Daily American Organ

AMERICAN ORGAN.
From the Raleigh Star.
Important Letter.
Fully Exposed!--Their eye-teeth are out at last,
they had to yield them up after many awful contortions of face. Brownson's letter sustaining the
whole charge which the American party has pre-
ferred against the Romish Hierarchy, has been
dragged out of them, and they now stand exposed
to the world as having attempted an outrageous
fraud on the honest voters of this District! We
do not wish the public to forget the history of this
letter. At a discussion in Warren county, between
Messrs. Shepard and Branch, the former charged
that the Papists claim for the Pope of Rome power
in temporal matters, or such control over the con-
sciences of the members of his Church, as is in-
compatible with and dangerous to the freedom of
the State, and cited Brownson's Review--(the ack-
nowledged organ of Papacy in this country) to sus-
tain his position. Mr. Branch, in reply produced
a paper in the form of a letter which he said
would blow Mr. Shepard "sky-high"--it was noth-
ing less than an original letter from the veritable
Mr. Brownson himself, addressed to a gentleman
in Warren county.
He read a paragraph or two towards the begin-
ning of the letter, and contended that it amounted
to a retraction of all the obnoxious doctrines
which he had contended for In his Review. Mr.
Branch folded up the letter with an air of triumph.
But no, Mr. Shepard desired to see the letter--It
was handed to him--he examined it, in his rejoin-
der to Mr. B. read the whole letter, and so une-
quivocal and direct was the claim of powers over
the civil affairs of kingdoms asserted, that Mr. B.'s
adherents hung their heads in astonishment and
chagrin. And how could it have been otherwise?
Why did not Mr. Branch read the entire letter?
Why did he attempt to keep back--to suppress
that very part which convicted his clients, the Pa-
pists, of the charge preferred against them? Did
not Mr. Branch know the rule of law, that the
whole of what a person says in a particular con-
versation, letter, or document, should be taken
into consideration to learn his meaning? Does he
not know that other rule which declares that sup-
pression veri is equivalent to the suggestio falsi?
Would Mr. Branch have continued to read "gar-
bled extracts" from the letter had not Mr. Shep-
ard exposed the whole of it? However this may
have been, the next day in the discussion at War-
renton Mr. B. repudiated his own witness--de-
nouncing both Brownson and his letter! To this
Mr. S. very properly replied that he had no right
to discredit his own witness.
He had introduced him to prove that the Amer-
ican party was wrong, and he had proved that they
were right, and it might be very convenient to get
rid of the proof by assailing him, but it would not
do--he intended to hold Mr. B. and his party to
what their friend, ally, and witness, Brownson
said, and called for the letter. He wanted Mr. B.
to give him up the original letter, or a copy, and
both were denied; but under the repeated demands
which have been made for its publication, the
letter has made its appearance! It was tight
squeezing, but it had to come. It never would
have seen the light if the friends of the American
party had been silent after the discussion at War-
renton--never! Let the letter be read and circu-
lated. It is the evidence produced by the oppo-
nents of the American party. It was written. to
an anti-American--called out by him--and given
by him to his candidate to be used against us;
but lo! out of their own mouths are they convicted.
of being the open and acknowledged defenders
of the Papal power. The "Warrenton News"
need not be alarmed. We shall not follow the
example of Mr. Branch, and "give garbled ex-
tracts from the letter," but "copy it entire," and
as copied, it proves all we wish. Look at it!
Can any man who reads mistake its meaning?
Can such language as the following be misunder-
stood?
"The Pope is the proper authority to decide
for me, whether the Constitution of this country
is or is not repugnant to the laws of God. If he
decides that it is not, then I am bound in con-
science to obey," &c.
What is this but the "higher law" of Seward
and Sumner? What is it but a surrender of the
conscience and judgment as to the constitution
and laws of the country, to the will and judgment
of the Pope? Reverse the case. Suppose the
Pope were to say that the constitution or a law
is repugnant to the law of God or the canons of
the church, would not Mr. Brownson and those
who think with him be bound to obey the Pope
and refuse obedience to that constitution and law?
Most assuredly they would! We ask again, should
men avowing such doctrines be trusted with office
under our government? If so, then let the de-
nunciation of Seward, Sumner and Parker cease,
and let it be conceded that as they believe that a
"higher law" than the constitution, declares the
Fugitive Slave law wrong. and against the law of
God, they are not bound to obey it! Is the South
prepared for such a doctrine? We warn our peo-
ple against those who have become the apologists
and defenders of such doctrines as are maintained
by Brownson and his adherents. He is the leader
and acknowledged organ of the Romish church in
this country. He speaks from the record. Will
the Protestants of North Carolina follow him?
But to the letter. We have italicised parts of it
to direct the reader's attention to them. Here it is:
Boston, June 12, 1855.
My Dear Sir: I have received this moment
yours of the 7th instant, with its enclosure. I am
a little at a loss to determine what course to take.
There are no numbers of my Review wherein I
have maintained the civil authority of the Pope in
this country; but as there are several numbers in
which I have discussed the relations of the two
orders--temporal and spiritual--I think I shall
open the whole, best answer your wishes by send-
ing them. I will therefore order my publisher to
send you all the numbers of 1853 and 1854.
You will find in the articles entitled the "Two
Orders," January, 1853, "The Spiritual not for
the Temporal." April, and "The Spiritual Su-
premacy," July, of the same year, the statement of
my doctrine on the subject; and in "You Go too
Far." January, 1854, "The Temporal Power of
the Popes." April. 1854, and "Uncle Jack with
his Nephew," for October, of the same year, my
explanations and defence of my doctrine.
May I ask you to read these articles in the order
in which I have named them? If you will, al-
though you will doubtless find much which, if a
non-Catholic, you will object to, I am sure you will
find no such doctrine as I am accused of holding.
The subject I treat has been much obscured by
controversy, and I am liable to misapprehension
by those who have not studied it somewhat pro-
foundly from the Catholic point of view. I treat
the subject only under certain aspects and for
Catholics, and many of the terms I use have in
Catholic theology a technical sense, which those
not familiar with that theology may misapprehend.
I say this in excuse of those who have misrepre-
sented me.
I claim (and never have denied for the Pope,
out of the Ecclesiastical States of which he is the
temporal sovereign no temporal or civil jurisdic-
tion, power, or authority, properly so called. The
only power the Pope has in this country, is his
power over Catholics as the spiritual head of the
church. It is a purely spiritual power, and can be
exercised only for a spiritual end, and even then
only over Catholics, for the Church does not judge
those who are without.
In matters purely temporal, I, as a Catholic, owe
no obedience to the Pope, because he has received
from Jesus Christ no authority as a temporal sov-
ereign over me. He cannot make or unmake the
rights of the sovereign or the duties of the sub-
ject--abrogate the former or absolve from the
latter.
Thus far all Catholics, whether the so-called
ultra-Montanes or the so-called Gallicans. are
agreed. The dispute lies not here. All agree that
the State is supreme and independent in its own
order--that is to say, in the temporal order. But
What I maintain is, that the temporal order is not supreme and independent, but, in the very nature of things, subordinated to the spiritual, since the end of man—the end for which God made him, directs and governs him by his providence—lies in the spiritual, not in the temporal. Every man who believes any religion at all, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, does and must admit this; for it is only saying that we must obey God rather than man, and live for the Creator rather than the creature. This premised, I think I can state to you, in a few words, the doctrine I do really hold.

Inasmuch as the temporal order is subordinated to the spiritual, it follows that the State is under the laws of justice, consequently the prince holds his powers as a trust, not as an indefeasible right, and therefore forfeits them when he abuses them, and loses his right to reign. This is the common doctrine held by all of us Americans, and all Catholic doctors teach and always have it. It lies at the foundation of all true liberty, and is the only doctrine that can ever justify resistance to the temporal powers. This right of resistance of power when it becomes tyrannical and oppressive, I take it for granted, is held by every American.

But here is a difficulty. The Church, following the Holy Scriptures, makes civil allegiance a religious duty, and says with Saint Paul, Romans xiii, 1-2: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but from God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase damnation to themselves." Here you see I am forbidden by the law of God to resist the power, and commanded, on peril of damnation, to obey. Here is my conscience bound to obedience, and my conscience as a Catholic can be released only by a declaration of my Church, as the divinely appointed director of conscience, that the prince of tyranny and oppression has forfeited his right, fallen from his dignity, and ceased to reign. What I claim for the Pope, as visible head of the Church, is the power to release my conscience from this religious bond, and to place me at liberty to resist the prince become a tyrant. This is all I understand by the deposing power.

The power itself, everybody, not a tyrant or a slave, asserts. The American Congress of 1776 asserted it, and deposed George the Third. The only difference is, some give it to the people, some to the individual: and I claim it for the Church, and the Pope as head of the Church.

The Pope does not in this exercise a civil power or jurisdiction, and it is called his temporal power only because it is a power exercised over temporal sovereigns, or in relation to the obligation of the subject to obey the prince. But even here the Pope does not relieve from civil allegiance, for that the prince had forfeited by his tyranny. He releases the subject only from the spiritual or religious obligation, superadded by Christianity to the civil, and this only in case of the Catholic conscience.

The Pope is the proper authority to decide for me whether the Constitution of this country is or is not repugnant to the laws of God. If he decides that it is not, as he has decided, then I am bound in conscience to obey every law made in accordance with it; and under no circumstances can he absolve me from my obligation to obey, or interfere with the administration of government under it, for the civil government is free to do according to its constitution whatever it pleases, that is not repugnant to the laws of God, or to natural justice. That it is free to do more than that, I presume no man in this country will pretend.

I have made these remarks to aid you to understand the doctrine of the articles to which I have called your attention.

You are a stranger to me, but I take you to be a serious-minded man, and a lover of truth and justice; as such I have addressed you. I have no doctrines or opinions that I wish to conceal. I am a Catholic. As such, I aim to be true to my God, and to my fellow men.

I have the honor to be your obedient servant,

O. A. BROWNSON.

HUGH J. DAVIS, Esq., Warrenton, N. C.