Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-06-02
DAILY IIRGINIAN.
FRIDAY MORNING.. JUNE ?, 1851.


In the Senate on the s.religious rights OF Amefl
can citizens residing travelling Abroad ma
excited much attention. Its great length pre-
c,uaes lis publication entire in our columns. ant
We must, therefore. content ourselves by giving
the following synopsis from the Baltimore sun
The Senator introduced the subject by the as-
sert;on of the non sectarian character oi The
movement The object was to protect the Catbo-
lie in n Protestant country. and the Hebrew IN a
Christian country. well as the Protestant IN
Catholic country. IL contemplated, IN TACT 'h'
protection of the American citizen IN all coon
tries. This being the object OF the senator
motion. he expresses surprise that II should have
met with opposition from any one IN this land of
freedom aud religious equality. such an oPpo.
nent had been found in Archbishop Hughes and
the Senator comments with courteous ireeaohi
upon letter published by that divine IN the New
York Freeman's Journal, IN which the course nt
Senator Cass. IN some former remarks on ms
subiect in the Senate. as criticised, II not ar
rni,ynsd and condemned. with that tone OF eonfl.
dent superiority which ought rarely tohe as slimed
in rolemical controversy" The Senalor tells the
Archbishop that 50 far from the present motion
beinc "a new policy preached by Gen Cass, II
is the earliest policy OF the republic AZ A'cholsh-
ON Hughes ought 10 have known. With respect
TO the case Of the Madiai, which the Archbishop
had introduced into his letter, Senator Ghss quotes
the following from speech of Mr.. Fitzgerald.
Roman Catholic member of the British House OF
Commons
As a Roman Catholic member Of this House
/ have not the slightest hesitation IN expressing
nv uneauivocal disapprobation oi the most cruel
sentence that had been carried out upon the Ma
dali fHeer. haar!l Ii might be expected that
should go further. and express my opinion upon
the cause of that punishment. Nov, ] do not
know that on the face Of the correspondence,
am enabled TO form an accurate judgment as to
whether the law had been well applied or m'taP.
piled: but If | am TO understand that any per-
son fairly using the scriptures, or endenVorng by
peaeeahle means to propagate his opinions Is TO
be treated as guilty al crime, ! can never yield
my assent TO such doctrine. Hear hear
Indeed, il would come Ill from me M tathohe,
and from the church Of Which am a member II
such a doctrine were TO lac upheld, for they Ind
their society Tor tho propagation of The faith
Hear heer 4 This case ought not TO be con-
sidered as one between Protestant and Catholic;
il was one in which the civil aud religious liberty
of all was concerned. ], rs Roman Catholic,
win ever raise my yoice--ay, and II necessary,
my arm, to resist persecution of any KIND. 10
attempt TO coerce opinien bad, Mt all times, been
the mistake Of all governments"
The Senator next refers to Archbishop Hughes
remarks about the impossibility Of nterferng with
the freedom of conscience. The divine having
said that "to assert the existence Of any power
capable of destroying freedom Of conscience is
patent absurdfg' because conscience without
freedom is not conscience, and for this very rea-
son the freedom il beyond mans power" the
Senator replies
Tehe rights of conscience, the liberty of con
science, the freedom Of conscience, are in faet
but synonyms, all expressing the same general
sentiment, that every man has the right to follow
the dictates of that moral guide, so as he Is not
prohibited by law, either divine or human, and
that il is the duty of every government to alb
stain from all interference with this right unless
in cases fairly involving the peace and good order
of society. The enjoyment of this freedom, IN
this sense, has been one of the great objects OF
wise men in all ages, and especially 50 IN this,
wherever the first nations Of liberty have pene-
trated. But it will be remarked that this use OF
the term freedom is rather a jus Ct norma ioquen-
d. than strict application of it in its true mean
ing Freedom cannot be predicated Ola faculty
of the mind or body. Ii belongs 10 the, ss'ih'"
hdn 10 speak not the mere command of the
cal organs. Freedom of action, to act. Fred
ON Of conscience, 10 obey and be gortraed By the
dictates Of that great monitor. A man is free
agent, If all his powers and faculties are unres-
tricted; otherwise he is not free, always except
ing, however, proper legal restraints from the
clnssof injurious restrictions.
This somewhat motaphorcal application of
these terms cannot be made the foundation of
great moral deduction. But Archbishop Hughes
has made them so, and maintains that freedom is
so essential an attribute of consc enoe thai with.
out II the faculty itself would cease To exist TINT
being indestruetible its ndesructibility is proof
Of liz freedom. Ii is obvious that he is here re-
ferrng TO the free agency of the faculty, and not
OF the sentient being of whose intellectual pow
ers it forms part for he will not deny, N one
will deny, that the individual himself may be de
prived ot almost every attribute of free agency.
1.-The Archbishop kindly accounts for, and cha
rtably excuses, my erroneous views this sub
ject, by the confusion of IDEAS resulting from
ignorance of his great moral discovery of the
difference between freedom of conscience and
freedom of action, in obedience TO its Dictates.
can accept neither the charge nor the excuse
Though, indeed, my participation in this assum
ed logical heresy Is of no consequence, nor would
my conviction of il furnish the least ground even
of self-complaeency, for beyond mo is the opn-
ion, may say, of the world, that this priceless
freedom is the freedom of action, as well us opin-
ION and In conformity with il the sentiment itself
Is embodied la our constitutions aud State papers,
and Is embalmed in the hearts of the American
people, and it is to be found, as n self evident
truth, even in the school books which form the
minds of our youth
Zone OF the pnrest ofour patriots, one of the
wisest and most accomplished of our statesmen
the slrtnous Madison, has left his testimony upon
record in opposition to this new assumption, in
his'inaugural address in 1909, in which he emu
merates among our fundamental principles the
duty OF avoiding the slightest interference with
the rights OF conscience not The abstract right
Of thinking, but The practical right Of deciding
upon moral convictions, and Of acting according
IT, And who that knew James Madison win
dare to talk of the confusion Of his ideas
Authorities are next cited in support of mans
natural right to freedom of conscience Vntttl