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED ALIKE UPON THE HIGH AND THE LOW, THE EICH AND THE F002. XEW SERIES. EBENSBURG, JANUARY 25, 1855. VOL. 2. ISO. 17. Itlttt 5oftti. From the Illustrated London News. BY TUB ALMA RIVBH. "Willie, fold your little hands ; Let it drop that " soldier" toy, Look where father's picture stands, Father, that here kissed his boy ' Not a month since father kind, Who this night may never mind , Mother's sob, my Willie dear, Cry out loud that He may hear ; Who is God of Battles say " God keep my father safe this day By the Alma River ! Ask no more, child- Never heed -- Either Russ, or Frank, or Turk Xight of nations trampled creed Chance-poised victory's bloody work ; Any flag i' the wind may roll. On thy heights, Sevastopol! Willie, all to you or me Is that spot where'er it be, Where he stands no other word Stands God sure the child's prayer heard ! Near the Alma river. Willie, listen to the bells, Ringing in the town to-day ; That's for victory. No knell swells. For the many swept away : Hundreds, thousands ! Let us weep, "Wc who meed not just to keep Reason clear in thought and brain Till the morning come again ; . - Till the third dread morning tell Who they were that fought and -feU.f By the Alma river. Come we'll lay us down, my child ; Poor the bed is poor and hard j But thy father, far exiled, , Sleeps upon the open sward, Dreaming of us two at home ; Or beneath the starry dome. Digs out trendies in the dark. Where le buries Willie, mark! "Where he buries those who died Fighting, fighting at his side. At the Alma river. "Willie, Willie, go to sleep God will kelp us, O my boy ! He will make the dull hours creep Faster, and send news of joy ; When I need not shrink to meet Tliose great placards in the street, That for weeks will ghastly stare In some eyes child, say that prayer Once again a different one Say " O Gen : Thy will be done. By the Alma river." A Humorous Sketch. The difference between courtship and mar riage was never more forcibly explained than iu the following "Charcoal Sketch." "What made you get married if you do not like it?" Why, I -wa3 deluded into it fairly delu ded. 1 had nothing to do of evenings, so I went a courting. Now, courtiug's fun enough I havn't got a word to say agin courting, it is about 3 good way of killing an evening as I know of. Wash your face, put on a clean dicky, and go and talk as sweot as molassos andy forau hour or two. to say nothing of the kisses behind the door as your sweetheart oes to the step with you. 'Wheu I was a single man, the world wag ged oa well enough. It was just like an om nibus ; 1 was a passenger, paid my levy, and hadn't nothing, more to do with it but sit down and not care a button for anything. iS'posen the omnibus got upset, well, 1 walks. off, and leaves the man to pick up the pieces. 1 Jiat then 1 must take a wire aul be hanged to mie. It is very nice for a while; but afterwards its plaguy like owning an wpset omnibus." "Now ?" queried Montezuma, "what's all that about otnnibusses?" "What did I get by it?" continued Garae 2iel, regardless of the interruption. "How much fun, why a yawning old woman and three 6quallers. Mighty different from court ing that is. Where's the fua of buying things to eat and thiugs to wear for them, and wast ing all good spreeing money on such nonsense for other people? And, then, as for doing as you like, there is no such thing. You can't clear out when the people's owing you so much money you can't stay conveniently. No, . the nabbers mast have you. You can't go on a spree, for when the missus kicks up the devil's delight. You can't teach her better manners for the constables are as thick as blackberries. In short yea can do nothing. . Instead of 'yes my duck,' and "no , my dear 'as you please honey,' and 'when you like', as it was in courting times, it's a darning and mending, and nobody ever darned and mend mv iTiTr .I'm so miserable I must ston and sit on those eteps." 1 "What's the matter now?" 'I am getting aggravated. My wife is a savin- critter a sword of sharpness : she cuts the throat bf my felicity, stabs my hap piness, cLops up my comforts, and snips up all my Sunday-go-to-meetins to make jackets for the boys ; she gives all the wrttle to the children, to make me spry and jump like a . lamplighter. I can't stand it, my troubles are . overpowering when I come to add them up." "Oh, nonsense, behave niee, don't make a nc: iu the fctreet, be a man , "How can I be a man when I belong to somebody else. My hours ain't my own, my : ucey un t my own, 1 belong to four people bsidos myself the old woman and four child ren. I'm a partnership concern; and bo many .lias got their fingers in the till that I must b" d the stock ca. it it wasn t that 1 am particularly sober, I'd be indiued to drink, its all owing to that I Ve Such a Ttain in mv tr'nmni nf mnminrra TEE TEMPORAL POWEi THE fBFL SPEECH OF THE HON. JOSEPH E. C HANDLES, IN THE house of representatives. January 11, 1855. In the National House of Representatives on Thursday, the House being