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

treaties with other nations there may more but that
number am sure OF, and shall advert to them again
for another purpose before closing remarks in which
the freedom of conscience, the liberty of con-
science the security of conscience, for these terms
are unfortunately employed, and obviously with the
same meaning is made the subject Of negotiation and
protection. II these rights cannot be violated
ional protection for them but solemn farce in which
Ignorance and imbecilty may contend for preemnenee
The principle advanced by Archbishop Hughes and the
illustrations in support OF it, are sadly inconsistent
with each other. But adhering to the former and
jecng the latter, he maintains that freedom OF con-
science is beyond the reach of human legislation but
external action which the world considers and Justly
the true freedom of conscience be the rghtful OBJ
jec Of control and while the former is shut up in its
fortress the latter be dealt with at the pleasure OF
the ruler cannot ascertain, from careful perusa OF
Archbishop Hughes remarks what practical Limitation,
If any, there is to the exercise of this power, for he
says This external liberty Of action in all countries IS
regulated certain extent by the enactment OF posi-
tive laws. In some countries the range Is WIDER in
csutinr the United The human conscience
braces its operations vast field OF duty the extent Oh
which it is not necessary for any purpose nav IN wem
to examine. dealing with practical question, WIN
the freedom of religious worship one OF the
the rights of conscience. Whatever ILLUSTRATIONS the
subect NAV receive other considerations these
but and design restrict my investigation
to the freedom Of religious Worship To the relations as
have said, between man and his maker The object
Of our proposed action is to procure for American ct
zens abroad immunity from local laws so far as these in
tsrfere with the liberty Of worshippng God With
meet to other CONSCIENTIOUS scrupes affairs e
BY which may be placed in opposition to municipal
laws the subject is not now in my way, shall not
as far as may be- the adoption of revolving to
the moral OF their people. But, sir say as said
on q former OCCASION am believer in what has been
falsely called the higher law for it should be called the
lower law rather no law at all as the principle in
voved it would be destructive OF all law leaving every
man free from the obligation of legal Obedience who
should declare he had conscientious scrupes respecting
submission; and say also, that if man is required by
law to what he thinks he ought not to do the only
course by which he reconcile his faith and his duty
IL to sit still and suffer martyr instead OF resisting
as criminal unless indeed the oppressive acts result in
hat was
the Apostles And he who believes that any other is
consistent with the maintenance OF social order Tor
single day in the face Of the Authorizations OF the human
intellect or of the pretexts human hypocrisy has yet
to learn the very first rudents Of the nature OF man
But the inquiry am making is into the rights OF
rulers not into the duty the ruled And this brings
to the true point, whether governments may right
fully control at their will the religious opinions OF
just authority to punish all who disobey their man
dates.
Now sir am going argue this topic at this day
and in this country-I shou consider time and
yours badly employed in such effort II there is one
principle in the range of political systems in which
the people Of this country united than in any
other is this very principle of the entire freedom OF
religious worship. belongs, they feel andk now, to
The kingdom Of God and the kingdom of man, and
shall therefore, conne myself to the consideration of
the views given by Archbishop Hughes upon this mo-
are distinctly stated and strange indeed are they to be
thus prese nted to the American community.
