LIBRARY I 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Th 
 
 eological Seminary, 
 
 
 PRINCETON. N. J.' 
 
 ( 
 
 BV 630 .H6 
 
 Hovey, Alvah, 1820-1903. 
 
 Religion and the state 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 - - — ^' 
 

 ^is^- 
 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 PROTECTION OR ALLIANCE? 
 
 TAXATION OR EXEMPTION? 
 
 BY ALVAn HO VET, D. D., 
 
 PRESIDENT OF "KEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 ESTES AND LAURIAT: 
 
 143 WASHINGTON STREET. 
 187-t. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1874, 
 
 BY ESTES AND LAURIAT, 
 
 In the Ofllce of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 
 
 BROWN TYPE-SETTING MACHINERY, 40 HANOVER STREET. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 "When passing througli England, from Liverpool to Hull, a 
 dozen years ago, the writer saw, in a succession of country 
 towns, large placards advertising a certain newspaper, as 
 "the only one in the kingdom which gives all sides of e\ery 
 question." Many thoughts were started by this clever 
 notice. It wa^ the perfection of boasting : but it was more ; 
 it was suggestive of the wisdom of looking at the great 
 problems of life from as many points of view, and with as 
 many eyes as possible, before pronouncing them solved. 
 
 Of these problems few are worthy of more earnest and 
 impartial study than the one discussed in the following pages. 
 And the hour has come when this investigation must be 
 made. A journal that could ''give all sides" of this one 
 question in the manner best suited to enlighten the people, 
 and lead them to wise action, would have a great number of 
 readers in every State of the Union. A volume that should 
 do this within a reasonable compass, would merit the attention 
 of all who speak the English tongue. 
 
 In the discussion which follows, the reader is called to look 
 at only a few aspects of the connection between Church and 
 State, and at these aspects from only certain points of view. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 namely : those which are thought to be the most elevated 
 and helpful to perfect vision. The principal relations of gov- 
 ernment to religion are examined in a spirit of loyalty to 
 both ; and, if the position maintained is right, tbese relations 
 should be made the same in every land, at the earliest moment 
 practicable. Should the discussion contribute in any measure 
 to a proper solution of the great problem under examination, 
 it will accomplish the desire of the Author. 
 Newton Centee, March 5, 1874. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PREFACE 5 
 
 INTRODUCTION 7 
 
 THE KIN GD 031 OF CHRIST 9 
 
 THE STATE 19 
 
 PROTECTION OF LIFE BY THE STATE - - 35 
 
 PR OTECTION OF LIBERTY B Y THE STATE - 47 
 
 THE LORD'S DAY 60 
 
 THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS 80 
 
 PROTECTION OF PROPERTY, ETC., - - - 93 
 
 CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS - - - - 111 
 
 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 127 
 
 FURTHER REMARKS 147 
 
 RESUME 164 
 

 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The following discussion was published about 
 three years ago, in a series of articles, by a 
 leading religious paper of New York.* Natu- 
 rally, therefore, the course of thought was 
 adapted in some measure to those who were 
 expected to read it; that is, to Christian men 
 and women of a particular denomination. The 
 writer cannot see that any important end would 
 be gained by attempting to obliterate all traces 
 of that original adaptation, especially as no sect- 
 arian aim was followed at the time. As then 
 stated, the object of the discussion was not to 
 make out a case either for or against any body of 
 Christians, but to ascertain, if possible, whether 
 
 ♦ The Examiner and Chronicle, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Christian churches or denominations should 
 seek from the State anything more than protec- 
 tion in the exercise of their natural rights. 
 Now, as then, it is addressed primarily to those 
 who believe in the Christian religion as true; 
 hence it assumes the truth of that religion, and 
 only seeks to convince those who love and 
 honor it of the impropriety of asking assistance 
 from the State in maintaining it. 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 
 
 A discussion of this subject must naturally 
 begin with the kingdom of Christ upon earth. 
 For the laws of this kingdom are definite and 
 supreme. One is required to forsake all, if 
 need be, that he may obey them; houses and 
 lands, father and mother, wife and children, 
 are to be relinquished, rather than Clirist and 
 his truth. Although the general duty of sub- 
 jection to **the powers that be," or the laws 
 and rulers of the State, is very sacred, it can- 
 not be urged as a valid excuse for disregarding 
 the Lord's requirement to coufess Him before 
 men. It was therefore the duty of the Apostles 
 
10 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 to preach the good news of salvation through 
 Christ, though forbidden to do this by "the 
 highest human authority to wliich they could 
 have felt that they owed allegiance," and even 
 to say boldly, in presence of this great court: 
 ''It is right to obey God rather than men." 
 And this fact of a higher law for the Christian, 
 of a paramount duty on his part to be a loyal 
 and obedient subject in the kingdom of Christ, 
 affords a strong presumption that, kept within 
 their proper spheres, and directed to the attain- 
 ment of their distinctive ends, the authority of 
 Christ and that of the State will never come 
 into collision. And this is equivalent to saying 
 *that their spheres, and aims, and methods are 
 very distinct ; that the kingdom of Christ is on 
 a different and higher plane than the State. 
 
 It was this fact that made it so hard for the 
 Jews of our Saviour's time to see in Him the 
 promised Messiah. For they were expecting a 
 restoration of the theocracy, a perfect and final 
 
THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 11 
 
 union of Church and State, religion being 
 sustained by the civil power, and the civil 
 power sanctified by religion. They were look- 
 ing for One to fill the vacant throne of their 
 royal line, who should unite the heroism of 
 David with the wisdom of Solomon, and by 
 an era of conquest usher in an age of peace; 
 who, as the favorite of Jehovah and the pride 
 of all the people, should bear, like the Pope 
 in other days, two swords — the temporal and the 
 spiritual— and lead the nation to victory over 
 the Gentiles, as well as to holier worship in 
 Zion. It is not therefore surprising that many 
 welcomed the harbinger of Christ preaching 
 repentance, and listened without offence, though 
 not without wonder, to the Sermon on the 
 Mount, but turned away from Jesus with 
 contempt when He refused to wear an earthly 
 crown. Nor is it altogether unaccountable 
 that the chosen twelve, who were the daily 
 companions of the Lord, expected, until the 
 
12 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 very hour of his betrayal, that He would yet 
 be a temporal prince, uniting divine authority 
 Avith human, the sanctions of religion with 
 the power of the sword, and making his 
 kingdom one of this world. It was extremely 
 difficult for them to receive the idea of a 
 spiritual dominion resting on the power of 
 grace and truth. 
 
