CHAPTER V.
The Struggle between an alleged Jus Divinum Regum, and Popular Sovereignty.—And the Efforts now attempted to destroy our Grand Experiment of Self-Government.—Practical Results.
With the differences of religious bodies as to dogmas of faith, this essay has nothing to do; but so far as churches connected with any religion, interfere with temporal governments, by mystic confraternities, that is a topic directly within our scope. Any union of church and state must, from these authorities, appear in opposition to the unprejudiced action of the citizen in the government of his country.
The great struggle for political power, the contest as to the source thereof—whether a fancied divine right (jus divinum) in any family, or in an individual by anointment of a priest; or the free voice of a free people governing themselves by framing a constitution, limiting power in the hands of rulers, who are only their agents—is now undergoing a severe test. Of this, however, more hereafter.
The history of England, from the days of James II.—yes, even from Henry VIII., whose crimes form a strange contrast to his assumption of a title to being
head of a church—presents a singular contest for political power, by means of religious domination.
From the days of William of Orange, the parties in Ireland (which seems to have formed the battleground of these contestants) have been not only well-defined, but they have been organized in the most perfect mysticism, into Orange men and Ribbon men. Let the days of Curran, Grattan, and of the persecuting government tell that story. The blood of an Emmett has crowned a noble effort with martyrdom. His last speech will be read as long as school-books can perpetuate one of the finest efforts of oratory.
Meantime, a secret society still existed which softened down asperity, and extended the blessings of fraternity even among those arrayed against each other—not only there, but over the world. By its teachings and its obligations, universal charity was inculcated. Is there an intelligent Free-Mason who has perused our previous pages, but what has recognised the history of his own society from the origin of the Kabbalistæ? Spread everywhere, under whatever name, emanating from a common origin, recognised by common principles and instruction, enforcing the study of the liberal arts and sciences, teaching philosophy throughout the world, and the hope of a future immortality, it has, as a mystic order, taken deep root in every nation, but more so in republics, not having fear of an interdict, or other religious
fulmination. It has not and does not interfere in politics, nor seek political power in any shape. Like its brothers of old under Pythagoras in Magna Græcia, it teaches philosophy, and is well calculated to promote such education as must form true statesmen. So catholic is its every teaching, and such are its fraternal tendencies, that one church has placed it under ban. Throughout the world, whether among the descendants of the ancient Magi, the Hebrew Cabbalist, the Rosicrucian, or Templar, in the deserts of Africa, the forests of America, or on the wide-spread ocean, the symbols of recognition are known and received. Such have been its tendencies that spurious imitations for mere political purposes have been frequent. The Illuminati, the Carbonari, and other secret political societies have been supposed to be Masonic lodges. But it is a great mistake. The Kabbalists never interfered with, or acted in opposition to the Hebrew Theocracy. Their brothers of a later date have never interfered with politics, even to the present day; nor have they, in any wise, inculcated a single maxim at variance with their duty to God, their neighbor, or themselves. They have simply preserved and obeyed the original traditional instruction handed down to them.
Another benevolent secret society has sprung up, chiefly in the United States, calling themselves the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. This is a charitable confraternity, intended, mainly, to promote
benevolence, aid the sick and distressed, and cultivate the warmer sympathies of our nature. It is of modern origin, and in most things seems to be an imitation of Free-Masonry. It has been productive of great good in the accomplishment of its benevolent purposes. Having no leaning whatever toward politics, it quietly pursues its mission of love.
Thus, then, we have arrived at a point where we must pause.
The summary of the past seems to be as follows:—
I. From the earliest history of the world there seems to have been an effort on the part of those who pretended to control the consciences and religious views of others to preserve in their own hands, the predominant political power.
1. The first government recorded is that of Nimrod. He discarded patriarchal instruction; united tribes in cities; and formed their combination into an empire. The Magi controlled him, and, at his death, under the pretence of his deification, preserved his power in the priesthood.
2. In the extension of the Magi, every great leader, or king, was one of them; and obedient to the rules and instructions of their general, the Hierophant.
3. When, in the assertion of popular right, Pythagoras was driven away by Cylon, the then imperfect effort of self-government fell through. But little understood, its then dim light faded.
4. The society of the Kabbalistæ, part of whom
were afterward known as the Pythagorean league, as the Collegio fabrorum of Numa Pompilius, as the Liberi Architectonici of the middle ages, and as the Free-Masons of the present day; this society, I repeat, never interfered in politics.