in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, (Mr. Orr in the chair) on the bill " to provide for the establish ment of Railroad and Telegraphic communication from the Atlantic States, to the Pacific ocean, and for other purposes," Mr. Chandler, of Pa., took the floor, and replied at length to the recent char ges preferred by Mr. Banks, of Massachusetts, against the fealty of the Catholio -citizens of the United States. Mr. Chandler. I rise to express my opinions on a subject which ought never to have been introdu ced into the Congress of the United States; but having been brought hither and discussed, the suggestions of many friends lead me to believe that it is my duty to present, not merely my opin ions, but certain facts, in relation thereto. I purpose making some reply to the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Banks, who recently addressed tills House, in committee, on some or the prevailing topics of the day, and made special and inculpatory allusion to the creed of the Roman Catholic Church ; involv ing a charge of latent treason against its members, or at least imputing to them an article of religious faith that overrides all" fealty to the Government of the country, and would render them unworthy of publie trust suspected citizens, and dangerous officers. Before I commence my direct reference to the 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 ac quit mo of the charge of any attempt to obtrude those opinions upon others, or to press upon rry associates, publicly or privately, any defence of the creed of my church, or the peculiarity of its forms and cereiuouies. Believing, sir, that religion is a personal matter, I have avoided public exhi bition of my pretentions ; and, knowing the un popularity of my creed, 1 have been careful not to jeopard my means of usefulness, in their legitimate channel, by any untimely presentation of irrele vant and unacceptable dogmas. But now, sir, I think 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 the gentleman from Massachusetts wonld suggest to a Catholic, is expected frusa me, as the oldest of the few, the very lew, (I know but one besides my self in this House,) who are obnoxious toany cent-tires justly made against professors of the Catholic religion, and who may be directly interested in a defence from imputations of a want of fealty to the Government of the country, in c msequence ofthe nature of their obligations to the Catholic Church. If, Mr. Chairman, I had not long been a mem ber of thus House, and thus become able to farm an opinion of the honorable gentlemen who com pose it, I might startle at the risk of presenting myself as the professor of a creed "everywhere evil spoken of," and standing almost alone in the assertion of a fact which seems to be everywhere doubted. I stand, too, sir, without the sympathies of a host of partizans to sustain ma in my weak ness, and to jiardou me the infirmities of my de fence iu consequence of their attachment to the principles I advocate. I stand alone, indeed ; the generous defence of fered by the gentleman from South Carolina, "Mr. Keitt, and the gentleman from Mississippi, idr. Barry ,J was the magnanimous effort of men who would defend the pnjhisors of a creed wluch they do not hold. I, sir, speak for a creed wliich I do hold. I stand alone, sir ; but I stand in the Con gress of the nation. I stand among gentlemen. I stand fur truth ; and how feeble soever may be my effort, 1 feel that I may continue to depend, at least, upon the forbearance of a body that has al ways eutitlcd iUelf to my gratitude by its unfail ing courtesy to my humble exertions. Mr. Chairman. I understand the honorable gen tleman from Mas:'.achusctts, TMr. Bunks,! in his defence of the secret combination to put down the Cathulic religion in ibis country, by denying to its members the tull rights of citizenship, to assert that he does not bring into discussion the general creed of the Catholics, but only that portion which, it is asserted, makes the professor dependent upon the iJishop ot Home, not merely for what lie shall hold of faith towards God, lut what lie shall maintain of fealty towards Lis own political Gov ernment. Let me read a paragraph.from the pubKshed re marks of the honorable gentleman : ' Mr. Banks. I have no objection to any man of the Catholic Church, or faith. Here is our friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Chandler, an amiable, learned, and eloquent man; I might be willing to vote for him, Catholic as he is, m preference, per haps, to others nearer my political faith than he is. What he thinks of the Seven Sacraments, or how many he accepts is no concern of mine. To me it is no objection that he receives the interpre tations of the Council of Trent as to the doctrines of original sin and justification. It cannot concern me, and it can concern no man, that, as a matter of faith, any person cherishes the doctrine of tran substantiation, accords the full measure of Catho lic veneration to sacred relics or images, and ac cepts every article of the Niccne