Weekly conservative. (Aberdeen, Miss.) 1854-1860, 1855-06-09

him, we thank him wit pur whole heart ior hi
fidelity to Christ, andEHa give him the hghes
honor that we can giW;o true servant OF Coz
and benefactor of man nd'
1--WE yield to non in our loyalty to civi
government, and we d loyal to il, because We
are loyal to the suocsor of Peter. Rsligio,
eih Us gop0ns polilcs md tic Pope Is Lord o
Cdesar.'"
In his January nusber, 1854, Brownson re-
views recent work the Power of the Pope
by NJ. Qosseln, in Yeh the author either tao
lily denied or refrs to assert, the temporal
authority of the Chuh over Soyeregns by di-
vine right. In thas sview (page 6o) frown-
son states emphatny, that "Rome has ne,e'
been partial to tie the Hly, [excludlng hetempo-
raj authority of tle ]hurch by divine riShtl
and has shoan on np occasions than Gne ~llat she
tti'uts Of it," We y i've CONTINUES BrowIls
we have been forcela 2 -helieve : g. : . -
it.vea'igotiOn We hay iecn qbls 10 Gthsl 4 the
subject, the direct taoral authority VI the
Pope, as Vicar of Jes Christon earth.i We
do not put this FORTH l. Catholic dop,sz nor
! A
nave we ever inslsteenn it in our pages, but
we Go oelleve Cathollflogma requires us to
assert at least, the indie 1t power contended for
by Bellarmine and Stcz. unless we yould
forego our logic. Wlrtr GOING THUS FAR AT
LEAST, ALI. CATHOLIC Hlbey 1s TO Is A CHAOS
OF FuNlNTELLGInLE rActand CathoHcity itself
sinks very nearly to tlaleve ofsle Greek
schism and is not muchStter than hirl church
Anglicism.n "A
Mr.. Brownson then II leeds (pace 89) to
meet the position of NJ. 6scln--that the tenn
poral authority of the Pok was derived from
the jus publicum-and we bt our readers to no.
tice that this is the same abment used by Mr..
Chandler:
''The learned author seig to MS to use n
homely illustration. to putbe cart before the
horse. The Pope preceded IL constitution and
laws of the States of the Middle Arcs. and. rs a
matter of fact, gave law TO tim. instead of re-
ceiying his title from theml They y we'd
their peculiar character fromtim as car
of Jesus Christ. They did noEprine i4q%. Ms
tence without him, and then cAate him 81. .tpme
arbiter of temporal affairs, buAyere made what
they were under his arbtratoltp. We micbt
as well contend that the Creatt derives his au-
thority as Universal Lord frombis creatures "a
that the Pope derived his tempfal mri.dction
from the constitutions and lawswhicb he dicto-
ted or inspsred. The simple bet is, that the
constitution and laws of the Cdbolic states. in
the Middle ages, recognized th temporal SUI
premacy of the Church, and chformed to it,
but did not couter that supremacy. The Church
has by divine right power to ehct canons for
the government and interests of be Church. and
these canons, when enacted, bndall sovereigns
as well as subjects, and therefor, the civil all-
thority itself, in 20 far as they touch it. The
civil authority may or may not recognize them,
but their vigor as laws remains he same in ci-
ther case. The State, by refusing to recognize
them, may impede their operation but caunot
annul them. 1t may recognize them. conform
the civil law to them, or declare hem as far rs
they go, the law of the land; butin doing so,
1t Only facilitates their operation, it does not
give them their yigor as laws. The soyereigns
III the Middle Ages did not, historically consid-
cred, confer the authority on the Pope which
he exercised over them; they simply aoI;, ~,
edged it, and promised to abcf II 4 " "A A
N
sinner1e.
voo".o ana opcy the law of God; NJ
this, while it obstructs the operation of the ten
poral authority of the Popes. does not tal[tt
away, Or in the least affect their title to it, Vne
OF two things, ii seems TO us, must be admitIbd
If we have regard to the undenable facts in Ihe
case; namely, either the Popes usulpcd the au-
thority they exercised over soyereigns in ehe
Middle Ages or they possessed il hY virtue Of
their title as Wears of Jesus Chrisson earth.