 But it was such a kingdom, on a plane far 
 above that of any earthly authority, that Christ 
 came to establish. It was such a kingdom that 
 He professed to rule, in his language to Pilate: 
 
 * 'My kingdom is not of this world; if my 
 kingdom were of this world, my servants would 
 fijrht. I am a kins:. To this end have I been 
 born, and to this end am I come into the world, 
 that I may bear witness to the truth. Every 
 one that is of the truth, heareth my voice." 
 
 Pilate was convinced by the divine bearing 
 and candor of Jesus, that whatever might be 
 his authority, whether real or imaginary, it 
 
vV 
 
 THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 13 
 
 pertained to religion, and not to the State; it 
 rested in no degree upon secnlar power, and 
 contemplated in no case an appeal to the sec- 
 ular arm. And this testimony of Christ was 
 in absolute harmony with the whole tenor of 
 his life and teaching. He took no step to 
 connect his cause with the State as such. He 
 threw out no hint of its needing the support 
 of the civil power. He provided for no states- 
 men or soldiers to carry on his work, but only 
 for preachers and tcMchers. Had not the Jews 
 been strangely tenacious of their belief, and 
 strangely blind to the spirit of Jesus, they 
 would have perceived, much sooner than they 
 did, that his dominion over men must ever be 
 spiritual, no imaginable state of affairs being 
 likely to make Him accept an earthly crown. 
 And his Apostles came at last to understand 
 this. By the death, the resurrection, and the 
 ascension of Christ; by the outpouring of the 
 Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the light 
 
14 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 of inspiration added to that' of providence, 
 they were made to know that their Lord's 
 dominion was not civil and national, but spir- 
 itual and universal; not of this world and 
 sustained by force, but from above j and sup- 
 ported by grace; and to comprehend the new 
 and great fact that, though engaged in a fearful 
 conflict, the weapons of their warfare were not 
 carnal, but mighty through God to casting 
 down strongholds, and bringing every thought 
 into captivity to the obedience of Christ. And 
 one of them, writing to the Ephesian saints, 
 utters, in view of their spiritual foes, this 
 stirring cry: 
 
 "Wherefore take unto you the whole armor 
 of God, that ye may be able to withstand in 
 the evil day, and, having done all, to stand" — 
 going on then to enumerate in terms of blessed 
 confidence the parts of this divine panoply for 
 the Christian. All of them may be embraced 
 in four words, Christian character and Chris- 
 
THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 15 
 
 tian truth. Without the former, his readers 
 were sure to be betrayed by traitors within ; 
 and without the latter, they were in danger 
 of being put to shame by external foes. But 
 armed with grace and truth from Him who 
 has infinite store of both, they are able to 
 repel every assault, and win from seeming 
 defeat real victory. 
 
 The records of history justify this language. 
 For the rage of paganism, fierce as a bear 
 robbed of her whelps, the scorn of philosophy, 
 falsely so called, the sword of the State wielded 
 by the fanaticism of a perverted Church, and the 
 pride of natural science, soaring with untried 
 wings into the heights of speculation, have 
 been met, one after another, and put to shame 
 by the simple majest}^ of Christian character 
 and Christian truth. 
 
 Indeed, these are the only weapons with 
 which they have ever been successfully met. 
 They are weapons of celestial origin and tern- 
 
16 RELIGION AXD THE STATE. 
 
 per, not made with hands, but given by the 
 Lord of life; and therefore are they certain 
 to prevail over those of grosser material, fash- 
 ioned by the skill of man. 
 
 The lesson from all this would seem to be, 
 that the kingdom of Christ is independent of 
 the State, raling in a higher sphere and with 
 a view to higher interests, having laws and 
 forces of its own that agree in character and 
 work in harmony towards the same great end, 
 and that any attempt to unite the two must 
 be fraught with peril to the higher, if not to 
 the lower. 
 
 Most manifest is it that the hiorher has no 
 need of direct assistance from the lower in 
 accomplishing the ends for which it was es- 
 tablished among men; and that any admission 
 of the lower into its proper domain and work, 
 will soil its purity and weaken its power. 
 
 But the reader may be saying in his heart. 
 Why this protracted account of the kingdom 
 
rilE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. 17 
 
 of Christ? For no one, who understands the 
 lirst principles of the Christian faith, can 
 doubt the spirituality of that kingdom. In 
 origin, nature, power and aim it is spiritual; 
 and a fact so thoroughly comprehended and 
 universally believed might safely be assumed 
 in this discussion. Perhaps it might; but 
 there is sometimes pleasure and profit in re- 
 viewing accepted truths. 
 
 The vision is often cleared by looking at 
 the springs of faith, the simplest, deepest, 
 most fruitful germs of a divine creed. Line 
 upon line is the wisdom of God on this point; 
 for in the conflict of life even good men are 
 liable t(} forget their principles. Having ap- 
 plied them to a certain extent, as far, it may 
 be, as their own safety or success requires, they 
 are in danger of being satisfied with this, and 
 making little effort beyond. 
 
 The most faithful and consistent advocates 
 
 of soul-liberty have ever been those who were 
 9 
 
18 RELIGIOX uiND THE STATE. 
 
 suffering under religious oppression. If his 
 own ox be not gored, the farmer rests in 
 peace. And if the more remote and less ob- 
 vious applications of a principle might forbid 
 men to accept a present good, their attention 
 is very apt to fix itself on the supposed good, 
 to the neglect of the principle that might 
 interfere with its attainment. 
 
 But the conduct of life ought surely to be 
 controlled by principle rather than l^y policy; 
 and therefore, when attempting to answer great 
 questions of duty, it is imiformily wise to go 
 back and look at elementary truth. Hence it 
 was felt that the present discussion must begin 
 with a glance at the nature of Christ's king- 
 dom on earth, in order to consider, in the next 
 place, with advantage, the nature and ends of 
 human government, or the State. 
 
THE STATE. 
 
 For the purposes of this investigation, it 
 will be safe to assume that civil government 
 is ordained of God. This fact is, indeed, 
 plainly asserted by the Apostle in his letter 
 to the Romans. But apart from that assertion, 
 it may be affirmed with entire confidence by 
 every one who believes in the existence of 
 God; for it is distinctly revealed by the light 
 of nature. 
 