creed. Every man is accountable for his own faith, as I for mine. And even though my name were appended to the declaration, read to us by the gentleman from Mississippi, from the Pennsylvanian I might Etui vote for such a man, if otherwise it lay in my way to do so." I thank God, and the honorable gentleman, for that. I may think as I please on matters purely spiritual. But the honorable gentleman proceeds : " But there is another branch of this subject. It is a current belief that the Pope, the head of. the Roman Church, who stands as the Vicar of God, and is invested with liis attributes of infallibility, is not only supreme in matters of faith, but has also a temporal power that cannot only control Governments, but, in fitting exijncies, may ab solve hij disciples from their allegiance. I am aware, sir, that this is disputed ground. But it is a well attested historical fact, that often, in time past, the claim to secular power has been made ; and I am yet to learn, that 6y the Pope, or any general col$,lcii speaking with his acquiesence the only authorized exponents of the true faith that this claim has ever yet been disavawed. It HAS KOT BEES IJOXE IS ENGLAND. O O O J wiJl say that, if it bo. true that the Pore is held fcj be supreme m secular in sacred affairs, that he can absolve men from their relations with others notof the true faith, itis not strange that men should hesitate in support .of his followers. I would not vote for any man holding to that doctrine, and, I doubt not, other gentlemen here would concur with me in that feeling." ( The charge, then, against the Roman Catholic of this country is, that their views of the suprem acy of the Pope renders them unsafe citizens, be cause it renders them liable to be withdrawn from their allegiance to their own civil government by the decrees or ordinances of their spiritual superior. Of the cruelty of disturbing the public mind with such questions, and disfranchising well-disposed citizens, I shall not now speak. I shall leave to other times, and other persons, and in other places, too, the task of impeaching and developing the motives upon which such discreditable and un righteous proceedings rest. I shall leave to those who have more bitterness of temper than I possess, to show that, though newly revived, the charge is m old as the hostility of Paganism to Christiani ty ; and that those who are vitiating public senti ment in thus ministering to the appetite which they have made morbid, have their prototype in the maliQnants who would crucify the Savior ''lest the Romans come and take our city from, us," or in the Titus Oates of later times, who dis turbed the public mind of England by discoveries of plots that existed only in his infamous invention, and who, by his perjuries, sent men to the scaffold whose innocence is now as" generally admitted as is the corruption of a court in which such fantas tic tricks were played, and as the infamy of the wretch who could destroy the peace of an excel lent portion of the community, and send to the scaffold and block men of immaculate purity, mere ly to give himself a temporary notoriety, and a sort of political aggrandizement. That branch of the discussion I turn from with loathing and dis gust at the offensive details, and with horror at its intimate association with the men, the motive, and the means of modern times. I leave such consid erations to others, and proceed to take notice of that part of the subject which concerns the politi cal relations of Ameriran Catholics with the head of the Roman Catholic Church the character of the fealty which I, and all of the Catholic creed in this country, owe to the Bishop of Rome. The question raised by the gentleman from Mas sachusetts is one of political power, and that I im agine, is the leading objection to Catholics and to Catholicity with gentlemen who venture on the dangerous movement of dragging religion into the ToIiticaI arena. Mr. Chairman, I deny tli.it the Bishop of Rome has, or that he claims for himself, the right to interfere with the political relations of any other country than that of which he is himself the sovereign ! I mean and I have no desire to conceal ay point I mean that I deny to the Bishop of Rome the right resulting from Lis divine oflice, to interfere in the relations between subjects and their sovereigns, between citizens and their Governments. And while I make this denial, I acknowledge all my obligation to the church of which I am an humble member, and I recognize all the rights of the venerable head of that church to the spiritual deference of its children j and I desire that no part of what 1 may say, or what I may concede, in my remarks, may be considered as yielding a single dogma of the Catholic Church, or manifesting, oa my part, a desire to explain away, to suit the spirit of the times, or the preju dices of my hearers, any doctrine of the Catholic Church. I believe all that that church bcJLeies and teaches as religious dogmas, but I am not bound by the imputations of its opponents. I am not bound by the assertions of