Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-01-22

licanism but he is NOT precisely papist after o..
o,ca heart. lie denies, indeed, the last of the fou
articles, the one which asserts that the doctrine
decisions Of the Pope, are rcformabie, unless ac
cepted by the Church but we can find no wher
| in his pages distinct denial Of the first (of tn
four artcles) by far the most Objectionable Of then
all--the one which denies The Church all tempora
authority and asserts tie independence of soyer,
eigns IN te,npordts and which therefore aaDolcc,
fhe political atheism noo so rife Hrougliom fhe
cirtlized world. II is true, he defends St. Gregory
the Second, in bis conflict with Henry of Germany,
and boniiace the Eighth, IN his struggle for the
rights OF the Church, with Phillip le Bel Of France
but he does II on principles which the lowest CALI
can, OF the times of Louis NV mighk hape accent
ed, and by no means on The principles asseytedJy
those holy pontits themselves. He processes to fol-
low the popular theory of the excellent and learned
NJ Gosselin, and deriyes tie poaer rrercised Jy tie
Popes orer temporals III tie middle ages, from the
concessions OF sovcreigns, the consent Of the peo-
pie, the public law OF the time, and the maxims
then generally received, not from the express
grant OF power by our Lord to Peter, nor net iran,
the Inherent u'icersal supremacy Of tie spiritual
| order >
| He must, therefore, hold that power to be of
human origin, and its possession mere accident
in the history Of the Church. This, with many for
whom We have profound reverence, is at present
favorite method Of defending the power exercised
over soverigns by Popcs and councils in the Mid
die Ages---A power always odious to tyrants and
demagogues, and phich, IL is graucky asserted, is
no longer he'd on claimed By he successors of ST.
i'aer' This line of argument would no
doubt answer our purpose most admirably if we
were defending human governpent, but where
what we have to defend is not human govern-
mcnt but adiviney-eonstituted and supernaturally-
assisted Churcl u, epen If admissible al all, seems
70 ns altogether unsatisfactory. 1t is certainly ul-
denable that the concessions of soveregns and the
consent OF the people, were obtained on, the around
that The Pope held tie potcer by dipi,,e right and
that those maxims on which NJ Gosselin relies for
the Jusihcation of the Popes and Councils in exer-
clslng It, We're that the spiritual order, and there
Jore fhe Chatrch as the representative Of at orce,
is SUPREME, and Temporal souereigns are SUBJECTED
TO IT and to the Pope as its supreme eisi6le CHIEF
ropes and Councils, in exercising authoritatively
over soveregns eUca in tenporals, were, according
TO those maxins, only erercsing teinherent righfs
Of the Church, as the spiritual authoritp, and.
consequently, sovereigns were bound 10 o5ey them,
not by human law only, bit, also, blythe law Of
God. Such, incontestably, is the doctrine Of the
magnificent bulls of st. Gregory and Boniface, and
OF the maxms, according to which it Is attempted
70 justify the power exercised over sovereigns by
ropes and Councils. Now, these naxims either
were true, or they were false If they were false.
now VIII you 1tsfyy an INFALLIBLE CHURCH ex-
pressly ordained of God to teach the truth in faith
and morals, and to conduct individuals and nations
IN the way OF holiness, in adopting and acting on
~ hein II they were true, how can you deny that
inc power exercised is of Divine origin, or pretend
tnat IL Is derived from the consent Of the people.
or the concession of sovereignsg
because the public law and the niaxims generally
received by nations have, in this respect, been
changed IN modern times, we cannot say theS-baye
lost far Ie.s abandoned The poUsr teg formerly
erei.eR over temporal affairs
aThey NAV not assert the power aor, because
now Il cannot be exercised Nth its proper tempo
raj consequences, but because they do not nor as
sert IL, we are not to conclude that they do not
nor possess IL, or that they do not hold IL by
Divine rigMr
Again, on page "a
"Therc have crept into the Catholic camp not
few gross errors in regard to it, (the claim Of
power which we have been considering,) which
are no less dangerous TO civil liberty and social
order than hostile to the Church, aud derogatory
10 the rights IF hir sovereign Pontif. 1t Is quite
the fashion for Catholic politicians to assert that
though the Church Is supreme in spirit,als, the
State in tcmporats is absolutely independent OF her
authority, render unto Cesar the things that arc
Caesars As long the Church keeps within her
own province, and confines herself to sptritHais
VIC respect her, and submit to her authority In
spirtuals we even recognise the authority of the
Pope, and allow that in them hc may do what he
pleases, but he has authority in temporals, and
in them we will do as we please
"Such Is the popular doctrine Of the day. and OF
/ not few who would take II as gross afiront and
as downright Injustice, were we 10 insinuate that
/ they are but sorry Catholics! Scarcely Catholic
amongst us engaged ia politics, can open hismouth
without uttering this doctrine, and uttering Il MS
II II were an uncomfortable truth and maxim Of Di-
vine wisdom
After long process of reasoning from historical
facts and the maxims and practice Of the Church,
and the inherent qualities claimed for II, Brown
son arrives at this conclusion and asserts IL as tie
doctrine ofthe Roman Catholic Church"
"Shc must have the right 70 take cogni1aHos II
the ciity Of subjects since they are bound to obey
| the legitimate prince for conscences sake, and,
therefore, of The manner in phich princes dsehdr5
their duties TO their subjects aud TO judge and 10
declare, whether they have or have not forfeited
their trusts and lost their right to reign or to com
msnd the obedience of their subjects. The DEPos-
ING powER is INHERENT then in HER, 1.-THE church.,
as the spiritual authority and as the guardian ard
judge Of the law, under which Kings and Empc-
rors hold their crowns and have the right to reign
for it Opposing sovereign, dJsoiviig his subjects
from their allegiance, and authorizing them 70 pro
coed 10 tie choiee Of a aev soVeregH, she does but
apply 1te Lu,o Of Christ" &c.
Now, let us pause here for a moment and hear
what Mr.. Chandler has to say on these points lie
thus speaks:
Undoubtedly the Pope has proceeded to dc.
throne kings aud thus to release subjects.
| If, then, the Pope has exercised such right may
he not, should he ever have TO, renew that exer-
else That, suppose, depends entirely upon the
foundation Of the right, and the demand which
may be made for its exercise. The question which
concerns us here is, not whether the right has
been claimed, but on what ground this right was
assorted II il was drine right, inhere,t IN the
spiritual office Of NE Pope IF Rome, as the successor
Of 81. Peter, then confess, sir u may never IL
CAN nercr lapse, and its exercise may be re.
pc,ced with the reception Of addition power. But
sir, IL 1t was right conferred for special oc.
cdsions, by those interested in it's exercise, con
ferred by monarchs for their own safety, aud ap.
proved by the people for their own benefit, who
were ready, willing, and able to contribute means
for giving its exhibition power, then IL would Of
course cease Nth The change Of circumstances IN
which It was conferred; and those who invested
the Pope with the right because they could assist