 The Maker of man has testified, by the 
 powers and instincts given to men, that they 
 were meant for society; were meant for in- 
 tercourse, companionship, and sympathy; not 
 for solitude. The marvellous powder of speech 
 is of itself proof enough of God's design in this 
 
20 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 respect. But human society presupposes human 
 government. A slight study of either the nature 
 or the history of mankind, will convince the 
 most skeptical that without civil authority, the 
 evil wall trample on the good, and anarchy 
 prove itself even w^orse than solitude. 
 
 The State is therefore of God, in the same 
 sense that lahor is of God. It is a law of 
 nature, as well as of revelation, that he who 
 will not w^ork, neither shall he cat; and it is 
 equally a law of nature and of revelation, that 
 men w^ho will not sustain and obey civil gov- 
 ernment, shall perish. In both cases there may 
 be exceptions to the rule ; but in both cases the 
 rule is divine. 
 
 Yet no particular form of government is 
 prescribed by the Word of God; or, so far as 
 now appears, by the voice of reason. Probably 
 no one form would be best for all nations at all 
 times; for it must be admitted that the in- 
 telligence and virtue of the people differ very 
 
THE STATE, £1 
 
 greatly in different ages and nations, while 
 certain forms of government seem to require 
 more knowledge, virtue .and stability in the 
 masses than are required by others. 
 
 France has not yet shown herself to be pre- 
 pared for republican institutions, like those 
 which have been so great a blessing to tlie 
 American people. All, then, that can be said y 
 without qualification, is this: That form of gov- 
 ernment is best for any nation which accom- 
 plishes best the ends which it ought to seek. 
 Adaptation to secure its proper ends is the 
 highest, if not the only, proof of its excellence. 
 
 But what are the legitimate ends of human 
 government? Three answers have been given 
 to this question, supported by three view^s of 
 government, which may be called, for conven- 
 ience, the Roman, the Paternal, and the Pro- 
 tective. The first regards the people as means, 
 the second as minors, and the third as men. 
 
 According to the Roman view, the State may 
 
22 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 "^be called its own end. The people are looked 
 upon as springing from the State, belonging to 
 the State, and invested with all their rights by 
 the State. Though itself invisible, and perhaps 
 ideal, the State is represented by the rulers of 
 the people, and therefore this fraction of the 
 intelligence and conscience of the nation has 
 primarily all the rights pertaining to the whole 
 body. Such a theory needs ^no refutation; for 
 by the greatest ingenuity of statement it can 
 only be made to seem plausible, while it is 
 rejected, notwithstanding, by the good sense 
 of most men, as radically unsound. 
 
 According to the Paternal view, the govern- 
 ment stands, as it were, in loco ^^areji^^'s, 
 regarding the people as children and minors, to 
 be controlled, educated, protected, and, if need 
 be, supported. Almost anything which "the 
 powers that be" deem useful to the masses, 
 they may do. Food, clothing, study, recre- 
 ation, work, worship, all may be regulated 
 
THE STATE. 23 
 
 by the State, provided it is done with a wise 
 regard for the best good of the people. And 
 this view strikes the fancy of many as exceed- 
 ingly beautiful and reasonable. It is generally 
 acceptable to royal families and the nobility. 
 The late Emperor of the French had a strong 
 leani^ng to it, and the Czar of Russia may be 
 safely counted in its favor. It supposes rulers 
 to be distin2:uished for wisdom and croodness, 
 to be men of large intelligence and lofty 
 virtue, quite undisturbed by local influences 
 or the hot currents of partisan zeal. 
 
 But tested by the actual character of rulers, 
 tested by what governments acting on this 
 theory have done for the good of the people, 
 tested by the position which it gives to the 
 governed, and by the right which it claims to 
 intermeddle with everything private and sacred 
 on the plea of caring for the welfare of the 
 minors under its charge, it does not commend 
 itself to a thoughtful mind. It provides for 
 
7 
 
 24 RELIGION AND THE STATE, 
 
 too much official control, and expects too little 
 self-control; it puts the civil conscience too 
 high, and the private conscience too low; it 
 overrates the wisdom of rulers, and underrates 
 the judgment of ordinary men. Such a theory 
 must therefore be pronounced unsatisfactory. 
 L According to the last, or Protective view, 
 the chief end of the State is to guard the 
 natural rights of the people, to render life, 
 liberty and property secure in every part of 
 its domain. It looks upon the people as men, 
 and accords to them rights and duties which 
 cannot be transferred to their rulers. It as- 
 sumes that a true and full manhood can only 
 be developed by self-control, self-culture, and 
 the solemn discipline of grave personal respon- 
 sibility ; and therefore it leaves many important 
 juterests — indeed, all but those named above — 
 to the care and enterprise of good men, acting 
 freely, as conscience or benevolence may dic- 
 tate. Above all, it shrinks from invading the 
 
THE STATE. 2o 
 
 right of the inclividiuil soul to determine and 
 fulfil, without the l)ias of State solicitation or 
 constraint, its own duty to God. It admits 
 
 that the sphere of religion transcends its con- 
 trol, and therefore restricts itself to the 
 humbler task of protecting men in the ex- 
 ercise of their natural rights. 
 
 And this theory of the proper ends of civil 
 government seems to be correct. It will be 
 found, on careful reflection, to authorize as 
 wide a range of legislative, judicial and ex- 
 ecutive action, as consists with the highest 
 good of men. 
 
 But it is the privilege of Christians to seek 
 light from the Word of God in respect to tlie 
 ends of civil government; and though, as in 
 the case of labor, they may discover less than 
 is sometimes anticipated, their search will not 
 be in vain. For there is at least one passage 
 in the New Testament which treats expressly, 
 if not fully, the point now in question — tbe 
 
26 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 well-known and oft-examined passage in the 
 Apostle's comprehensive letter to the Romans. 
 In the translation of Dean Alford, it reads as 
 follows : 
 
 "Let every soul submit himself to the au- 
 thorities that are above him: for there is no 
 authority except from God: those that be, have 
 been ordained by God. So that he which set- 
 teth himself against the authority, resisteth the 
 ordinance of God; and they that resist shall 
 receive to themselves condemnation. For rul- 
 ers are not a terror to the good work, but to 
 the evil. Dost thou desire not to be afraid of 
 the authority? Do that which is good, and 
 thou shalt have praise from the same ; for he 
 is God's minister unto thee for jrood. But if 
 thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he 
 weareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's 
 minister, an avenger for wrath unto* him that 
 doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs submit 
 yourselves, not only because of the wrath, l)ut 
 