We do not, therefore, regard NJ. Gdselin's The
ory as tenable, and we count his attempted de-
fence of the Pope, on the ground of human right
a failure
"There is, in our Judgment, but ops valid de-
fence Of the Popes, in their exercise x temporal
in the Middle Ages over sorereigns.
and that is, that they possess it by divine right,
or that the Pope holds that authority by virtue
of his commission from Jesus Christ, as the sue
cessor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. and
visible head of the Church. Any defence of
them on lower ground must, in our Judgment,
fail to meet the real points in the case, and is,
rather an evasion, than fair, honest, direct and
reply"
Mr.. Brownson adds that NJ. Gosscln ''cannot
be unaware that the doctrine he rejects, the
most logical, the most consonant to Catholic
instincts, the most honorable to the dignitvand
majesty of the Papacy, or that i has undcnia-
bly, the weight of authority on its side The
Catholic authorities are certainly in
favor of the divine right, andAh princpa au-
thorties which he is able to oppose TO t1o,n.
are parliaments, sovereigns. jurt consults, cour-
tiers, and prelates and doctoi5 who sustained
the temporal powers in their vars against the
Popes'" Mr. Brownson adds Gage 93);.
"The whole current of .histSy is against tho
author, (hfr. Gosselin) He ,annot adduce n
single official act ofPope or Quncil whicbcon-
cedes that the temporal authdity exercised was
held only by "a human title. All history fails
to show an instancYin whichthe Pope in demo-
sing temporal sovereign pplesses to do il by
thel' .horlty vested in him Iy the pious belief
pitthe flthiul, generally recfved maxims, the
ol, ? hsDl the age, the concdVions Of fsovereigns,
or tne civil constitution and iubic laws of Gath
oli9St!tes; on the contrarTbe always Claims
to j. il by the authority cfnmifted to him of
bindingsand loosing by IT, authority of Al
mighty God, of Jesus Christ King of Kings and
Ford of Lo.-, whose miniser, though unwor-
by, he asserts he'is; toShis 1--WE believe there is
uot single exception. : ", -.
cite their titles. they never. .,lsnr as wes.,sr
cite a hunlaf title, but dAine title. WI
is this? Did the Popes ctse false title? y
they Ignorant or theSr own title; or was thy Us:
scrtion of title mere empty form, meaning
nothing? This is grave matter, aud this fct
alone seems to us decisive of the question"
"Nevcr does the pope profess to depose. ny
more than to eXcommuncate, by virtue of nv
other than divine title. Whatever he doe,,in
the case, he always processes to do ii by his su-
preme jurisdiction Peter the Prince of the Apo,-
ties. That the Popcs wiltully erred, NJ. CSssc-
lin cannot pretend; that they held the theoog-
cal opinion which founds he'r power on diine
right, that is, as private doctors so probabl.--
He will, then, permit us to think that eyei rs
private doctors, the opinion of such ilioust5ous
pontiIIs asSt Gregory the Seventh, Alexa der
the Third, Innocent the Fourth, Bonifaes the
Eight, st. Plus the Fifth. and Sixtus Quftns
may weigh as much in the, scale as that 0 the
learned author of the work before us. Wear-
nit ourselvs to believe that these Illusions
pontiils knew the origin and ground Of heir
title as well as he does, and that, had theyycn
been acquainted with his theory, they wuld
continued with and act as they did We hcan
no disrespect to the author, but really weayc
no polence with his manifest rreverencaand
want OF fliol respect and devotion to the koly
See. Our Lord founded his Church on Iter.
and we have no patience with those WHO, NTH
good or bad intentions, are constantly laltn ,
to undermine its foundation. We may eribut
if we do, God grant it may never be in detng
to the successors of the Prince of the Ap,les
any portion of that power which he has c1fer.