5. The Christian church was tempted to forget, that Christ's kingdom was not of this world. And its two great branches, that of Rome and England, were seduced into the error of seeking to obtain power through public policy.
Rome exerted her influences through her prætorian cohorts, the confraternities of mendicants and of Jesus—the Jesuits. Unknown, and in silence, they were domiciliated in courts and in families, throughout all nations; and some roamed as itinerants. The will of their general, on their unconditional subserviency to his behest, seemed to create an almost omnipresent power to be controlled by Rome alone. Has not the exercise of it been exemplified in the inquisition? Was it not felt in the massacre of St. Bartholomew? I will not stop to ask the power and control of a Madame Maintenon, or Du Barry: nor whose influences controlled them. Does not all history portray their one effort?
But has not the Church of England endeavored to obtain temporal power, also, by interference in the affairs of this world, politically?
Shame! shame!! If the priesthood are honest in giving an undivided allegiance to Him, whom they
have taken an oath only to serve; and yet, whose "kingdom is not of this world;" how dare they violate that obligation? "Ne sutor ultra crepidam," &c.
But we in the United States are not better than our neighbors. Man is the same everywhere, but for education.
And this brings us to the great, practical lesson, to which end all that has thus far been detailed has been directed.
Americans! no matter of what nation you came, consider this lesson.
We have ignored and thrown aside the priestly fable of an anointment by a man conferring an hereditary right to rule his brother man, by any family. This jus divinum regum is an absurdity, practically discarded by those who assert it. What divine right has been granted either to Napoleon the Great, or to Napoleon the little? Whence came it? By whose hands? How is it preserved? Is not the same religious power ready to crown a Bourbon one day, and, in spite of the hereditary jus divinum already granted, crown a Corsican (who has waded through blood to his throne) the next day; over the very rights of the Bourbon, who relies on that jus divinum as his title?
A divine right (if any) is here granted to both—to the Bourbon, and to the Corsican. Can truth contradict itself? If there be a contradiction must there not be error somewhere?
This jus divinum that began with the deification of Nimrod, is still perpetuated though in other hands.
But we must look into this a little further.
II. Although the Theocracy in the days of Moses was of temporary duration, and human power afterward asserted a kingly right, was that divine right ever preserved? If divine, it is immutable. Does history show this? When Titus conquered Jerusalem, does not Jewish history tell us the voice was heard saying, "Let us go hence?"
III. History shows, among men, two classes who have governed others:—
1. Kings, emperors, and rulers.
2. Priests and clergy, controlling the superstitious feelings of mankind; yes, even these kings, emperors, and rulers, by mysticism.
IV. There have been throughout history two classes of secret societies.
One always endeavoring to govern and control the masses politically, by religious mysteries, &c. The other endeavoring to persuade to the study of science and philosophy, and trying to wean men from the mere struggle of this world's power, to a preparation for another world, into which we must be born spiritually, by human death, and as to which this earth is only the school-house. And this class has not interfered in any manner with politics in any country.
This bring us to the present condition of our own beloved country at this time.
A secret society, also political, was formed here, known as the Know-Nothings. And its secrecy was about to destroy it, when that secrecy, under the power of the press, vanished into mist.
But what was the origin thereof? And when, after gentlemen and statesmen controlled it, and expelled its rubbish, it assumed a powerful influence, and a new form, as an "American Party," what were the deep moving causes which led to its prominent position?
From the days of Nimrod to the present day, all history shows an effort on the part of a few to control temporal power, at the expense of the many. They have always acted on the superstitions of man to accomplish this end.
But the American theory (esto perpetua) is, that all men are free and equal in their political rights, when their intellect is that of control, not of servitude; and that the people are the source and fountain of political power. It cometh not from a priest. It is the voice of freemen speaking and acting through their agents, whom they select.
This antagonism is now to be severely tested in coming history.
What is the source of temporal power?
Rome, England, France, and other countries, say it is from "the church," meaning their own particular
designation of a religion. That it is a divine right communicated by priestly anointment, attended by public ceremonies, imposing in appearance, and "ad captandum," for the public eye.
The American theory, going far beyond the bare and imperfect teaching of Pythagoras, boldly asserts what is believed to be the true and only origin of temporal power, the free will of a people exercised through agents of its own selection.