THE STATE. 27 
 
 also for your conscience sake. For this cause 
 ye also pay tribute; for they are ministers of 
 God, attending continually to this very thing. 
 Kender to all their dues: tribute to whom 
 tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear 
 to w^hom fear; honor to whom honor.'* 
 
 This welcome paragraph furnishes inspired 
 testimony to several important facts, e. g.: 
 that civil government has been ordained l)y 
 God; that its proper ends are the prevention 
 or punishment of evil deeds and the praise of 
 right conduct, that it should be obeyed and 
 supported in and for the discharge of its duty, 
 and that resistance to it (when m^t recreant to 
 its appointed ministry) is a sin against God. 
 But a closer scrutiny of the Apostle's language 
 will reveal another fact, to wit: that it docs 
 not limit or define the sphere of the State's ^ 
 activity. It does not tell us whether the civil 
 authorities should confine their efforts to re- 
 pressin2^ those evil works which infringe on 
 
28 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 the natural rights of man, and to honoring, 
 either directly or indirectly, those which do 
 not, or whether they should extend their sway 
 over the entire life of man, seeking to put 
 down everything which they regard as evil, 
 and to exalt everything which they esteem 
 good. And, especially, it does not inform 
 us whether the province of religion is, or is 
 not, under the supervision and control of 
 earthly magistrates. 
 
 But other portions of the Sacred Record do 
 something to supply what is wanting in this, 
 by virtually limiting the functions of civil 
 government to the interests of time. 
 
 This is done, in the first place, by showing 
 that other and ample provision has been made 
 for the spiritual welfare of men. Attention 
 w^as called to this on a former page, setting 
 forth the nature of that provision, or the 
 kingdom of Christ in the world; and the 
 conclusion there reached may be applied here. 
 
THE STATE. 
 
 For as the Saviour has established a dominion 
 by his Spirit and word over the souls of men, 
 in their relations to God, it may be presumed 
 that *'thc powers that be" are not entitled or 
 qualified to rule in that sphere. 
 
 It is done, in the second place, by recog- 
 nizing divine law as more sacred than human, 
 and authorizing Christians to obey the former 
 in preference to the latter. This is altogether 
 natural, if the State has no right to shape the 
 religious belief of the people or prescribe 
 their worship of God; but it is somewhat 
 perplexing, if the State is invested by the 
 Most High with a right to do this very thing, 
 and is but discharging its duty by doing it as 
 well as it can. 
 
 And it is done, in the third place, by rec- 
 ognizing the fact that the soul can only be 
 judged and punished by God. Even Paul did 
 not rely on his own estimate of himself, and 
 John more than intimates that the condemna- 
 
30 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 tion of one's own conscience must bo less 
 searching and awful than that of Him w^ho 
 knoweth all things. He is the only judge of 
 the Spirit. Fear him who can destroy both 
 soul and body in hell. 
 
 Besides the words found in the thirteenth 
 chapter of Romans, several other expressions 
 deserve a moment's attention. Peter exhorts 
 the readers of his first Epistle, saying: 
 
 * 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of 
 man, for the Lord's sake; whether it be to 
 the king as supreme; or unto governors, as 
 unto them that are sent hy him for vengeance 
 on evil doers, and praise of them that do 
 well;" and this language is really equivalent 
 to that of Paul, though showing more definitely 
 the human orio:in of civil srovernment, as well 
 as its divine sanction. With these controllins: 
 passages may be compared Titus iii. 1: 
 
 ''Put them in mind to submit themselves 
 to governments, to authorities, to obey magis- 
 
THE STATE. 
 
 trates, to be ready to every good work." 
 Obedience to civil rulers is a duty of Chris- 
 tians^ But the functions of civil rulers are 
 not universal ; for Christ said to the Pliarisees 
 and Herodians : 
 
 "Render therefore to Caesar the thing's that 
 are Caesar's; and unto God the things that arc 
 God's"; signifying, plainly, that there is a 
 iDarked difference between the duties of men 
 to civil rulers, and their duties to the Divine 
 Being. Moreover, in case of conflict duties of 
 direct service to God, duties pertaining to his 
 spiritual kingdom take precedence of duties to 
 human government. This appears from the 
 words of Peter and John: "Whether it is 
 right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto 
 you more than unto God, judge ye. For we 
 cannot but speak the things w^hich we sdw 
 and heard." 
 
 Again, Peter and the apostles said to the 
 
32 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 Jewish Sanhedrim: *'It is right to obe}' God 
 rather than men." But there is no need of con- 
 flict, if each remain within its proper sphere. 
 
 While, then, the New Testament does not, 
 for obvious reasons, prescribe to the State, in 
 so many words, the proper sphere and limits 
 of its action, it does intrust to the individual 
 conscience the responsibility of acting for itself 
 in matters of religion; it does make it the duty 
 of Christian men to obey the commands of their 
 spiritual Head, though forbidden so to do by 
 earthly magistrates; and it does i)rovide, with- 
 out the agency of the State, for the spread 
 of the gospel and the orderly existence of 
 churches— for regular contributions to the 
 poor, and every good work suggested by in- 
 telligent love. 
 
 In view of these facts, it is safe to affirm 
 that the New Testament teaches nothing in- 
 compatible with the hypothesis that the single 
 
THE STATE. 33 
 
 and great end of human government should 
 be the protection of men in the exercise of 
 their natural rights, and the encouragement 
 thereby of all good conduct in earthly affairs. 
 Nay, more than this, it may be asserted, with- 
 out fear, that questions of religious duty are 
 fairly above the reach of State control, and 
 should be left to God and his providence — to 
 the Saviour and his people — to the power of 
 truth and love-, acting upon the untrammeled 
 conscience. But whatever may be necessary 
 to reach the great end of the State — whatever 
 provision may be requisite, whether by the 
 taxation or the instruction of the people, for 
 its own support — it may rightly enforce; for 
 as the means to an important end the State is 
 sacred. 
 
 The view which has been given of the State 
 will, it is hoped, commend itself to the great 
 body of Protestant Christians in our land — and 
 
34 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 especially to Baptists, who, as a denomination, 
 have taken a prominent part in the assertion 
 of personal religious liberty and responsibility. 
 For, if correct, it will not only simplify the 
 work to be done in the remaining sections of 
 this discussion, but will be at the same time 
 an index, pointing out the direct way to truth 
 and duty, in many instances, at least. 
 
PROTECTION OF LIFE BY TEE STATE. 
 
