CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
By C. M. Snow
By civil supremacy I mean the free exercise of governmental functions in the relations of man to man, without the interference of any sect or body of whatever convictions. I mean the right of earthly governments to legislate upon the conduct of their subjects according to the universal principles of justice. By ecclesiastical supremacy I mean the domination of the church in the control of matters both civil and religious, the result of which is the forced and unceremonious introduction of alien ideas into the field of religious opinion, the domination over conscience, and the offering of strange fire and foreign incense in the sanctuary of the soul. Some may say that in my definition of these two conditions I have done injustice to the latter, thinking that if ecclesiastical supremacy is the domination by the church in all power, both civil and religious, then civil supremacy ought to be the domination by the State in all power, both religious and civil. But such cannot be the case; for history shows that where the State takes the Church under its wing and attempts to hover it, the Church soon becomes the hovering power, taking the State under its wing,—or rather by the throat. Whether the State assumes control of the affairs of the Church, or the Church assumes control of the affairs of the State, it is bound to be an ecclesiastical institution in the end. If we say that civil supremacy is the domination by the State in all power, temporal and spiritual, and then such power end, as it certainly must, in the exaltation of the Church (whether that church be pagan, papal, or pseudo Protestant), we have virtually admitted that civil and ecclesiastical supremacy are one and the same. The civil cannot meddle with the ecclesiastical and retain its individuality. Let us now consider the relations which each of these powers bears to mankind. The great end of all civil government is the securing to all citizens an equality of rights, the protection of each individual in the possession of life, liberty, and property, and the punishment of those whose disregard for these principles leads them to their violation. The great end of the Church is to teach mankind the way of salvation. To teach, and that by the aid of the Holy Spirit, is the only means ever granted to the Church for the securing of its object. The work of the one is temporal, and its weapons carnal; the work of the other is eternal, and its weapons spiritual. The one is God's provision for the equality of men, and their enjoyment of social rights; the other is the provision God has made to satisfy the yearnings of the soul for a higher and nobler life, and the enjoyment of heavenly influences. The work of one ends with mortals and with time; the other, only with immortals and eternity. That two objects so important and yet so clearly distinct could ever become one object, be administered by one power, and that a carnal power, is as absurd as it is impossible. Let us now consider man's condition under the two forms. Under pure and simple civil supremacy all men are protected alike. The very fact of a man's being born into the world gives him a right to live in it, and to enjoy all the blessings and privileges to which existence entitles him. No man or organization of men can justly invade these rights. The organization of civil government is based upon them; upon their recognition depends man's happiness in the temporal state; and their acknowledgment is the sacred privilege of all just and true earthly governments. Civil government is made by man and for man. It recognizes his nature and frailties, and tramples upon neither until their exercise endangers the rights of others. It permits a man to do anything civilly right, prevents him from doing anything civilly wrong, and protects him from the incivility of man, men, or organizations of men,—so long as its legislation is untinctured with the dogmas of religion. Man is a religious being, and to worship is his right. If this right exercised does not intrude upon the life or liberty of his neighbor, civil government protects such exercise as a sacred trust, because it is man's right. It prescribes no rule for the exercise of man's religious inclinations; and for two reasons:— First, because these inclinations are planted within him by an all-wise Creator, who will prune them by his own hand. Man cannot regulate them, because no two men are possessed of the same character, and, consequently, would not prescribe the same rules. A man could only enforce what he supposed to be right, and the opinions of the whole world beside would have to bend to his ideas, when any one of them may be as near right as his. Secondly, as a man's religious convictions, or lack of convictions, cannot interfere with the rights of his neighbor, the civil law has no jurisdiction over them. But he may exercise them in such a way that the lives or property of others are placed in jeopardy. The civil government then very properly prohibits such exercise, for it is the business of governments to protect the lives and property of their subjects. All have a right to worship God; but to perform rites and ceremonies which you detest or in which you cannot believe, is not worshiping God, but the power which compels such performance; and this is idolatry, pure and simple. Now as to ecclesiastical supremacy. Some would have us think that under this condition we would see nothing but visions of angelic beings sprinkling the thirsty desert of the soul with the refreshing dews of heavenly grace, or the soothing of the dying sinner with the whispered promises of Jesus. But instead of this we hear the wail of tortured humanity rising from the black vaults of the Inquisition; and we see the smoke of fagots hovering in shame over expiring martyrs, as Satan and his associates wreak their vengeance upon the human race by the very hand of humanity itself. Some would have us think that the Inquisition with its accompanying horrors is not necessary to an ecclesiastical supremacy; that it is a relic of barbarism, and would not be tolerated by an enlightened age like this. How easily some allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by this siren song. It is just as necessary as it ever was, if we acknowledge the rightfulness of ecclesiastical supremacy. The Catholic says that the Inquisition is necessary to a perfect government. This comes from the fact that he believes in the right of earthly governments to legislate upon the commandments of God. They recognize the fact that the law of God reaches deeper than the mere act itself,—that it goes to the motive which prompts the act; and the only way the motive can be discerned is by the forced confession wrung out upon the rack. If you admit the premise, you must accept the conclusion, and that is the Inquisition every time. When the reins of government are thrown into the hands of religio-political zealots, and they begin to legislate upon man's duty to God, there is nothing so secret but they must find it out, and nothing too holy to be handled by them. They must take from man his personal relation of faith and obedience to God, and from God the pure and simple heart service which he demands. They cannot leave to man the choice of his own mode of worship. He must not study for himself the word of God and the plan of salvation; for thus would arise differences of opinion, and nothing is so fatal to State religion as differences of opinion. A State religion defines its own rights and the limit of its power. Against such definition there is no appeal to history, that is private judgment; there is no appeal to the Bible, that is heresy; there is no appeal to reason, that is rationalism. Freedom of speech it cannot tolerate,—that privilege which has made freedom possible and government tolerable,—one of the greatest levers in prying this country out of the slavish mire of despotic rule. The question is this: Shall ecclesiastical supremacy exist in this country, robbing us of our rights, ruining our republic, running men's religious opinions through a gauntlet of self-exalted criticism, attempting to pry open the doors of men's hearts, that the dews of heavenly grace may enter? Shall we not rather say, Give us that form of supremacy which recognizes the rights of all men, and tramples upon those of none? And having it, shall we not preserve it as constitutionally guaranteed us? And, instead of grafting the principle of religious legislation into our national Constitution, shall we not rather weed that principle out of our State constitutions where it exists to-day and is carrying on its nefarious, vindictive work?