those who would make political capital out of denunciations of her children, or misrepresentations of her creed. Nay, more, sir ; and I ask the attention of gentlemen to my disavowal. I am iiot bound by any action 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 to secure to them the integrity of their possessions, and the perpetuity of their pow er. As I cannot accept the honorable gentleman's discrimination between me, as a Catholic, and other members of the Church as Roman Catholics, I must regard myself as involved in the general censure, aud feel that I stand charged, a national Representative, with holding opinions and owing fealty that may demand from me a sacrifice of pa triotism to a higher obligation ; pointed at, sir, as a man wha,-while he swears to maintain the Con stitution of the country, aud professes to make the fulfilment of his 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. Aud, sir, clearly and distinctly do I deny that the pow er of the Pope extends one grain beyond his spir itual relations with the members of his church, or impresses, in the least degree, upon the political allegiance which any lUimcn Catholic of this country may owe to the Government etnd Consti tution of tlie United States. And, sir, that this disavowal of a dividend feal ty may not ba regarded as a mere generality, I give it explicitncss by declaring that if, by any providence, the Bishop of Rome should become possessed of armies and a fleet, and, in a spirit of conquest, or any other spirit, should invade the territory of the United States, or assail the rights of our country, he would find no more earnest an tagonists than the Roman Catholics. And for my self, if not here in this nail to vote supplies for a defending army, or if too old to take part in the active defence, I should, if alive, be at least in riiy chamber, or at the foot of the altar, imploring God for the safety of my country and the defeat of the invaders. Applause. Mr. Orr reminded gentlemen that applause was not becoming in a deliberative body. Mr. Chairman. Or, if the spirit of conquest and cruelty should seize upon the wearer of the tiara, ' and he should seek to subjugate Italy by improper assumptions, and. by ermine, provoke the arms of other nations against his own city, I could look on the chances oi the defeat of his army as coolly and as comijaoentiy as on the misfortunes and punishment of any other ambitious monarch, and, ; safe in my love of right, and in the enjoyment of my religious creed, and the comforts f my borne, I could say, " Let the Volscians plow Italy and harrow Rome." Mr. Cha'uman,.I Co not wish to attract atten tion by declamation; I wish to state simply and distinctly, but very emphatically, what are the opinions of a Roman Catholic as to the influence of the dogma of the Papal supremacy on political allegiince, and my own opinion I have given. r But since some exception was made in my behalf an exception which I cannot . admit, though I thank the honorable gentleman for the courtesy with which it was expressed and since it may be asserted that, as a Republican and layman, I could not be supiosed to understand all the relations and influence of the dogma of 'the supremacy of the l'ope, let me add, that what I assert as rny lelief of the entire pplitical independence of every Roman Catholic out of the Papal States political indej-endence, I mean, of the Chief Magistrate of that State is fully held, and openly asserted and apprcT x by every Catholic bishop and archbishop in the United Slates. - I have not time here to quote from the writings of all those who have published their opinions upon tLe subject, nor shall I have space to copy them in my published remarks, but I may say that such are the views which I have learned from them In cooavtrsation, and euch is the Tiew of the late Dr. England, a Roman Catholic Bishop of Charleston, a divine whose erudition and whose well-established fame gave consequence to all he asserted, and whof e zeal for the church of which he was a distinguished prelate, and whose lofty position in the estimation of the sovereign Pontiff, rendered it unlikely that he would underrate the Papal power. Extract from a letter from Bishop England to an Episcopal clergyman, vol. 2, pages 250-'51 : " This charge which you make upon the Papists is exactly the same charge which the Jews were rx the habit of making against the Apostles. From that day to the present we have met it as we meet it now. We have a kingdom, it is true, in which we pay no obedience to Cicsar ; but our kingdom is not of this workl and whilst we render unto God the thin that ar God's, we render unto Cas&r the things that are Cesar's. To the suc cessors of the Apostles we render that obedience which is due tthe autlumty left by Jesus 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 Cyngrc-ss ; we do not give it to the Legislature of the State neither do you; nor do they claim it nor would we give it, if they did, for the claim would be unfounded. We give to tliem everything which Ute Constitution re quires; you