 An attempt has been made in the previous 
 discussion to set forth the true nature and 
 ends, first, of the kingdom of Christ on earth; 
 and next, of the State or civil authority. The 
 former was found to be spiritual, seeking by 
 the agency of divine grace and truth to bring 
 men into right spiritual relations to God and 
 one another, and to prepare them thereby for 
 eternal life ; the latter was found to be secular, 
 seeking to protect men in the exercise of their 
 natural rights — namely, those pertaining to life, 
 liberty, and property — by awarding just punish- 
 ment to all who trample on these rights, and 
 consequent honor to all who respect them. But 
 the reader will, of course, say: This is not 
 
36 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 enough; a theory is one thing, the application 
 of it is another: the former may seem plausible, 
 or even beautiful; yet the latter may prove it 
 worthless. And this remark, resting, as it 
 may, on broad foundations of experience and 
 history, is altogether reasonable. Yet it must 
 be conceded that the task of illustrating satis- 
 factorily the views of Church and State which 
 have been presented, will be difficult on two 
 accounts; first, because there is no people which 
 has fully and consistently applied them, and 
 secondly, because the points of junction and 
 seemingly profitable alliance between Church 
 and State are very numerous. Nevertheless, 
 the difficulty of the task is no sufficient reason 
 for declining to attempt its performance in the 
 best manner possible. 
 
 Among the natural rights of man is that of 
 life; and, therefore, life must be protected by 
 the State. If it fails of doing this, it fails of 
 accomplishing one of the chief objects for which 
 
PROTECTION OF LIFE BY THE STATE. 37 
 
 it exists. Yet tliis protection is due, not to 
 Christians as such, nor to the supporters of 
 any sect or religion, but to all the people who 
 have not forfeited it by crime. The qualifica- 
 tion made in the last clause is necessary, be- 
 cause there are crimes of which the just pun- 
 ishment is death — whether this punishment be 
 inflicted as simple retribution, or as putting 
 the culprit where he can never take the lives 
 of other men, or as a warning to evil-doers, 
 and so a preventive of crime in the future. 
 
 But if this may be done by way of preven- 
 tion, it follows that the State has a clear and 
 full right to prohibit the sale of any article 
 for uses that needlessly imperil life. On this 
 principle, the vending of poisonous drugs or 
 inebriating liquors may be restricted, and the 
 only questions to be answered before doing it 
 are these: first. Is the danger to life so mani- 
 fest and great as to call for the intervention of 
 the civil power? and secondly, Is the civil 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 power fible to make its restriction or prohibi- 
 tion respected ? If these two questions can be 
 answered in the affirmative, the case is one 
 that requires governmental treatment; but if 
 the answer to either is really doubtful, the 
 danger should be met as well as possible by 
 social and moral influences. Other rights of 
 man, as those of liberty and property, may also 
 be endangered by the sale of such articles as 
 have been referred to, but the duty of protec- 
 tion from the State to these other rights will 
 be examined hereafter. 
 
 On the principle of affording reasonable pro- 
 tection to the lives of the people, the State 
 may restrict the practice (»f medicine, as a 
 profession, to persons who have been properly 
 educated; and this has been done, it is said with 
 good results, in several countries. Whether 
 any restriction of the kind is necessary in our 
 own land is not within the province of this 
 discussion to affirm or deny; but it is impor- 
 
PROTECTION OF LIFE BY THE STATE. 89 
 
 tant to show in a word the vast range of civil 
 action upon the interests of man, even when 
 that action is limited to the protection of nat- 
 ural rio'hts. 
 
 It has already been remarked that the State 
 should protect with equal care the lives of all 
 the people. Hence there should be no "ben- 
 efit of the clergy." The ministers of religion 
 should be tried for crime before the secular 
 judges, and no ecclesiastical court should be 
 allowed to usurp the functions of the State 
 and punish with the sword; for by so doing 
 it would, to that extent, annul an ordinance 
 of God. To shield the lives of the clergy by 
 special means is also a wrong to religion itself, 
 putting its friends at a great moral disadvan- 
 tage in the end. For every privilege of the 
 kind is a reproach to those who are presumed to 
 need it. The history of our own government 
 has demonstrated the wisdom of protecting the 
 lives of all the people by the same laws and 
 
40 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 courts. Christians and infidels of every name 
 should be treated alike in this respect; nor 
 will it be denied by American Protestants that, 
 so far as life is concerned, the duty of the State 
 is protection and nothing more. 
 
 It is also worthy of remark, that civil gov- 
 ernment may be called to protect the lives of 
 the people against the violence of religious 
 fanaticism. For, according to the view ad- 
 vocated in these pages, it is not only wrong 
 for the State to punish with the sword any 
 sjoiritual offence, as heresy, though urged to 
 do so by the largest body of Nominal Chris- 
 tians in the world, but it is equally wrong for 
 it to suffer any religious body to inflict such 
 punishment. 
 
 Spiritual lire belongs to a higher realm than 
 natural life, and must be defended by other 
 weapons than the sword. Heresy is to be 
 refuted, not punished, by man; it is to be 
 overcome by truth, not burnt at the stake. 
 
PROTECTION OF LIFE BY THE STATE!. 41 
 
 Few pages of history awaken feelings of deeper 
 sadness than those which record the union of 
 civil power with religious higotry, and the 
 results of that union in times of persecution. 
 For the State to lend its arm to the Church, 
 and at her suggestion destroy life instead of 
 protecting it, is for it to mistake utterly thc^ 
 ends of its existence, and usurp in turn the 
 functions of a higher power. The doctrine of 
 **the two swords" in the hands of the Pope 
 has led to unutterable horrors. 
 
 But all this, it may be said, is very remote 
 from the points now in debate; for' the world 
 has advanced beyond the age of unrelenting per- 
 secution, and it is vain to look foi- any traces of 
 resemblance between the former union of Church 
 and State and their present cooperation. The 
 reply is not just; for the two swords are still 
 united in many countries of Europe, and a 
 large part of the religious writers of Germany, 
 4:he enlightened, still believe that reli^^ion would 
 
42 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 receive a fearful blow in the severing of her 
 ministry from the supervision and support of 
 the State. 
 
 And it is well known how tenaciously a great 
 and growing body of Christians in our land 
 clings to the doctrine that the State should help 
 the Church and obey her sovereign behests. 
 Happy will it be for this people, if just and 
 well-defined views of the work and power and 
 method of true religion, as distinguished from 
 those of human government, are so fixed in the 
 minds of Protestants, that they will detect at 
 once an attempt of either to do the work of 
 the other. For the State is not charged with 
 the duty of teaching religion, nor the church 
 with the duty of administering civil law. 
 