For about eighty years past this first great experiment has been successful. But that success has induced the most insidious attacks of those who advocate the opposite policy. We must be watchful, or our liberties will be gone. The game they now play is new in history; but, it is one easily comprehended. It has been well said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
But two centuries since this land was the home of the savage. The Caucasian intellect, however, has assumed its supremacy here; and the Indian, incapable of mental culture, is gradually, but surely passing, like other forms of animal existence, from the world.
One of the highest efforts of the human mind, is the Constitution of the United States of America. The great principles of freemen governing themselves, as there enunciated, must and will necessarily be attacked by the asserters of divine right in temporal government. If our experiment succeeds the powers of Europe must fall, or undergo an entire change.
England's nobility must acknowledge, sooner or later, the equality of the commonalty and gentry with themselves. Distinctions in France have already gone, except as to the assertion of the power of an emperor by virtue of a priestly coronation.
The popular masses of Europe have only displayed their first, but, as yet, imperfect efforts to assert their political rights. It is the reflex action of the great principle we have successfully, thus far, practised. And will not the powers who have conquered the masses then thus far, use every effort to destroy this experiment of ours and perpetuate thereby their own existence? If we continue to succeed, our lesson to the world is the death-knell of monarchy and imperial power. Foreign powers and priestly powers are making this effort. And if we are doomed to fail, it will be by the DISUNION their emissaries here endeavor to produce. With us, again, is religious influence exerted. Servitude is recognised and practised in the south. But the clergy of the north have commenced a fanatical crusade against it. We should guard well against these influences, foreign and domestic, now operating against us.
As a part of the history of the times, it may be proper to give the rise and progress of the so-called order of "Know-Nothings." The plan of the organization was conceived by a gentleman of the city of New York, who, in 1849, prepared and embodied into a system, a plan for uniting the American
sentiment of the American people throughout the United States. It was meant as a combined resistance, on the part of the native American population, to foreign and papal influence in this country. The progress of the plan was so slow in its development, that at the end of two years, the number of members uniting in the organization did not exceed thirty. In 1852 the plan was examined by a few gentlemen connected with the Order of United Americans, another secret and American organization, but not directly political or partisan in its aims and objects. A society was formed, and forty-three members signed their names to it, and from that small beginning was formed a body of native Americans which, in a year or two after, exceeded, in the state of New York alone, two hundred thousand members. This state organization soon extended its ramifications all over the country, and is now known as the American party. It has held three national conventions, one in Philadelphia, one at New York, and one in Louisville, and is now no more of a secret party than either of the two great parties opposed to it: the national conventions having abolished all secret meetings, and the state conventions or councils having generally concurred in this abolition of all oaths and all forms of obligation but those of personal honor and mutual good faith.
The ban of secrecy had made it, doubtless, an object of suspicion. Its adversaries hurl at it these
unfortunate antecedents. But now all secrecy has been abolished, and the party claims to assert only, the great principle of an INTELLIGENT SELF-GOVERNMENT. They recognise the secret and insidious influences of the Jesuit, and deprecate it. They call attention to it, and to its increasing importance in this valley; but still, in the spirit of liberty, leave the Jesuit free to act as he pleases. They perceive that it is irreconcilable with freedom of thought and conscience to surrender, unconditionally, one's own views and thoughts to the will of any one man, whether he be at Rome or elsewhere. Still he is not interfered with. Let him act with all freedom. You can vote for him for office or not, as you please; and, here, we have reason to fear the secret influence controlled alone at Rome. But, with all this freedom, it is called "persecution" to say "I will not vote for such a man."
Let Europe send over all her emissaries, and our country tells them you shall have the protection of our flag. You shall think, and speak what you will, if it be not to the injury of your neighbor. But is there not a spirit of self-preservation which demands that eternal vigilance which is the price of freedom? Is it "proscription" in saying to another man, "I will not vote for you?" If you can not exercise your own will, where is your freedom? If a whig refuses to vote for a democrat is that "proscription?"
Then, if I believe another man has surrendered his
own will to the unconditional control of another, in a foreign country, can I trust him—regarding the antecedents hereinbefore referred to?
It has been said, perhaps unjustly (at least I hope so), that the teaching of this important society, the Jesuit, so deeply-rooted here, is, that "the end justifies the means." If this be so, and if they can exercise over the immigrant population from Europe the power imputed to them—all this also controlled at Rome by the general of the order and his monitor—where can freedom be preserved to us, if they can control a majority of votes here? In such case our liberties are gone. In such case, they have simply adopted and ingeniously carried out the ancient powers of the priestly Magi.