give no more you ought not to give more. Let the Pope and cardinals, and all the powers of the Catholic world united, make the least encroachment on that Constitution, we will protect it with our lives. Summon a general council let that council inte-fere in the mode of our electing but an assistant to a turnkey of a pri son we deny its right ; we reject its usurpation. Let that council lay a tax of one cent only upon any of our churches ; we will not pay it. Yet we are most oftedient Papists we believe the Pope is Christ's Yicar on earth, supreme visible head of the church tliroughout the world, and lawful suc cessor to St. Peter, Prince of the A post'es. We believe all this power is in Pope Leo XII, and we believe that a general council is infallible in doc trinal decisions. Yet we deuy to Pope and coun cil united any power to interfere with one tittle of our political rights, as firmly as we deny the pow er of interfering with w.e tittle of 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 j'ou permit Congress to do the duties of your convention V Here is another extract from the writings of the same Roman Catholie prelate : " Kings and Emperors of the Roman Catholic 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, al though they resisted his warlike attacks. Any person in the least degree acquainted with the history of Europe, can easily refer to several in stances. The distinction drawn by our blessed Saviour, when he stood in the pretence of Pilate, was the principle of those rulers. 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, acknowl edge the authority of bishops. Suppose a bishop under whom you were placet!, proceeded to take away your property ; could you not defend your rights at law without infringing upon his spiritual authority? .Are you reduced to the dilemma of being plundered, or of denying an article of your religion ? Can you not keep your property, and deny the right of the bishop to take it away, and resist his aggression, at the same time that you are canonical- obedient ? Can you not be faithful to him as bishop, and to yourself as a man ? TTivis, suppose the Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Maryland claimed some right which he neither had by your church law nor by the law of the States. You may, and tight to, resist tlie ag gression. ' Yet you would not be unfaithful to him. Let the "l'ope be placed in tlig tame pre dicament ; I can be farrtjf ul to the Tope and to the government under which I live. I care not wheth er that govenm ent be administered by a Tapist, by a Protestant, by a Jew, by a Mohammedan, 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 in compatible." Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, one of the most learned of the Roman Catholic Church, asserts, positively, tliat the temporal power of which we speak was never claimed by the Church, and he challenges the production of a single de cree of definition in which this power was pro pounded as an article of faith. -Such," says the learned Bishop, "does nyj exist." Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, in bis Supple ment to the Pastoral Ius-tructiou, says, The do posing power of Popes never was an article of faith, or a doctrine of the Catholic Church, nor was it ever proposed as such by any council, or by any Popes themselyes who exercised it." Archbishop Hughes, of New York, is equally explicit on this point. And I might fill volumes with citations to prove my position. A council of the Catholic Church in Baltimore has expressed the same idea in the most emphatic ternTs. Mr. Chairman, since I began to speak here, I have received a treatise by Bishop Spaulding, of Kentucky, on this very subject, sustaining my view. In it is a timely and acceptable offering, by a lady in the gallery, to the spirit of truth, and her influence will assist to promote and re ward attention throughout the House, as the woman's offering of ointiaeut 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 as made. But I shall, of course, be asked, whence the boldness of the assertion against Catholics, and whence the rediness to believe the charges, if they are altogether unfounded ? Has not the Pope exercised the power of deposing monarchs, and thus of releasing subjects from their allegiance ? Has he not interfered with the temporalities of a sovereign, and thus exercised a power sufficient to justify the apprehensions of the timid, and to give some apperance of probability to the asser tions of the bold, reckless, and unprincipled party politician of the preseut and recent time 1 Mr. Chairman, as a Christian man and an American legislator, I have nothing but truth to utter ; and I scorn to utter less than the wholp truth. Undoubtedly, the Pope has proceeded to do throne Kings, and thus pi release subjects. - His tory declares that more tlmij one monarch has been made todeeend from his throne by the edict Of the Pons, and that the allegiance of his subjects has been transferred, by that edict, to a succeed ing monarch, who, however he may. have obtainr