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