Has not an Englishman, a member of parliament, come to this country, and lectured in New England on the abolition of slavery, expressly to aid in creating disunion of our states?
Has not the leaven of Puritanism been excited to new action to accomplish the same result?
Have not three thousand clergymen been induced to interfere in our temporal and political affairs; just as in past history we find the Magi and the priests did?
Has not the word of God been set at naught? Where the command is, "Thou shalt not kill," are not Sharpe's rifles purchased by their command?
A clever book of fiction, written by a fanatical old
woman, although untrue even as a picture of southern society, has obtained for her the cordial entrée of British aristocracy.
Then, again, regard the immense immigration from Europe. No sooner is it possible, but we find politicians busy to influence them, and obtain their votes. And they chiefly are opposed to slavery.
As patriots, Americans should say, you may vote. We throw around you no restraint. Your home is our home. You are in every sense a brother, and you shall be deprived of no privilege. But while in no manner the privileges of a freeman should be denied to any, we must not shut our eyes to the influences that surround us.
The Magi controlled the then known world.
The Roman church has done the same. In England a church has assumed secular power.
In each instance it was the fabulous jus divinum by which it was accomplished.
Shall they be allowed by such influences to control and so break down our great experiment of self-government?
Rather let those peaceful and benevolent influences prevail, which were inculcated by societies who taught equality of rights, and peace and charity among men.
This bring us then to the great motive power which alone can save our country.
It is the education of the people, and the freedom of the press, directed through a unity of language.
Through these, if properly conducted, unless they be controlled by the hostile influences hereinbefore spoken of, we shall be a happy and united nation.
There is no need, hereafter, of any secret teaching. Secret societies may promote social good, but they are no longer necessary to teach either traditional philosophy, or promote public welfare, except by benevolence.
Our duty is to encourage thought, foster public schools, create a unity of feeling and ideas, by means of a unity of language, and a freedom of the press.
But, in doing so, from the history of the past, can we be too careful in guarding against the insidious influences of societies, whose antecedents in history have proved so dangerous?
Societies having for their object a religious influence, and, thereby intending to control political power, are dangerous. The past has shown it.
Societies of benevolence, like the Free-Masons and Odd-Fellows, have done much good; but each member therein votes, in political matters, as he pleases, and without control. These societies do good to all, without view to any particular faith.
Each person that binds himself, by an obligation, to serve only Him, whose "kingdom is not of this world," should be debarred thereby from interfering in the politics of this world, which he has thus forsworn.
But what are the facts? Do not even the clergy
of New England try to control our government? Are they not even endeavoring to create DISUNION? Is this not with the desire and empressement of foreign power?
How far may not the prætorian bands of Rome aid therein to carry out the result?
Can we be too guarded as to our great experiment?
The first practical result, then, indicated by past history, is, that political power, in monarchies, empires, &c., has been under the control of mere priestly mysteries.
The next is, that human nature is always the same, and will endeavor to accomplish the same result.
Take the history of the past, what are we to anticipate for the future? Can we judge but from the past? Have they not endeavored to govern Europe?
We can only allow the will of freemen to govern us. The will that has, on oath, submitted itself to the control of a foreign power, is not that of a free man, and our duty is to watch it.
Let, then, every secret become a mystery; or, a revealed secret. If it be good to one, let it be good to all. Secure equality of rights. Collision of mind strikes out the sparks of truth. Secure universal education by free schools, ensuring unity of language, but leaving thought free; and the result will be, that secrecy will have become a mystery, or revealed knowledge to all.
Education, and the freedom of the press, are the
true safeguards of a republic. Interfere with the exercise of no religion; but let no one system of faith control your government. Frown down every effort of priests or clergy to meddle with politics. Then shall we avoid the errors of the past, preserve our present union, and hope for the spread of the true principles of liberty. With education will be united true piety, each assisting the other, no matter what the peculiar system of faith. Do away with secrecy altogether, and let every blessing that knowledge can confer, be devoted to public information, and the good of all. So, shall the abuses of secrecy be done away with for ever—and it shine forth only in the holy sphere to which it should be confined, to modesty and domestic virtue, religious meditation and prayer, and prudence in the transactions of life.