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 ecclesiasticalor secular history, or special treatise, which gives a satis-factory account of it; and the works on the Constitution of the United States touch only on the legal aspect of thereligious 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.

This is a fundamental article of the American creed, without distinction of sect or party. Liberty, both civil and religious, 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 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"-ln its ownsphere. 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 mazt,"mus), the gods were national, and the priests were servant~ 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 Casar the things that are Csesar'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 (J ohn xviii., 1I). 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., 1 : 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 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.