Here there is an abuse of power， for an ecclesiastical as well as civil society has the right to choose its own form， its own hierarchy， its own government. - On this point， every argument that can be advanced in favor of the former can be repeated in favor of the latter， and the moment one becomes legitimate the other becomes legitimate also. The justification for a civil or of a religious community or society may be the performance of a long series of services which， for centuries， it has rendered to its members， the zeal and success with which it discharges its functions， the feelings of gratitude they entertain for it， the importance they attribute to its offices， the need they have of it， and their attachment to it， the conviction imprinted in their minds that without it they would be deprived of a benefit upon which they set more store than upon any other. This benefit， in a civil society， is the security of persons and property. In the religious society it is the eternal salvation of the soul. iii In all other particulars the resemblance is complete， and the titles of the Church are as good as those of the State. Hence， if it be just for one to be sovereign and free on its own domain， it is just for the other to be equally sovereign and free， If the Church encroaches when it assumes to regulate the constitution of the State， then the State also encroaches when it pretends to regulate the constitution of the Church. If the former claims the respect of the latter on its domain， the latter must show equal respect for the former on its ground. The boundary-line between the two territories is， undoubtedly， not clearly defined and frequent contests arise between the two. Sometimes these may be forestalled or terminated by each shutting itself up within a wall of separation， and by their remaining as much as possible indifferent to each other， as is the case in America. At another， they may， by a carefully considered contract，[67] each accord to the other specific rights on the intermediate zone， and both exercise their divided authority on that zone， which is the case in France. In both cases， however， the two powers， like the two societies， must remain distinct. It is necessary for each of them that the other should be an equal， and not a subordinate to which it prescribes conditions. Whatever the civil system may be， whether monarchical or republican， oligarchic or democratic， the Church abuses its credit when it condemns or attacks it. Whatever may be the ecclesiastical system， whether papal， Episcopalian， Presbyterian， or congregational， the State abuses its strength when， without the assent of the faithful， it abolishes their systems or imposes a new one upon them. Not only does it violate right， but its violence， most frequently， is fruitless. It may strike as it will， the root of the tree is beyond its reach， and， in the unjust war which it wages against an institution as vital as itself， it often ends in getting the worst of it.
Unfortunately， the Assembly， in this as in other matters， being preoccupied with principles， fails to look at practical facts； and， aiming to remove only the dead bark， it injures the living trunk. --For many centuries， and especially since the Council of Trent， the vigorous element of Catholicism is much less religion itself than the Church. Theology has retired into the background， while discipline has come to the front. Believers who， according to Church law， are required to regard spiritual authority as dogma， in fact attach their faith to the spiritual authority much more than to the dogma. -Catholic Faith insists， in relation to discipline as well as to dogma， that if one rejects the decision of the Roman Church one ceases to be a Catholic； that the constitution of the Church is monarchical， that the ordaining of priests and bishops is made from above so that without communion with the Pope， its supreme head， one is schismatic and that no schismatic priest legitimately can perform a holy service， and that no true faithful may attend his service or receive his blessings without committing a sin. - It is a fact that the faithful， apart from a few Jansenists， are neither theologians nor canonists； that they read neither prayers nor scriptures， and if they accept the creed， it is in a lump， without investigation， confiding in the hand which presents it； that their obedient conscience is in the keeping of this pastoral guide； that the Church of the third century is of little consequence to them； and that， as far as the true form of the actual Church goes， the doctor whose advice they follow is not St. Cyprian， of whom they know nothing， but their visible bishop and their living curé.
Put these two premises together and the conclusion is self-evident：
it is clear that they will not believe that they are baptized， absolved， or married except by this curé authorized by this bishop.
Let others be put in their places whom they condemn， and you suppress worship， sacraments， and the most precious functions of spiritual life to twenty-four millions of French people， to all the peasantry， all the children， and to almost all the women； you stir up in rebellion against you the two greatest forces which move the mind， conscience and habit. -- And observe the result of this.
You not only convert the State into a policeman in the service of heresy， but also， through this fruitless and tyrannous attempt of Gallican Jansenism， you bring into permanent discredit Gallican maxims and Jansenist doctrines. You cut away the last two roots by which a liberal sentiment still vegetated in orthodox Catholicism.