 Besides, it must not be forgotten that in one 
 part of our land the civil and religious author- 
 ity is united in a single person, and the former 
 made to rest practically on the latter. Church 
 and State have been identified in Utah, and it 
 
PROTECTIOX OF LIFE BY THE STATE. 43 
 
 is believed by many that for years the life of a 
 Gentile was worth scarcely a straw in Salt 
 Lake City. It may be impossible for any man 
 to say whether this belief is correct or errone- 
 ous, but it should not be impossible. For it is 
 a duty ''of the powers that be" to look after 
 the people, for the purpose of protecting them 
 from violence in the exercise of their natural 
 rights ; and if Utah has been from the first a 
 part of the domain of the United States, and 
 subject to her authority, the General Govern- 
 ment has been under obligation to see that life 
 was protected there, to see that the natural 
 rights of men, as recognized by the Constitu- 
 tion and laws of the land, were respected among 
 the Mormons. Wherever there is good reason 
 to suspect violence, there the State should make 
 its presence felt and its voice heard ; otherwise 
 it fails, in some measure, of accomplishing the 
 great end for which it has been ordained of 
 God. 
 
44 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 And on the same principle, if there were 
 reason to believe that persons are confined in 
 religious houses of any kind, against their will 
 and to thu peril of their lives, it would be no 
 trespass upon the domain of religion for the 
 civil power to make thorough search and as- 
 sure itself of the truth; for it is one of the 
 functions of that power to protect the lives of 
 all the people. With that duty it is entrusted 
 by the Most High, and it has no right to trans- 
 fer it to any religious body ; the act would be 
 suicidal ; nor has it any right to be partial in the 
 discharge of it. The law and the magistrate 
 should know the people as men, not as Mor- 
 mons or Papists, Presbyterians or Methodists. 
 
 This view of the case is of comparatively mod- 
 ern origin, and it can boast of comparatively 
 few advocates. Indeed, there is no nation 
 which has adopted it fully, and applied it 
 consistently. But the farther any people has 
 advanced towards a fair application of it, the 
 
PROTECTION OF LIFE BY THE STATE. 45 
 
 more has that people foiuid itself resting on 
 sound principles, and doing the things that 
 make for peace, while the true relation be- 
 tween Church and State has become, in the 
 same degree, more evident to the common 
 mind. If there is still darkness or doubt 
 among the people, it is because the view has 
 been applied but in part, and often capri- 
 ciously, as if indeed for the sake of producing 
 confusion. 
 
 It has been advocated by the feeble, the 
 despised, the persecuted 5 and ignored by the 
 strong, the popular, the favored. Few men 
 search out the injustice, or even the impolicy 
 of legislation which favors their cause. And 
 it can hardly surprise any one who knows the 
 weakness of human nature, if men who have 
 had *'the powers that be" for a long time 
 against them, because of their religious faith, 
 should see the tables turned without much 
 regret, and find a sort of justice in having the 
 
46 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 account balanced by special favor to them- 
 selves. 
 
 In this way principle has been silenced by 
 the voice of expediency, or by the plea that 
 two wrongs make one right. Yet the view 
 which is defended in these pages has been 
 gaining the confidence of devout Protestants 
 for a considerable period. It pours a flood 
 of light into the darkness which has broode(^ 
 over the connection between State and Church, 
 and the time cannot be far distant when it 
 will fill the whole region with the splendors 
 of noonday. Or, if this may not be said, by 
 one who is neither a prophet nor the son of a 
 prophet, it may at least be aflarmed that the 
 only way of disproving it will be to give the 
 theory a fair trial in actual life. Till this 
 has been done, those who believe it correct, 
 and from Gud, will never cease to urge it 
 upon the attention of good men. 
 
PROTECTION OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE, 
 
 Among the natural rights of man, liberty 
 is only second to life: first, the right to be — 
 next the right to act; first, the human person- 
 ality with its marvellous powers; next, the use 
 and development of those powers. For as the 
 beins: of man is from God, and is therefore 
 entitled to protection from violence, so too 
 are the capacities of that being from God, and 
 entitled to protection. Not the least admirable 
 of these capacities is that of growth under 
 favorable conditions, e.g., the growth of moral 
 discrimination and power of choice; indeed, 
 of every faculty which gives dignity and worth 
 to man. But the primary condition of normal 
 development in a moral being is liberty of self- 
 
48 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 direction, and sense cf individual responsibility. 
 And it is the peculiar merit of the Protective 
 theory of human government that it recognizes 
 the people — not as means nor as minors, but 
 rather as men, leaving it with them to answer 
 the gravest questions of life before God; leav- 
 ing it with them in a great measure to decide 
 what they will be and do, though without vio- 
 Ititins: the ri«:hts of one another. 
 
 It is a peculiar merit of this theory, that it 
 looks upon many other things, besides the 
 State, as ordained of God, e.g., the family 
 and the church, and therefore does not under- 
 take to relieve these of their proper w^ork. 
 Yet, with all the modesty which distinguishes 
 this view of government, w^itli all the care 
 which it uses in defining its own sphere and 
 object, with all the respect which it pays to 
 man, to conscience, to the family, and to tlio 
 church, it will be manifest in the sequel, that 
 it reserves to itself a very wide and rich do- 
 
PROTECTION OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE. 49 
 
 main, and rules with potent voice over a large 
 class of human affairs. 
 
 This will appear, to some extent, from a 
 study of what is involved in securing to the 
 people of any land a reasonable degree of 
 liberty. For such liberty is not license. It 
 implies no right to injure others; it conceals 
 no tendency to socialism; it bears in its womb 
 no germ of anarchy. 
 
 Order and justice are the first conditions of 
 its existence. Intelligence and virtue do more 
 to preserve it in being than the sword. 
 
 In the complicated relations of modern life, 
 where the action of one man is knit by a thou- 
 sand secret threads to that of another, it is no 
 lisfht task to make the laws so few and clear 
 and all-embracing as to protect individual free- 
 dom and preserve social order. The latter may 
 be done without the former, but the former 
 cannot be done ^\ithout the latter. If the 
 Stat^ were its own. end, if order were the 
 4 
 
60 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 only good to be sought, it would perhaps he 
 a less difficult task to ensure it; for the heavy 
 hand of force might crush lawlessness and man- 
 hood at a single blow. But to give generous 
 scope for the exercise of personal freedom, and 
 for the building up of vigorous manhood in the 
 masses, by keeping the action of the State 
 within proper limits, is quite another affair, 
 demand ins: a hisfh decfree of firmness and wis- 
 dom. Yet the end justifies the means; the 
 result compensates a hundredfold f(jr the labor. 
 
