The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-16

feelings physical suhernRs-and Wnen Inc
Of the martyrs have overcome the terrible
efforts OF the orures have put the seal OF death upon
the principles and professions of fe But these are rare
in the battle of truth and the moral
philosopher well the christian commentator, who
seeks in snch extreme the general rule OF human
action win find his specsations little suited to the world
inhabt But and faith reprove such assump-
tons, and is morally free when in the face OF
torures and punishments felt impending. 1t requires
discussion satisfy the inquirer after truth that in
tense suffering affect the moral faculties as 10
their PERCEPTION and totally TO derange their proper
functions To tell he enjovs free moral freedom
WINE coerced by external force is TO mock at the just
principles OF intellectual action.
but 10 pass from these specuations to practical en-
curry desire to ask Archbishop Hughes what object he
had in view in this effort TO show that the human
circumstances With which il may be led, and
that it is therefore absurd to fear its thradom to
for the assumption OF this postulae both phys
cal and ethical in its character and unwilling
TO claim for any the naked right to in
terere with and to restrain or destroy the freedom Of
conscience. do not believe that Archbishop Hughes
would advocate such doctrine so understanding 1t; and
certainly 10 do would be bold experiment upon the
feelings of this country, which would be sure 10 be
frowped down by public indignation The difficulty Of
the position in which the Archbishop was placed result
ED the hand from the opinion entertained by him
that human law makers have the right TO egisate upon
questions Of religious worship and the other from
conviction that freedom conscience Is not within the
pale of human authority and the dilemma caused BY
these conflicting principles is TO be avoided sy reducing
leaving in its fortress but leaving also to the tender
mercies Of the municipal magistrate the power TO control
which persecution has devised and faith endured.
The grasp Is upon the shadow while the substance es
capes And the universal sentiment that he alone Is
free who is free from violence is rebuked as patent
absurdty originating in confusion OF ideas, which the
Archbishop kindly undertake-to make clear.
But, after all the learned writer will and that II re-
quired Calico plore tho human intellect, In
order to discover ard announce that the mind of man Is
beyond the direct Jurisdiction OF earthly laws 1t s to
measure the knowledge of the world BY low standard
indeed suppose that this obvious truth had long
COPIED its penetration In fact IL well known
the day Of the exodus from Eden, is with
the benefit of the distinguished prelate's labors.
But at best according TO the Archbishops showing
this branch of the inquiry degcnerates dis
QUESTION. The world chooses 10 call the freedom Of
terna action the freedom of con science which he con-
siders little better than sbsuriy BE but this
leaves the question just where II found it, change OF
nomenclature does not change the object which Is 10
protect the conscience OF man from human legislation
by DENYING to II jurisdiction those duties which
conscience dictates. And this is the very proposition
which Archbishop Hughes finally comes, and fights
against most manfully.
He precedes his statement however, with the dsclara
ti0 that assert the existence Of power capable
of destroying freedom Of conscence patent absury
because Coincidence without freedom Is not conscience
but for this very reason the freedom Of conscience is
beyond mans pcwer Its freedom Is beyond the reach
OF man. not because the faculty is invisible and intang
BILE but because 1t is indestructibe and unassaabe.
As would not msrepresent and do not understand this
process Of reasoning must leave 1t to some ether COM
mentator.
