of spiritual and temporal power in such cases, that it is very difficult to know where the spiritual power ends, and where the temporal power begins! Such difficulties have occurred from time to time; but I conceive that at present, and even for some centuries past the limits between the temporal and spiritual things which such commands of the Pope might affect, are so well ascertained that no mistake could, morally speaking, possibly at present occur."

"If the Pope were to intermeddle with the rights of the King, or with the allegiance which Catholics owe to the King, what would be the consequence so far as the Catholic clergy are concerned?-The consequence would be, that we should oppose him by every means in our power, even by the exercise of our spiritual authority.

"In what manner would you exercise that spiritual authority?-By preaching to the people, that their duty to God as Catholics, required of them to oppose every person who would interfere in any way with that right which the law of nature, and the positive law of God established in their prince, a prince whom we as subjects were bound to support; we would therefore exercise our spiritual authority, by preaching the gospel to the people, and by teaching them to oppose the Pope, if he interfered with the temporal rights of our King."-Com. Mar. 18, 1835. Report, p. 192.

One more witness as to the Catholic belief on this point, and we have done with it.

"I would not allow to the Pope or to any Bishop of our church, outside this Union, the smallest interference with the humblest vote at our most insignificant balloting box. He has no right to such interference. You must from the view which I have taken, see the plain distinction between spiritual authority, and a right to interfere in the regulation of human government or civil concerns. You have in your constitution wisely kept them distinct and separate. It will be wisdom and prudence and safety to continue the separation. Your constitution says that Congress shall have no power to restrict the free exercise of religion. Suppose your dignified body to-morrow attempted to restrict me in the exercise of that right; though the law, as it would be called, should pass your two houses and obtain the signature of the President, I would not obey it, because it would be no law, it would be an usurpation: for you cannot make a law in violation of your constitution; you have no power in such a case. So, if that tribunal which is established by the Creator to testify to me what he has revealed, and to make the necessary regulations of discipline for the government of the church, shall presume to go beyond that boundary which circumscribes its power, its acts are invalid, my rights are not to be destroyed by its usurpation, and there is no principle of my creed which prevents my using my natural right of proper resistance to any tyrannical usurpation. You have no power to interfere with my religious rights, the tribunal of the church has no power to interfere with my civil rights. It is a duty which every good man ought to discharge for his own, and for the public benefit, to resist any encroachment upon either. We do not believe that God gave to the church any power to interfere with our civil rights, or our civil concerns."-Bishop England's discourse before Congress, p. 25.

We regard these authorities as conclusive upon this point, and of course look upon Dr. B.'s assertion in this case as more unwarranted even than in the others.

On pages eighty-four and eighty-five, we find the charges above mentioned repeated in part, and in the same manner, by insinuation; and some of them more strongly than before; of these we wish to say a few words. One of these charges is that the Catholic believes that the Priests have the power of eternal life and death, in the bestowment or refusal of pardon. Let us examine this point a little. Among the canons of the Council of Trent, we find the following:

"Whoever shall affirm that under the New Testament there is no power to remit and retain sins &c., let him be accursed." We find also among the canons of that Council, one declaring accursed "whoever shall affirm that the ungodly can be saved without his preparing and disposing himself thereto by his own will," that is, by repentance. We find the Catholics of the present day declaring their belief that "the Priests can absolve all truly penitent sinners," and promulgating this Anathema:

"Cursed is he that believes that Priests can forgive sins, whether the sinner repent or not; or that there is any power on earth that can forgive sins, without a hearty repentance and serious purpose of amendment."* From these several declarations of the Catholic faith, is it not evident that Dr. B.'s statement is, if not untrue, at least unfairly presente?

Another charge contained in the passage referred to is, that no Catholic may read the Bible without permission of the Priesthood, or understand it but as they interpret.

The truth upon this subject, as shown by the examination of Dr. Doyle before Parliament, and the little work of Gother's, just referred to, appears to be this; the Catholic laity are enjoined against using any other version of the Scriptures than that which their church considers authentic, but that version is printed and distributed among them freely; and with regard to its doctrines, as far as they are expounded by the Church, (the infallible guide in such matters,) they must be received as expounded, or the person ceases to be a Catholic, and is excommunicated. If this is the truth, it has nothing to do with the political question, but is purely theological.

We now pass to the part before referred to, wherein those who control the Catholic Colleges of our country are accused,

Gother's Papist, Balt. Ed. p. 83.

-not of holding erroneous or dangerous doctrines, not of being from their faith bad republicans,—but of being knaves and deceivers. This charge, we would remark, if intended to apply to Roman Catholics at large, is not supported by a particle of proof; and if aimed only at those now having charge of the Catholic Colleges, is entirely out of place in a discussion of the tendency of the Roman Catholic faith, because it is a charge of dishonesty against individuals. But viewed in this light even, what is the proof of the charge?

On page ninety-two, Dr. B. puts into the mouth of a defender of the Catholics, these remarks: "The Catholics do not interfere at all with the religion of their Protestant pupils. They have no such design. They promise not to do it, and only require as a matter of decency and order, a conformity to the rules of the school."