 It would require a much wider survey of 
 natural life than comports with the object of 
 this discussion, to illustrate fully the truth of 
 these statements; but the reader, it is thought, 
 will have no reason, from his knowledge of 
 facts, to call them in question, and will there- 
 fore prefer to pass on at once to the chief point 
 in debate. 
 
 In the great natural right to liberty of action 
 is included that of public worship, provided 
 
PROTECTIOX OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE. 51 '^ 
 
 the same is peaceable and orderly. This, in- 
 deed, is the highest exercise of true liberty. 
 Without it freedom is only a name, or rather, 
 it is a misnomer. If men may not obey their 
 religious convictions in the worship of God, 
 if the highest mandates of conscience may not 
 be expressed in action :vhich does no violence 
 to the rights of other men, it is useless to speak 
 of liberty, for it does not exist. 
 
 When, therefore, Christians of any name ask 
 for protection in public worship, they seek for 
 no special favor or distinction, but only for 
 that which the State owes to all, whether Prot- 
 estant or Papist, Jew or heathen. For all men 
 are entitled to pay their homage without an- 
 noj'ance, in public or in private, to whatever 
 being they please. In fact, every assembly of 
 the people, called together for a purpose not 
 criminal or seditious, must be protected from 
 disturbance. 
 
 A company of atheists, whether scientific or 
 
52 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 philosophical, has, in the eye of civil authority, 
 the same right to meet and proclaim unbelief, 
 as any body of Christians has to meet for the 
 service of God. For the State is not charged 
 with the duty of ascertaining the true faith 
 and supporting it, but with the duty of assert- 
 ing the equal freedom of all men to think and 
 act for themselves in matters of religion while 
 they pay due respect to the rights of one 
 another. 
 
 It is a sad confession of weakness for any 
 body of Christians to seek aid from the civil 
 authorities in maintaining religion. It is a 
 reproach to the Snviour, and to the agencies 
 provided by him, when men call for the sword 
 to turn the crowd in his favor. Let the friends 
 of Christ be protected like other men in their 
 natural rights, and trust to his grace and truth 
 for the rest ! Then will they never be put to 
 shame. 
 
 Must, then, the idol worship of the Chinese, 
 
PROTECTION OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE. 53 
 
 who swarm the Pacific coast, be protected by 
 all the power of the State? Uudoubteclly it 
 must, according to the view of civil govern- 
 ment maintained in these pages; or, rather, 
 the liberty of the Chinese to worship thus must 
 be defended, unless their worship can be shown 
 to violate the natural rights of other men. 
 
 The language of Roger Williams is not too 
 strong: "It is the will and command of God, 
 that a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, 
 Turkish, or Anti-Christian consciences and wor- 
 ships be granted to all men in all nations and 
 countries." ("Bloudy Tenent," etc., p. 38. 
 See Vol. lY. Publications of the Narragansett 
 Club.) 
 
 But does not the State endorse the action 
 when it protects the actor ? By no means : it 
 simply performs its own duty in conserving 
 the freedom of the people, leaving at the same 
 time with every one of them the responsibility 
 of his own conduct towards God. 
 
54 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 There is no better reason for holding the 
 State to be implicated in the guilt of an idol- 
 ater, whose liberty it guards, than there is to 
 believe it a sharer in the grace of a Christian, 
 whose freedom to worship God it vindicates. 
 Indeed, a course of argument that would make 
 earthly rulers accountable for the abus^i of the 
 religious liberty which they assure to the peo- 
 ple, would make the Creator and Redeemer of 
 men responsible for the abuse of their moral 
 freedom. A proper consideration of this fact 
 would relieve the consciences of many w^ho 
 seem to have a sort of confused notion that 
 "the powers that be" have some control over 
 the religious belief and conduct of their sub- 
 jects. 
 
 But this is not all. The view of civil gov- 
 ernment as an ordinance of God for the pro- 
 tection of men in the exercise of their natural 
 rights, is the only one that will justify Chris- 
 tians in claiming protection from the State 
 
PROTECTION OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE. 55 
 
 while they preach the gospel in heathen lands. 
 For clearly it is absurd to ask the rulers of a 
 heathen nation to concede to missionaries their 
 right to teach freely a religion which those 
 rulers and their people believe to be false, 
 while the magistrates of a Christian nation 
 refuse the same liberty, as a right, to emissa- 
 ries and teachers of idolatry' . 
 
 To say that the Christian religion is true, 
 and idolatry false, is no reply to this; for if 
 it belongs to the rulers of one nation to decide 
 for the people what is the true religion, it be- 
 longs to the rulers of every other to do the 
 same, and it is impossible to deny that, if they 
 decide the matter at all, they must decide it 
 honestly, that is, according to their belief. 
 And so, acting by the light which he has, the 
 Emperor of China would proclaim Buddhism or 
 Confucianism to be the true religion, and refuse 
 lirotection to Christian teachers; the Emperor 
 of Kussia v\'ould proclaim the Orthodox faith 
 
66 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 of the Eastern Churcb, and deny protection 
 to Methodist preachers; the King of Sweden 
 would endorse the Lutheran creed and turn 
 the power of the State against Baptists living 
 in his cities; and all these rulers would per- 
 haps adopt the words of John Cotton, in his 
 letter to Richard Salstonstall, justifying the 
 cruel punishment of Obadiah Holmes in Bos- 
 ton, saying,, that their "toleration" and '*iii- 
 dulgence" could not be extended to any per- 
 son acting * 'against the order and government 
 of our churches, established (we know) bj 
 God's law and (he knoweth) by the laws of the 
 country." 
 
 It is cause for amazement that any thoughtful 
 American can believe that the State, as such, 
 ought to patronize Christianity in one place, 
 if it may not do the same for Buddhism m 
 another; or, in other language, that a Christian 
 ruler is ♦ authorized to obey his conscience, 
 while a heathen ruler is not. Let every one 
 
PROTECTION OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE. 57 
 
 be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act 
 accordingly, is the lesson of an Apostle to the 
 early Christians; and the same great teacher 
 inculcates the duty of respect for even the 
 scruples of a weak conscience. 
 