freedom of conscience in fact but synonymcs all
pressing the sane general sentiment that has
the right to follow the dictates of that moral guide so far
as he is not prohibited by law, either divine human,
and that it is the duty Of every government abstain
from all interference with this right, unless in cases
enjoyment Of this freedom in this sense has Of
the great objects Of wise in all ages and especially
SO in this, wherever the first notions Of liberty have
penetrated But will be remarked that this the
term freedom is rather jus ct norma loquendi than
Il predcates ON Of tbe 81 saS
1t belongs to the senent being Freedom Of speech is
the freedom Of a man to speak not the command
Of the vocal organs-freedom OF action to act-freedom
Of conscience obey and be governed by the dictates Of
that great monitor man is free agent Il all his pow
and faculties UNRESTRICTED otherwise he 10 not
Free always excepting however, proper legal restraints
4 from the class of injurious restrictions
terms cannot be- made the foundation Of great moral
deduction. But Archbishop Hughes has made them so,
and maintains that freedom essential attribute
Of conscience that without II the faculty itself would
exist but that being indestructibe its sdesruc
tbility is proof of its freedom 1t is obvious that he
Of the senten being of whose intellectual powers il
forms part for he will not deny-no will deny-thst
the individual himself may be deprived Of almost every
The Archbishop kindly accounts for and charitaby
cuses my erroneous views this subject by the soon
fusion OF ideas resulting from ignorance of his great
moral discovery Of the difference between freedom q
conscience and freedom of action in obedience ~ its die
tates. accept neither the charge the excuse
though indeed any participation in this assumed logical
heresy Of consequence, would my conviction Of
it furnish the least ground even OF self for
beyond me is the opnion-l may say, of the orlthat
this priceless freedom is the freedom Of action well
Of opinion and in conformity with the sentiment itself
i
ebalmed in the hearts Of the American people and It
is to be found self evident truth in school
Of the purest Of our patriots-ene 81 '' the wis,
| est and most accomplished Of our statesmen
the vrtuous aadson-has lett his testimony upon
in opposition to this assumption in his inaugural ad
dress in 1902 in which he enumeraes among funa-
mental principles the duty of avoiding the slightest in
reference with the rights Of conscience" not the alb
sract right Of thinking but the practical right Of decd
ing upon moral convictions and Of acting accordingly.
And who that knew James Madison will dare TO talk Of
the confusion Of his ideass
10 multiply specific examples Of the and true
ing Of this phrase would be profess and uncaled for
self with four other authorities all Of which have pecu
liar claims to the consideration of Archbishop Hughes
One is the celebrated jurist Vsel who, while main
tanning agreeaby to fashion of his age the right
the sovereign TO establish State religion and to make
that the only one openly proesssd sarns. reproo.tss
pal laws; and finally remarks must then be conclud
ed that liberty of conscience is natural and involabe
this kind should stand in need Of proon What is this
liberty Of conscience thus nvolable and the denial Of
which is sternly rebukeds Not Archbishop Hughes
power Of thinking, for man in his denied
that; but it 10 freedom from compulsion"-these are
the words Of the author without which this moral AGENT
invioabe should be- is violated TO the disgrace Of
human nature"
| have accidentally fallen upon two ether examples,
which place the highest civil Of the
Catholic church, and acting for tin signal opposition
to this pretenson Of Archbishop Hughes. They both
separation between the Catholics and the Protesants
The long and bitter contest brought to close in
Germany, IN 1882 by the treaty OF Neremburg radAed
by the Diet Of Ratsbon, by which this Emperor Charles
" Universal History, vol 90 p 3o2 granted elderly
of conscience" to the Pedestrians until the meeting Of
| general council In like manner, similar arrangement
made in France In 1861 when the States Of the king
dom, being assembled for that purpose, an edict
passed, which gave elderly Of conscience" to the HUI
guenots till the points In dispute should BE- settled bys
general council (see Universal History vol "a p 24s)
Three centuries after these solemn proceedings by
Catholic Emperor-an Emperor who abdcaed his throne
70 die in the bosom Of his church-and by the Catholic
princes statesmen Of Germany and also by the Ca
thoc government and statesmen Of France, IL IL dis
covered that these acts Of justice and Cancellation
patent absurdities and that these high authorities
were afflicted with confusion Of ideas" manifest
IL amenfable that the grants granted nothing for
that elderly of conscience is the power Of thinking,
which neither be given taken away by prince
| people.
One other reference and quit this branch Of the sub
ject but that will be TO Archbishop Hughes himself In
the very letter much Of which Is devoted to the
animation and condemnation of our proceedings, he
again again repudiatcs his principle By eoa-