edhis crown, might have been competed to lay it down at the bidding of thasame authority that deposed his predecessor. If, then, the Pope has exercised such a right, may he not, should he ev r have the power, renew that exercise 1 That, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, depends entire ly upon the foundation of the right, an 1 the de mand which may be made for its exercise ? The question which concerns us here, and which arises out of the charges made by the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, is not whether the right has been claimed; but on what groi.n ls t!.i right was asserted. If it was a divine rijrht, .a right inherent in the spiritual office of the Bishop of Rome as the successor c f St. Peter, then, sir, I r confess it may never, it can never lapse ; and its exercise may be renewed with the reception i f additional jower. But, sir, if it was a riirl.t con ferred for special occasions, by th'iss interested in its exercise, conferred by monarchs for their own safety, and approved by the people f.r their n benefit, who were reaity, able aud willing to con tribute mcaus for ' giving its exhibition owcr, then it would, of course, cease with the change of circumstances in which it was conferred; and those who invested the Pope with the right, because they could assist him with power, and because general safety required the exercise of that power, retained in their own hands the right to withdraw or invalidate their former bestowal, and leave in the haudsof the Roman Pontiff oidy his spiritual rights over Kings or people, dJwrt th"e liioiu j, f his own teinjiord dominion. To understand how the Pope ever possessed any power over Enirors and Kings, aud by such power, influencing their subjects, we must enter more minutely iuto the circumstances of the far distant age iu which it was conferred and exer cised, than the time here allowed for a speech, or the space neceesary for an essay, would justify. We must enter into the spirit of the middle ages, aud see how naturally Christian mourfrchs (then all of one creed) formed combinations, and how much human rights and CliristUu principles owe to combinations ; and jealousies which, while they 1 distinguished, and really illustrated that period, would now be regarded, if they could exist, as the resort of men of bad principles, to perpetuate tyrannical power. But sucTi was tlie state of the times, and such the unestablished condition of religion and civil government, that it became a matter of the deepest moment to Christian Princes, that the latter should combine to support the for mer. And in combining, the Christian (Catholic) Trinccs formed a league, by which ace, order and religion were, a." far as possible, to be main tained among them ty a reference to the influen ces which the l'ope, as a spiritual sovereign, wonld naturally have to enforce temporal and temporary power with Kings and people, and with Kings through their people ; and this in fluence was augmented by submission on the part of individual sovereigns to the decrecsof the Pope, founded on the power which the- united sover eigns had e nfi:rred on the PoutiJ, aud founded on that alone. Christianity, at that period, Lad not wrought out its work of social g'Xd ; vice and di order were rampant, and tue passions of men denied to le allowed indulgences litlje realized in these times. To secure something like order, religion, and catholicity, among the christian nations, and to 6tcure the ultimate six-ial effects of the true principles of religion, the Christian Princes con ferred upon the Pope a power, which previously he had not attempted to exercise ; Lever, indeed, claimed to possess. The spiritual power was al ways admitted as of divine right, the gift of Gl. The temporal power was conceded, was conferred, by tlie fcinperor and Christian Princes, not to 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 ie then pre tended that the rifjht to depose a King was a di vine rifcht in tlie Pope. He claimed the power to cut off from the sacraments of the church all who do not conform to the ruUjs of that church, a right claimed an exercised hy all churches, I sup pose; as evty church must be a judge of the qualifications of its members, and must, so far as its influence extends, exercise the power to bind and loose. That is a question purely theological, and cannot be discussed here. I certainly do no injustice to any one in saying that such was the disorderly state of Europe, that, if dependce had not been placed by sovereigns in the influence of the Pope's spiritual power, no King could have maintained his possessions with out an acknowledged physical superiority; and no people could have retained a slwwof freedom, coutt have couuted on life itself, if the avarice and bloody cruelty of the Barons could have found any advantage, or even comentary gratifica tion, by sacrificiug either. And this was not all. It was admitted that every crown shoulj be held by the tenure of Christianity in its wearer; aud yet Paganism and infidelity were continually grasp