There two points involved in this branch OF the
subject which for the sake of precision, is we'll
to separate The first is the right of governments to
make conformity with particular Of religion
condition precedent to any share in their administra
ton either electors Office holders This princi
pie is my opinion, equally impoltc and unjust but
It not enter into the present enquiry which relates to
ahipher subject the freedom of conscience its immunity
from human and not to the freedom OF mere po
tca privileges This dscussion turns upon the claim of
governments to control the religious freedom Of their
people by prohibiting the exercise of any religious but
the dominant one esta6lahed by the state, or oy re-
am of the apologies for this monstrous usurpa-
which to be found in some of the European ee
nentary writer's They do not weigh one feather with
me- not enough to justify consideration OF their
yiews-arguments there are none Their day has gone
BY and contempts the only feeling excited in the breast
OF an American by such sentiments the following The
type of their class advanced with all due gravity by
celebrated perhaps the most celebrated writer upon
natural aw:-"T There is nothing on earth more august
and sacred than sovereign and why should God, who
calls him his providence to watch the safety and
happiness Of whole nation deprive him OF the direction
Of the most powerful spring (resion) that actuates
mankind? and therefore he has :" q right to examine
s doctrines and to point out what is to he taught and
what is to be suppressed in silence" And this expert
ent upon the credulty Of mankind is made by writer
who was contemporary OF Elizabeth and OF Catharine
the Second of Russia of Louis Fifteenth OF France and
Of George the Second of England four utterly
dbased in character and morals living in open conemp
the laws Of God and of the opinions of the world
This rchical monomania plays fantastic tricks with
the human judgment. do not refer to the rationa
that form Of government many countries, but refer
to that submaton Of the imagination by which the
wearing Of crown instead Of hat de,es the
be he King Log King stork giving him just right to
control the conscience Of his subjects, even, as oil ter
happens, when he has none of his own
s.My opinion says another eminent commentator
upon the law of nature and OF nations sis that the
preme authority matters of religion ought necessarily
TO belong to the sovereign If this is not intended as
upon human nature. l should soon think, at this
day of seriously undertaking to refute the dogma oil
the divine right to reign or TO establish the Jus. autho
that the regulation Of religious Worship is NOT
within the legitimate sphere OF political systems and
the earth Is not exte rded plain, round which the
heavenly orbs revove as TO enter agumentatvey into
either OF the other topics This freedom of religious
worship is an instructive persuasion-a moral axiom,
indeed the American understanding, which no dis
cusslon can shake, and discussion strengthen
He who does not feel it's truth possesses mental
ganizaton different from mine, that the sooner we
separate the field of augmentation where there is
common ground we can occupy, the better
II is not every vagary of the imagination, every
ebulion OF feeling every impulse of the passions
however honest the motive may be- which lay claim
to the rights Of conscience That great moral faculty
an improving one, and shoald be improved and in
structed by all the within our reach; and he who
neeects that duty will much to answer for 1t is
no excuse by the laws of God or man. that who
state Of sanity commits crime believes he was called
upon to do It, Certainly, were such doctrine estab-
hshed there would be little security for society, for
immunity from punishment would be sure to lead to
the relaxation Of moral perception and to the accommo
daton Of the conscience any temptations which might
present themselves Every man Is responsible for the
Of this endowment, as he liz responsible for every
other gift which God has bestowed upon him 1t Is not
enough for him say in self exculpaon thought was
right unless he the Of proper culture accord
ing the opportunity which his condition gives him
The human slator has the right TO separate preump
tuous unfounded pretensions at war with the just
constitution Of society from conscientious dictates pro-
gerly regulated and operating within their jus. sphere
Undoubtedly here is for abuse and oppression as
there be- less, in all human institutions
but In the very nature OF things from the
position Of the and governed And in
this circumstance Is found of the great blessings
OF free institutions which neither sacrifice the protec
ton OF the community, OF individuals but endeavor
10 preserve the ust rights Of both while the constant
efforts Of irresponsible power AMI OF governments not
depending the will Of the people TO crcumcribe
personal freedom and rule the mind, well as
the body Let not, therefore Archbishop Hughes dsducs
the right 10 claim exemption from aud all laws from
the position that there laws which carry with
them moral obligation and which the human lawma
ker has right pass The attempt ID equally hogi
cal aud The true object OF human
ment to protect In state Of society; aud 10 the
execution OF the duty thus deyovod upon them there
must necessarily be various notifications Of systems,
operating IN different parts Of the globe, and much la
tude Of discretion In their administration. stu In au
enquiry into the just rights 81 these in
TO their practical worAngt vain to tell Us what ~
have aussumed 10 90 for they have assumed g. 10 much
and have done much FOR which there neither author