The star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1849-1866, 1855-02-08
SPEECH OF HON. j. n. CHANDLER,
IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,.
January IL, 1855.
(CONCLuSION.)

(IONI LUSiON.)
aThess important facts once proved there
is no difficulty in understanding how the
Popes could naturally cite, in support oil laelr
sentences Of excommunicalion and deposi-
lion sgains, Princes, the divine power o'
binding and loosing, though no! considering
i, as The sole Tide of that deposiug power
which they claimed. Ii is, in fact, evident
that, a, time when constitutional law al
,ached the penalty of disposition 10 excom-
municauon or heresy, the Pope's sentence
against such communicated or herelical
Prince was grounded both IN the divine
right and on the human law. Il was found
ed on the divine right, moi merely in go Tar
as il declared the Prince hereiicll or excom-
municated, but still more in 90 far as 1t en-
,ighiened the conscience Of his subjects on
the extent and limits OF the obligation aris-
ing from the oath OF allegiance which they
had taken to him. twas founded on human
law, also, in so far as ii declared the Prince
deprived OF his rights, in punishment OF his
remaining obsiinately in heresy, or excom-
municaiion. II is obvious, also, why the
Pope's sentence mentioned only the divine
power of binding and loosing; for il was on
iha, divine power that the sentence was re-
ally grounded, considered in lis principal,
direct and immediate object; for The depo
sition was effected by excommuncalion-
it's natural result. according 10 the cons'i'u-
,ional law then in force"
While have asserted, and with The little
time allowed me, referred you 10 the author
tiles upon which my assertions resi-, that the
Popes of the middle age did not declare that
their interference with the temporal powers
Of Kings and Emperors was authorized by
their spiritual commissions, as Bishops o
Rome and that their antagonisiic and sum-
mary proceedings towards offending sover'
eicns, with regard TO their temporal powers
of the latter, were authorized by a conslilu-
zion formed by these sovereigns or their pre-
decessors, I do not pretend TO assert that the
mower was always rightly used. ! do not
deny ambitious or vengeful motives 10 the
Popes. No'hing in my creed or theirs pre-
eep,s such a conclusion, and nothing in their
conduct renders such conclusion unIeason-
able. | only say that the spiritual power
here is not in question, ane there, and at that
time, the power 10 depose-power humbly
confeued-was never called in question BY
the deposed monarchs.
They admitted the constitutional right and
power, though they may have called IN
question the justice of the act With the
Justice oil the proceeding have nothing TO
do here, though may be allowed 10 say
that, however the Pope may have transsress-
ed the rules OF justice as between him ard
the deposed monarch, il is probable that, as
between The monarch and the people, there
was little occasion 10 suppose that any in
Justice had been done 10 the Prince, or much
likelihood or hearing complaints from the
latter. The Pope has struggled sometimes
with sovereigns, bu: never with the SOW
ereigniy. He has exercised a power volun
,sriIy placed in his hands by kings, and in
voked BY the people and he has dehronee
the monarch, but not analhemathized The
subject The Popes, in the fulhlmenl o
what the conscn, OF kings and the confidence
of the psorle have made duty, have re-
leased subjects from The oath of allegiance
10 The sovereign, but never have they releas
ed the sovereign from his coronation oath tc
respect, guard and rightly govern the people
Because have neither time nor space fo
such an inquiry, do no, pursue the subjeo
in detail. ! have taken The strongest case o
the exercise of the power of deposing mon
rarchs--which is now called the power O
releasing subjects-aad have shown lha
the Pope did not rely upon the general .spir
ilual power as head Of the Christian church
for authority TO depose the Emperor, bu
that he rested on, and was sustained by the
constitution which authorized The election
of an Emperor, and made orthodoxy on,
condition of holding the crown. And
would have been equally easy, general.
less difficult, 10 have shown that every in
stance Of such exercise Of power by thu
Pope was authorized by the admitted con
siitu,on or acknowledged compact, provides
that the offences OF the prince had broush
hIm wiihin.the operation oil The laws, whicl
all admitted to exist, and for the execution
of which all turned 10 the Pope.
Now. as this kind of secular power ha
it's origin in the consent Of the sovereigns, q
particular time, and long after The aposioli
age, il follows that moi only could il not hay
carried with il the jus diviao, which belong
10 tho spifi,ualpower Of the Bishop Of Rome
but that The proof of the existence Of tue res