ing at the sceptre.0 Kingdoms were constantly changing. Monarchs were driven from their thrones by violence; and their successors rarely though, t of any other object than the jiermaneiicy of their own power. Meantime, the Papacy was permauent;, and, iu proportion to the troubles, disorders, and disasters of the times, the Papacy acquired strength, strength in the coijiaiit ap peals to its arbitration; strength in all its un changeable qualities and strength, it will be ad mited by acception and exercise of duties devolved upon it by those who raw in the Papal powers the only means cf saving Europe from chaos. Having asserted that the political power of the Topes, dehors their sje ial aud proper dominion, was conferred by the Christian IVinces, aud that it s as exercised" by the demands an appeals of those who were interested in its object, vix : order, religion, aud princely right, and sometimes ptg ular rights, 1 have only to say that, of conrse no l'ope thus receiving and thus exercising bis pow er could, with truth, assert a divine right, or, as serting ji, be could not hope to Lave that right permanently admitted. U hence follows that such a right never was an article of Roman Cath olic faith. U eDnot be denied that the spiritual power of the Pope, the admitted jure dicino, was a motive among others for conferring tlie political power, and, perhaps, also a motive for exercising that power; and the reverence in which the character of the Tope was held by Princes and nobles, as well as the people, gave great consequence to the decisions of the Pontiff, right or wrong, and in sured prompt obedience, when othervyise lucre might have beei) Infancy . nd?ven ea titration. No doubt, tlw temporal power conferred by tem poral consent and by a constitution, was mista ken f'r, and admitted by, certain weak persons at that time as the spiritual power conferred by SThe Foreign Quarterly for January, 1836 says : "Ii the eleventh ccutury the 1 apacy f jught the battle of freedom." Anollon, uufriendly to the Pope, says. '"In the middle ages there was no sx-ial order; it was the influence -and power of the Popes thai, per hajtf? alone sa ved Euro -c from a state of barbarism. . i.- .w..vr tlmt ttieveutcd and staved the despotism of the Emierors,that replaced the want of equilibrium and diminished the inconveniences of the feudal system. - Southey says: - me i upacy vas iuoia,iy ami iutfllecteually the conservative power cf CLirston dom. Politically, too, it was the saving of Eu rope." And a Protestant writer, in the American I'n- cy yrlopedia. in article on Gregory 1 1 , says : The Papal power was for ages the great bulwark of order anna the turpuicnce oj w.v tuu-umw people of Europe." j Christ, and sustained l y the Scriptures. But no where is the right to Mich pt.wer claimed, as of divine right, by tltcGitolic Church. In the Catholic Church, as in all other church cs, tlre have lxxn found a few individuals of ess discretion than zeal, ho l ave, from a mista ken view if the Christian duties, thought it a merit on themselves to impute to religion a di rect secular power which it was never intended by God, nor uiiuctsUkxI by good, prudent men to exercise. We sec it in the careless writings of certain Catholic scholars, as we Cnd it in the preaching and discij line cf many othr denomi nations. But in the Catholic Church those indi vidual opinions Lave U-endis imtcuanccd by tLe bishops, aud in other churches they Lave grown, inu, h out of practice ; by all they are considered as rendering unto God the things w hich are Cos--sar's. The assertion by individuals, or the prac tice by a ft-w Popes, of any power, d'HH not make that power rght. Ti.-.t only is of f.utli which, is .. souctlare'T, :.id rLich is for all times and all lir cumstaiHfs. The most distinguished instance of tlu c xeruse of the Papal power of deposing a monarch, is that by Gregory Yll., (Gaugancli,) who cxcom municated and deposed the Emperor Henry IV. The peculiar character of these times 1 have al ready noted. The peculiar character of Henry may be learned from history. He was corrupt, venal, turbulent, cruel, blasphemous, hypocriti cal. He had violated Lis coronation oath end was engaged in enormities that drew, from every part of Germany and the north of Italy, appeals to the Pope for tlie exercise of those powers w hich the Pontiff held from the Emperor; and when the Pojie was exercising Lis admitted legal powers against the Emperor, Henry called a council, and caused to be posted and promulgated a scntepce of deposition against G re-gory, tlie Pope. Of course, this drew frtm Rome a sentence ot exctppimunication, and excommunication, unless removed within a year, was to assist in working out diqxutiiiutis. The Princes of Germany, even, asse-iubled to elect a successes to Henry; but the excennmunicated Emj cror, in fidl acknowledg ment of the power of the Pope, hastened to Italy, made submibsioti, saved himself from ele-throne-ment, returned to Lis Get man h me fourfold more a child of the devil than he had been, was depo sed, and diel a niL-erablc out;.