The Athens post. [volume] (Athens, Tenn.) 1848-1917, 1855-07-13

y ~ .Isl. y. - ,.ssg' 81
op Hughes and .Bishl 6Yisentisk. who are
SO well known for thcif lSitfg oSinions. What
are the scntifiepts n ow nppeariDr from fine
to time 10 she dew Raafbsrs Of that Review,
/ bearing the above endorseme 1T on their GOV.
eri-, In that publicStionsf6s January, 1859.
Mr.. Brownson, speakiael DC athe power eyer.
cised over sovereiuns byPopes md Councils
in the Middle Ages" asi1 cor.troyertinp the
position of NJ. Gosselih, q GalHean writer
! who undertook to justify this power upon the
ground that the people and governmentsha had
sanctioned it, says: Il 49, ~
| This line Of argument would NO doubt an.
ewer our purpose most admirably, if we were
defending human gosernment; but where
what we have to.defehdis not q human gov.
ernmenf, but divinelS constituted and su.
pernaturnlly assisted al brotected Ghurcl, Il.
even if admissible nt III seems to us alto.
sether unsatisfactory 1t iseertainly unde-
niable that the concessions Of soyereigns and
the consent Of the people wefe obtained on
the ground that the Popes held the power by
| di', ne right, and that those plaxims or which
4 NJ. Iosselin relies fortha jus.ihcati5zlsef the
Popes and Councils in exercising it were that
the spiritual order, and therefore the Church
sthe representative of that order is supreme
"ho echDoia coNtTtipiS ttTe SuDlectpu TO II,
and to the Pope, as its supreme visible chief,
Popes and Councils in exercising authority
over sovereigns, even in temporals, were. ac.
cordng to those maxinie only exercising the
inherent rights Of the Church as the spiritual
authority, and consequently sovereigns were
bound to obey them, not by human law only,
but also by the law of God. Such ineontes.
tably. is the doctrine of the magnificent Bulls
of ST. Gregory and Boniface, and of the max
inns according to which 1t is attempted TO
Justify the power exercised over soveregns by
Popes and Councils. :
Moreover we confess that we are extreme.
ly averse to defending things in the history
of the Church which happen just now to be
unpopular, on the ground that they were au-
thorized by the maXms Of the age: that is
the public opinion of the time. We have vet
to learn that public opinion is infalible or oh.
ligatory. We are unwilling to receive it as
law, and cannot understand how an infallible
Church, deriving her knowledge nnd wisdom
from aboUe, can take it for her guide; far less
how, in case she adopts and follows an erro.
neous opinion, she cun plead in her justifics,
tion or excuse, that she only followed and np-
piled the maxim very generally received, not
only by the people, but by men the most en-
lightened and virtuous. Have we in the
Church nothing superior to human intelligence
and virtue! Is the Church dependent upon,
and responsible to public opinion, and there.
fore in nothing superior to an ordinary Pro-
testant sectl We own we had thought it the
office OF the Church, not to learn from public
opinion, but to instruct and form it---not to be
judged by it. but to Judge it-vnot to conform
TO the maxims of the age, but to use all her
power to make the age conform to her own
maxims."
'"Kings and lords. magistrates and rulers,
sovereigns and subjects, are under it (the
church) in all things alike, in things temporal
and in things spiritual. Whose denies this,
denies not merely the sounder opinion, but
the Christian religion itself.
"This established, we demand to whom,
under God, il belongs to keep. interpret and
declare the law of Christ. Whom hath, our
Lord constituted the depository, the guardian
and the judge of his lawl Certainly the Holy
Roman Catholic aud Apostolic Church, and
the successor of Peter, as the visible head or
supreme chief ofthat Church. 1t will not do
to say here that she is its guardian and Judge
in spirituals, and that sovereigns are its guar.
dians and judges in temporals. The commits
sion is to the church not to the State and no.
where can it be found that our Lord has made
princes as such guardians and judges of his
law, even in the temporal order He only
gives them authority to execute it when de-
clared to them"
Now. mark this-Mr. Brownson has declar-
ed in his Review-"I ever.think of publish
ing anything in regard to the Church, without
submitting my articles to the Bishops forin-
spection, approval and endorsement" 10
Such is the tone of the whole Catholic press
and Clergy. In March, of last year, what did
you witness in the American Senate! Lewis
Cass rose in his place. and made a motion
looking to the protection of American citizens
when travelling in foreign countries, in their
religious worship and the rights of conscience
He had ample reason for this, for the foreign
news was then full of items of religious per-
secution. He madeno allusion to the Catho-
lie or any other religion. But Archbishop
Hughes thought he knew who would be invol-
we'd in such legislation, and he instantly flew
at him like an incensed wasp. He wrote n
letter to Mr.. Casa, arraigning ard condemn
ing his motion with tone of confident supe-
rority and arrogance. (See Congressional
Globe, 1854, page 6S2) He comba.ted Mr..
Cass' vindicaion Of the rights of conscience
for American citizens when travelling in for
eign countries; maintaining that external
liberty of action according to conscience, in all
countries is regulated to a certain extent by
the enactment of positive laws" SIS there, >
he asked, "any practical differences between
country, (the United States, where there are
so many religions, and the legal Intolerance o.
her dominions (the Papal States) where therf
is but onel" Mark how this chief American
Prelate, protesting citizenship to the United
States, talks and feels about your country, u
and "our dominions.') And further, speak
ing Of citizens of the United States, he asks
rs Il expected then, in the project of Gen.
Cass, that they, too, shall have the privilege
ofliberty OF conscience in their peregrinatlIS,ns
among foreign Statesi" He replies:-"The
| oesnmptian of Gan Cnss Ia fallacvp Cen