dom was
not of this world. And its two great branches, that of Rome and England,
were seduced into the error of seeking to obtain power through public
policy.

Rome exerted her influences through her praetorian cohorts, the
confraternities of mendicants and of Jesus--the Jesuits. Unknown, and in
silence, they were domiciliated in courts and in families, throughout all
nations; and some roamed as itinerants. The will of their general, on their
unconditional subserviency to his behest, seemed to create an almost
omnipresent power to be controlled by Rome alone. Has not the exercise of
it been exemplified in the inquisition? Was it not felt in the massacre of
St. Bartholomew? I will not stop to ask the power and control of a Madame
Maintenon, or Du Barry: nor whose influences controlled them. Does not all
history portray their one effort?

But has not the Church of England endeavored to obtain temporal power,
also, by interference in the affairs of this world, politically?

Shame! shame!! If the priesthood are honest in giving an undivided
allegiance to HIM, whom they {109} have taken an oath _only_ to serve; and
yet, whose "kingdom is not of this world;" how dare they violate that
obligation? "_Ne sutor ultra crepidam,_" &c.

But we in the United States are not better than our neighbors. Man is the
same everywhere, but for education.

And this brings us to the great, practical lesson, to which end all that
has thus far been detailed has been directed.

Americans! no matter of what nation you came, consider this lesson.

We have ignored and thrown aside the priestly fable of an anointment by a
man conferring an hereditary right to rule his brother man, by any family.
This _jus divinum regum_ is an absurdity, practically discarded by those
who assert it. What divine right has been granted either to Napoleon the
Great, or to Napoleon the little? Whence came it? By whose hands? How is it
preserved? Is not the same religious power ready to crown a Bourbon one
day, and, in spite of the hereditary _jus divinum_ already granted, crown a
Corsican (who has waded through blood to his throne) the next day; over the
very rights of the Bourbon, who relies on that _jus divinum_ as his title?

A divine right (if any) is here granted to both--to the Bourbon, and to the
Corsican. Can truth contradict itself? If there be a contradiction must
there not be error somewhere? {110}

This _jus divinum_ that began with the deification of