-ot. Though those events took place at a time and under circunistan stances when little regard w.as paid to the nice ties of temporal distinctions, yet tlie Pope (Greg ory) did not claim that his action in deposing the Emperor was by divine right, lecanse he knew, and alj knew, that, by a law of the Empire, Hen ry had forfe ited the Imperial throne, and that the poje was as much authorized to de pose Lim for violating a law Of the Empire, as Le was to ex communicate him for ojien violation of the com mands of God And the Church, In a letter from Gregory VII. to the German Lords, he, the lVpc, expressly declares that Le did Lot pretend to ground Lunst-lf mere'ly on tlie divine power of binding and loosing, but on the laws of men that is, the constitution or laws of the Empire, as we'd as the laws of God, and, ac cording to the last uanied cede, as well as the re quirement of the former, Henry deserved, not on ly to be excommunicated, but also to be deposed of Lis Imperial dignity. The most distinguished writer of the time of Grcgorj' VII., IVte-r Puruier, shows that Gregory did not dej)tnd alone upon Lis spiritual power, but acted upon the authority of the constitution of the Empire. If Gregory Jiad claimed, and others bad admitted a divine right alone to de pose an Emperor, Lis ap i'ogist would scarcely, at such a time, have presented the smaller right of human authrrity. The following, from a work on the temporal power of thePeq-, by Mr. Gossclin, is directly to the point, and will illustrate this part of my re marks: - ' From these observations it follows, in fact, first, that Gregory VII., the first that ever pro nounced a sentence of deposition against a sover eign, did jue ietend to ground Lis proceedings solely on the divine right, Lut on laws both hu man" and divine. Secondly, that in the opinion ef Gregory YH. and ef Ms successors, as well as ef all their cotemporaric-s, the deposition of an ex coiiiuumicatcd Prince was not a necessary conse quence of excommunication, and did not follow from the divine power of binding and loosing, alone, but from a eci! provisie-n of a human law, and principally fi-oni the laws cf the Empire, which declared deposed of h:s throne any Prince remaining obstkiateiy under excommunication a whole j-tar. "These important foctsonce proved, there is no difficulty ia unelerstanding how the Popes could naturally cite, in support of their scutcuces of cx communication and deposition against Princes, the divine power of lindmg and lossing, though not considering it as the sole title of that depo sing power which they claimed. It is, iu fact, evident that, at a time when constitutional law attached the jenalty of deposition to excommuni cation or heresy, the Piie' sentence against such cxcommunicateel or Leretical Prinee was grounded both on the divine ri-ht ami on human law. It was foiineled an tlw ditiue right, not merely in so far as it declared tju Prince Leretical $r excom municated, but still nve in so far as it enlighten ed the conscie nce of his subjects on the extent and limits of the ol ligation arising from the oath of allegiance which they bad taken to Lim. It was fnmded on Lunian law, also, in so far as it eleclarod tl prince deprived of Lis rights, in pun ishment of his remaining obstinately in heresy or xcomruunication. It is cfcvious, also, why the Pepe's sentences mentioned only the divine pow er of binding and loosing; ft r it was on that dU vine power that the se-nteiue was really grounded, considered in its priiu-ipal, direct and immediate object ; for the eleinmkion was effected by excom munication its natural result, according to the constitutional law theu in force." While 1 have asserted, and with the little time allowed me, referred you to the atheiritie-s upon which Riy assertions rest, that the Popes of the middU) age did not declare that their interference with the temporal powers of Kirgsand Emperors was authorized by their spiritual cenmissions, as Bishops of Rome; and that the ir antagonistic and summary proceedings towards offending sover eigns with r -gnrd to their temporal jKwers of the latter, vrc authorized by a constitution formed by these sovereigns or their predecessors, I do n"t pretend to asse rt that the owor was always rightly used. I do not deny ambitiems or venge ful motives to the Pop.is. Nothing in my creed or theirs presents such a conclusion, and nothing in their conduct renders such a cemclusion unrea sonable. I only say that the spiritual power here is not in quo tien, and there, and at that time, the lwvvi r to e'eoose power humbly conferred was I never cajlod in question by the deposed mon- atehs. They adm'ited the constitutional right anel power, though they may have called in question the Justice of the act. With the justice of the pro- j reeding I have nothing to elo here, though I may ' L- a'U-v.-ed to say tVat, lmwevcr the Pope may ? Imvc transgressed the rn!es of justice between him j and the up fr-";! lnonnych, ijis jrobable jb&t, f 32 o 11
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers