The Domain of Religion and That of Civil Governments
By H. F. Phelps
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. NO. 2.
The Domain of Religion and That of Civil Governments.
It would seem that enough had already been written upon this subject to make the question perfectly clear to all. But as it must be "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," and having a great desire to save some from the impending crises that are sure to come, when the very foundations of the government are laid in the dust, we will offer a few thoughts, added to what has already been said by others. It is only by a recognition of the rights of the individual in matters of conscience above all else, that there can fail to be a clash between civil governments and religion pure and simple. Of course there will be no conflict between the State and religion, when the latter is brought down to the standard of the former and made a part of it. But religion, pure, simple, undefiled, is not of the State or civil governments. It has no work in common. This becomes evident when we remember that worship, the right to worship a higher power, and to choose in regard to that worship, antedates every form of civil government. In fact, it goes back to a time long before there was any necessity existing for civil government, as far back as to the first created being. It extended to the inhabitants of other worlds, and to the angels of God in heaven. If this were not so, then the inhabitants of other worlds, and the angels, and man himself, were as mere machines. But this is not so, because some of the angels "kept not their first estate." This is evidence that these had the right of choice, to render obedience and worship to their Creator, and keep their estate, or position, or to refuse worship to the Author of their existence, and worship some other being. Thus it is clearly seen that individual rights of conscience existed even long before this world. And when man was created, he was "endowed" by his Creator with these same "inalienable rights," and given the power and the right of choice,—to obey or not to obey, to worship or not to worship. And in the right to refuse obedience and worship to their Creator was the right to obey and worship some other object or power. All this existed before there was any necessity for civil governments of any form or nature in this world. And if man had remained loyal to his Maker, if he had only made choice to worship that God who is above all gods, this world of ours would never have seen any such thing as civil governments. There would have been no necessity for any such thing. From all this it becomes evident that civil government is a measure adapted to man in his fallen condition. For, just as soon as man made the decision to have his own way, to follow his own inclination, to try the experiment of sin in disobedience, that moment he became a selfish being. And, with his eyes blinded to the rights of others, he began to infringe upon these rights, to overstep the limitation that bounded his own rights and their exercise. And at once arose a conflict. There was worship. But all should still have been left free to make choice for themselves. Abel and Cain both worshiped, each following the dictates of their own conscience, Abel, enlightened by the word of God and his desire to do the will of God, and Cain with his mind darkened by the perversity of his own disposition, determined to compel his brother to conform to his own form of worship. And Abel fell at the hand of his brother, a martyr to the very principles of liberty of conscience. Thus we see the necessity of civil governments. They were ordained simply to restrain the outward acts of selfishness of all those who would not restrain themselves. And as religion, or worship, was ordained long before, and men left free to choose each for themselves, it becomes evident that civil governments were not ordained to aid Cain or any of his descendants to enforce or dictate in matters of conscience. In fact, it would seem that the very first indication of a necessity for any form of civil government or civil law, was to restrain those who desired to dictate in matters of worship. Thus does it become more and more apparent, at every step, that the domain of religion is entirely separate from that of the State. This will be still more evident when we consider the fact that the work of the gospel, the work of redemption, is simply the carrying forward of God’s original plan of the free exercise of the will of man in matters of worship. The consequence of disobedience was to enslave man to his own selfish purposes and passions. And if God had not interfered, and again set the will of man free, nothing would have been seen in a short time but universal desolation, under the baleful influence of selfishness. For when God said, “I will put enmity” to the evil, in that very promise is seen, by implication, the love of the good, and the power of choice. And this before any civil government or civil law was in existence. Here was a hope held out to man, that all who would avail themselves of it could and would, by the power of God, be lifted out of this bondage of supreme selfishness, where they would be above the necessity of civil law. And it is only by the manifestation of this power of God that any individual is kept from overstepping the one limitation that bound him in the exercise of his rights. And so, then, the Christian, the man who takes hold of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;” is by the power of the gospel placed in a position where he can see and recognize and respect the equal rights of all men. And as he can and does recognize these rights, doing to all others as he would be done by, it is evident that for this man, and for all such, there is no need of civil law. There is no necessity for the power of the State. He depends upon another power, the power of the gospel, which “is the power of God.” And having this, which is the greater power, he does not need the lesser power, the power of the State, to aid him in the exercise of his rights in matters of worship. Neither will he look to the power of the civil arm to enforce institutions of religion. For having himself been brought under the power of the gospel, which is the power of God, and knowing that this is the greater power, he will only “beseech” and “pray” that others will place themselves where they may have the same power, and thus receive divine help to respect the inalienable rights of all men, which is religion itself, the very essence of the gospel. And so at every turn, at every “line” added to a “line,” and every “precept” added to a “precept,” it becomes more and more evident that civil governments and civil laws are not made for religion or religious institutions, but for the “lawless and for the disobedient.” The church has one work, and the State has another. The church, through the power of the gospel, goes out “into all the world,” and offers this power of the gospel to all men. And all who will accept of it, in its fullness and power, will be given the power to live within the limitations that were set by his Creator, in the exercise of his individual rights. And this is Christianity. This is the power of the gospel, the power of God. But all those who cannot be induced to accept of this power found in the gospel of Christ, will be left to the buffetings of Satan, and continually tempted to overstep the boundaries within which he can exercise his rights, and invade the rights of another by overt acts, that are unjust, and result in depriving another of his rights; and so the State steps in by its authority in its laws and by599their penalties, and says you must not do this. And this is the power of the State. This is the province of the State. This is the domain of civil governments. Their work is simply supplemental and inferior. Then shall the church come down from her high and holy calling, and seek to secure the aid of an inferior power? Shall the Christian ask civil governments to engage in that for which they are not ordained? And when they seek the aid of the lesser power, is it not an evidence that they have lost connection with that power which is supreme? Are they not asking another king, that they may appear like the nations around?