He then goes on to show that the attentions of the Catholic instructors, and a familiarity with Catholic ceremonies will of necessity, exert an influence over the pupils. This we believe, but he does not stop here; he proceeds further to show that the Catholics wish to influence and convert the children placed with them, and states what is required of Protestant pupils in the various Colleges, such as attending worship, Catechism, &c.; "and all," he adds, (p. 97,) “under the trifling reservation of 'expected conformity to the regulations of the school.'" Now this is not the truth, there is no other way of stating the matter, it is not the truth, the "trifling reservation" referred to, is the reservation which he himself puts into the mouth of the defender of the Catholics, but the observances spoken of, are required under the published "reservations," which he has quoted in the same page, which reservations are specific and not general; and name as requisitions what he says are required under "the simple reservation," &c. In saying that the truth is not stated in relation to this matter, we do not mean that Dr. B. intentionally misstates, for the proof of his misstatement is given by himself; we look upon it as another evidence of the inaccuracy of a prejudiced vision.

He next proceeds to say that if the Catholic teachers promise not to influence their scholars indirectly, they "doubtless break their promise-to make confession of it to the Priest and be forgiven." No particle of evidence is offered to show that any such promise is made, or if made that it is broken; but the first is insinuated, the last asserted.

The next step in this strange series, is to give an extract (p. 99,) from a French periodical which is circulated among

the Catholics of Europe, with the view of engaging them in the promulgation of their faith in this country, in which extract it is stated that many Protestant pupils after leaving school become Catholics; and from this, apparently, as the premise, Dr. Beecher draws the conclusion that the promise not to interfere with the religion of the Protestant children is broken designedly, and in fact, originally made with the intention of breaking it. The passage referred to, and one or two stating the same fact, upon the hundred and first and second pages, are the only ones which bear upon this point, and we presume comprise the best evidence Dr. B. had to prove it, and we think all will agree with us in the opinion, that never was a public charge of intentional deceit, fraud, and lying brought against any respectable class of men upon such meagre proof, as in this case.

In one passage quoted on page one hundred, the Catholic Bishop of Kentucky speaks of "my Kentuckians,"-this the Plea gives in capitals, as an expression of great importance; we mention this as a puerility we should not have looked for: the same passage is again quoted, and the same horrible words again given in capitals on page one hundred and eleven.

On page one hundred and twelve, we find quoted the farfamed passage of (we think) Bishop's Fenwick's letter, in which he speaks of the "savages" and "temples of idols" in this Diocese of Cincinnati; it is left without a word of explanation by Dr. B., but was, we feel bound to say, written with reference to the Indians.

One more passage we shall refer to, and close our examinanation of particulars; it is the "documentary evidence" offered on page one hundred and fifty-four; this evidence is that of an anti-Catholic, and when considered with reference to what we have given before, will have, we think, but little weight; for even if the Pope still claims power over nations, and asserts the right of persecution, his claim cannot bind those who deny its authority, and his power in such matters: to learn what Catholics think, and are taught, their own evidence is the best that can be had, and much before that of the Pope, standing as he does, unsupported by any canon of the Church.

Before closing, we wish to remark upon the general or natural argument on this subject, which is briefly as follows:-it is natural for the despots of Europe to wish our overthrow; they control the Pope; the Pope and his cardinals appoint the priesthood, and the priesthood influence and control their followers; the despots will then naturally control the Pope, the

Pope elect the priesthood, and the priesthood govern their followers with a view to our overthrow: and as it is natural this should be the case, it probably is the case. This argument we believe to be the strongest which can be brought against the Catholics, and it amounts to nothing until it is shown to be probable and natural that the Pope should give our country an entirely corrupted priesthood, and that the priesthood should have wholly under their command, as to political matters, our Catholic population. And upon this ground of probability, we would suggest the following idea. In South America there has been a struggle for liberty, which was successful so far as throwing off the chains of despotism was concerned; France and Poland have been revolutionized; Spain and Portugal have been shaken by revolts; and Germany itself has trembled. The people of these several countries were in a great measure Catholics, and under the control of their priesthood; they were moreover ignorant, and accustomed to despotism; but do we learn, in any instance, that the Pope, through his priesthood, sought to bring back the people to servitude? The clergy, from education and interest, may have sided with despotism, but though in some of the cases mentioned, the example, considered so dangerous, was at the very door of Austria, in no case do we hear that Austria has through the Pope sought to destroy that example. Now, if this scheme for destroying liberty was not tried where the church of Rome had a strong foothold, and the people groped in darkness, is it natural or probable that it will be attempted in our land of comparative light, and where the Roman pontiff must build up* what was, in the other cases, framed and fashioned to his hand?

We have now stated, perhaps too fully, our objections to the Plea for the West; we have attempted to do this without using harsh language or unfair argument, though we feel sensible that our judgment may be under the influence of our feelings or prejudices, as entirely as we suppose Dr. Beecher's to have been. We may be in the wrong, and therefore ask not that any should regard our opinions; the evidence which we have pointed to, and the reasoning we have used, is all we think deserving of consideration. The author of the Plea we believe to have been influenced solely by good motives: a Catholic paper has pronounced the work "redolent of malice,"

"Generally, we ought to consider all the bishoprics of America as sees destitute of all resources, which can never be solidly established unless, for half a century, they are aided by rich and pious souls in Europe."-Bishop of Kentucky, as quoted in the note in Plea for the West, p. 146.