CHURCH AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES. What is the distinctive character of American Christianity in its organized social aspect and its relation to the national life, as compared with the Christianity of Europe? It is a FREE CHURCH IN A FREE STATE, or a SELF-SUPPORTING AND SELF-GOVERNING CHRISTIANITY IN INDEPENDENT BUT FRIENDLY RELATION TO THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT. This relationship of church and state marks an epoch. It is a new chapter in the history of Christianity, and the most important one which America has so far contributed. It lies at the base of our religious institutions and operations, and they cannot be understood without it. And yet, strange to say, it has never received the treatment it deserves, either from the historical or the philosophical point of view, although it is often incidentally mentioned, especially in discussions of religion in the public schools. It seems to be regarded as a self-evident fact and truth which need no explanation and defence. I know of no ecclesiastical or secular history, or special treatise, which gives a satisfactory account of it; and the works on the Constitution of the United States touch only on the legal aspect of the religious clauses, or pass them by altogether. THE AMERICAN THEORY. The relationship of church and state in the United States. secures full liberty of religious thought, speech, and action, within the limits of the public peace and order. It makes persecution impossible. Religion and liberty are inseparable. Religion is voluntary, and cannot, and ought not to be forced. 9 This is a fundamental article of the American creed, without distinction of sect or party. Liberty, both civil and relig- (→ ious, is an American instinct. All natives suck it in with the mother's milk; all immigrants accept it as a happy boon, especially those who flee from oppression and persecution abroad. Even those who reject the modern theory of liberty enjoy the practice, and would defend it in their own interest against any attempt to overthrow it. Such liberty is impossible on the basis of a union of church and state, where the one of necessity restricts or controls the other. It requires a friendly separation, where each power is entirely independent in its own sphere. The church, as such, has nothing to do with the state except to obey its laws and to strengthen its moral foundations; the state has nothing to do with the church except to protect her in her property and liberty; and the state must be equally just to all forms of belief and unbelief which do not endanger the public safety. The family, the church, and the state are divine institutions demanding alike our obedience, in their proper sphere of jurisdiction. The family is the oldest institution, and the source of church and state. The patriarchs were priests and kings of their households. Church and state are equally necessary, and as inseparable as soul and body, and yet as distinct as soul and body. The church is instituted for the religious interests and eternal welfare of man; the state for his secular interests and temporal welfare. The one looks to heaven as the final home of immortal spirits, the other upon our mother earth. The church is the reign of love; the state is the reign of justice. The former is governed by the gospel, the latter by the law. The church exhorts, and uses moral suasion; the state commands, and enforces obedience. The church punishes by rebuke, suspension, and excommunication; the state by fines, imprisonment, and death. Both meet on questions of public morals, and both together constitute civilized human society and ensure its prosperity. The root of this theory we find in the New Testament. In the ancient world religion and politics were blended. Among the Jews religion ruled the state, which was a theocracy. Among the heathen the state ruled religion; the Roman emperor was the supreme pontiff (pontifex maximus), the gods were national, and the priests were servants of the state. Christianity had at first no official connection with the state. Christ directs us to render unto God the things that are God's, and unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's (Matt. xxii., 21). He paid the tribute money to the Jewish temple and obeyed the laws of Rome, but he refused to be a judge and divider of the inheritance of two brothers, as lying outside of the sphere of religion (Luke xii., 14). He declared before Pilate that his kingdon is not of this world (John xviii., 36), and rebuked Peter for drawing the sword, even in defence of his Master (John xviii., 11). When the Evil One tempted him with the possession of all the kingdoms of this world, he said unto him: "Get thee hence, Satan" (Matt. iv., 10). Secular power has proved a satanic gift to the church, and ecclesiastical power has proved an engine of tyranny in the hands of the state.' The apostles used only the spiritual weapons of truth and love in spreading the gospel of salvation. They enjoined obedience to the civil power, even under Nero (Rom. xiii., I: 7), but they would rather suffer imprisonment and death than obey even their own Jewish magistrate against the dictates of their conscience (Acts iv., 29). If men had always acted on this principle and example, history would have been spared the horrors of persecution and religious wars. For three hundred years the Christian church kept aloof from politics, and, while obeying the civil laws and paying 1 The well-known lines of Dante (" Inferno," xix., 113-118) which refer to the fictitious donation of Constantine the Great, may be quoted here with a wider application : "Ah, Constantine! of how much ill was mother, tribute, maintained at the same time the higher law of conscience in refusing to comply with idolatrous customs and in professing the faith in the face of death. The early Apologists-Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius-boldly claimed the freedom of religion as a natural right.' When the first blood of heretics (the Priscillianists in Spain) was shed, in 385, the better feeling of the church, as expressed by Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours, shrank from it in horror.2 THE AMERICAN SYSTEM COMPARED WITH OTHER SYSTEMS. The American relationship of church and state differs from all previous relationships in Europe and in the colonial period of our history; and yet it rests upon them and reaps the benefit of them all. For history is an organic unit, and American history has its roots in Europe. 1. The American system differs from the ante-Nicene or pre-Constantinian separation of church and state, when the church was indeed, as with us, self-supporting and self-governing, and so far free within, but under persecution from without, being treated as a forbidden religion by the then heathen state. In America the government protects the church in her property and rights without interfering with her internal affairs. By the power of truth and the moral heroism of martyrdom the church converted the Roman Empire and became the mother of Christian states. 2. The American system differs from the hierarchical control of the church over the state, or from priest government, which prevailed in the Middle Ages down to the Reformation, and reached its culmination in the Papacy. It confines the church to her proper spiritual vocation, and leaves the state independent in all the temporal affairs of the nation. The hierarchical theory was suited to the times after the fall of the Roman Empire and the ancient civilization, when the state was a rude military despotism, when the church was 1 Schaff, "Church History" (revised ed.), II. 35 sq. 2 Ibid., vol. III. 143. the refuge of the people, when the Christian priesthood was in sole possession of learning and had to civilize as well as to evangelize the barbarians of northern and western Europe. By her influence over legislation the church abolished bad laws and customs, introduced benevolent institutions, and created a Christian state controlled by the spirit of justice and humanity, and fit for self-government. 3. The American system differs from the Erastian or Cæsaro-Papal control of the state over the church, which obtained in the old Byzantine Empire, and prevails in modern Russia, and in the Protestant states of Europe, where the civil government protects and supports the church, but at the expense of her dignity and independence, and deprives her of the power of self-government. The Erastian system was based on the assumption that all citizens are also Christians of one creed, but is abnormal in the mixed character of government and people in the modern state. In America, the state has no right whatever to interfere with the affairs of the church, her doctrine, discipline, and worship, and the appointment of ministers. It would be a great calamity if religion were to become subject to our ever-changing politics. 4. The American system differs from the system of toleration, which began in Germany with the Westphalia Treaty, 1648; in England with the Act of Toleration, 1689, and which now prevails over nearly all Europe; of late years, nominally at least, even in Roman Catholic countries, to the very gates of the Vatican, in spite of the protest of the Pope. Toleration exists where the government supports one or more churches, and permits other religious communities under the name of sects (as on the continent), or dissenters and nonconformists (as in England), under certain conditions. In America, there are no such distinctions, but only churches or denominations on a footing of perfect equality before the law. To talk about any particular denomination as the church, or the American church, has no meaning, and betrays ignorance or conceit. Such exclusiveness is natural and logical in Romanism, but unnatural, illogical, and contemptible in any other church. The American laws know no such institution |