 Either, then, Christians have no right to 
 claim protection from the State in preaching 
 the gospel to the heathen, or the duty of tlie 
 State is simply to protect men in the exercise 
 of their natural rights, without attempting to 
 act for or against any form of religion. That 
 the latter view is correct, the writer firmly 
 believes; and believing it would insist upon 
 religious freedom for all — in China or Sweden, 
 as well as in the United States. 
 
 But though human government has no con- 
 trol over religious faith or worship, it is bound 
 to conserve with sacred fidelity the liberties of 
 the people against all persons or influences that 
 would destroy them; and therefore, if any relig- 
 ious sect were known to deprive certain mem- 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 bers of their personal freedom, it would be the 
 duty of the State to restore this to them. If 
 there were religious houses in which persons 
 who entered them freely, perhaps in early life, 
 were believed, on good probable evidence, to 
 be kept against their will, the State would be 
 under obligation to make diligent search, as- 
 certain, if possi])le, the facts of the case, and 
 prevent the use of any physical restraint, 
 abridging liberty. By so doing it would sim- 
 ply accomplish the purpose of its existence; 
 by refusing to do this it would, in a measure, 
 forfeit its right to be. For, according to the 
 view laid down in this investigation, the sphere 
 of its action is well-defined, including the pro- 
 tection of personal freedom, the limits of its 
 service clearly established, and the probability 
 of any collision with any proper spiritual au- 
 thority infinitesimal. 
 
 Indeed, the perfect distinctness with which, 
 on this theory, the ends of civil government 
 
PROTECTIOX OF LIBERTY BY THE STATE. 59 
 
 can be expliiiacd, and the ample scope ^vhich 
 it leaves for the spiritual reign of Christ over the 
 minds, consciences, and hearts of men, are 
 strouor reasons for believing' it correct. When 
 truth is discovered, it is commonly found to be 
 simple and harmonious. When the various 
 duties and relations of man are clearly appre- 
 hended they will bo seen to be self-consistent 
 and indubitable. 
 
THE LORD'S DAY. 
 
 It will be recollected by the reader that his 
 attention was first called, in this discussion, to 
 the nature and ends of the Kingdom of Christ 
 on earth. This was done because these are 
 more exactly defined by the Word of God 
 than the nature and ends of the State, and 
 may therefore be expected to aid one in as- 
 certaining the latter 
 
 It was also assumed that what the members 
 of the Kincfdom of Christ are commanded to 
 do, by means and methods distinctly pre- 
 scribed, it can hardly be the duty of human 
 rulers to attempt by other means and methods, 
 almost certain to come in conflict with those 
 prescribed. And the more carefully this as- 
 
THE LORD'S DAY. 61 
 
 sumption is scrutinized, the more evident will 
 its truth appear. For the means employed by 
 the State are, as a whole, heterogeneous to 
 those employed by the Kingdom of Christ, 
 and are only fitted to secure results on a lower 
 plane. 
 
 They are little better adapted to support re- 
 ligion itself, in the proper sense of the word, 
 than bread is to feed the mind of man. They 
 are to be used in protecting natural rights, 
 and providing a suitable field for higher agen- 
 cies; but Christian character and Christian 
 truth, the Spirit of God and his Word, are 
 the only powers fitted by their nature to pro- 
 duce and nourish true religion in the soul. 
 
 It will also be recollected that, in the last 
 section, reference was made to the claim which 
 Christian missionaries have upon heathen gov- 
 ernments, for protection in the exercise of 
 their natural right to worship God and preach 
 the gospel in public. That claim, it was 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 shown, can only be vindicated by the view of 
 civil government set forth in these pages. 
 iVnd now it may be added, in support of that 
 claim, that it is embraced, not only in the 
 great natural right of liberty, but also im- 
 plicitly, in the Great Commission of our Lord. 
 For the command to "disciple all the nations," 
 or "preach the gospel to every creature," must 
 be held by the Christian church to be in har- 
 mony with the normal action of the State, since 
 the laws of Christ's Kingdom are, surely, ad- 
 justed to every ordinance of God. 
 
 The Commission which Jesus gave to his 
 disciples, making it the duty of his servants 
 to proselyte everywhere and always till the end 
 come, is therefore an argument of tremendous 
 force for our view. By making Evangelism the 
 law of Christian enterprise for all time, it has 
 virtually charged the civil authorities to give 
 religious inquiry free scope, protecting even 
 those who teach what is believed to te false; 
 
THE LORD^S DAY. 63 
 
 for pagan rulers believe the gospel to be false. 
 Freedom to make proselytes, ])y the use of 
 moral suasion, is a natural right, to be claimed 
 everywhere. 
 
 But if public worship is to be protected as 
 a natural right, the question of times and sea- 
 sons presents itself at once for consideration. 
 May *'the powers that be" select particular 
 days for the spiritual service of God, and for- 
 bid the people to engage in secular w^ork on 
 those days? Is it the duty of our rulers, e.g., 
 to enjoin the observance of the Lord's Day? 
 To these questions the answer of our Puritan 
 fathers cannot be given. For their theory of 
 government identified Church and State, and 
 they addressed themselves with steadfast reso- 
 lution to the task of reinforcing ecclesiastical 
 law by civil; the power of divine grace by that 
 of the sword. 
 
 It w^as the mistake of good men, but it was 
 none the less a mistake, and few at the pres- 
 
64 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 ent time would hesitate to confess it. Rulers 
 may be Christian men, imcler obligation to 
 keep the Lord's Day, and to use their per- 
 sonal influence to have others do the same, but 
 they have no right to employ the power of the 
 State in constraining the people to do this, as 
 a religious act. Nay, it is well to speak 
 plainly on this point, and aver, that by so 
 doing they would perform, like Uzzah, a sacre- 
 llgious act, usurping the functions of a higher 
 economy, and hindering rather than helping 
 the cause they love. 
 
 But while the State cannot make men relig- 
 ious in heart, or in life, it can and should pro- 
 tect them in being so of their own accord; and 
 this it may properly do, if necessary, by for- 
 biddino^ such kinds of labor and recreation on 
 the Lord's Day as will disturb those who meet 
 for worship ; and the larger the number of wor- 
 shippers, as compared with such as abstain 
 from the public service of God, the more im- 
 
THE LORD'S DAT. 65 
 
 portaiit will it ])c for the latter to forego their 
 customary labors. 
 
 The right to worship is sacred; the attempt 
 to compel worship is sacrilege. Not to protect 
 the former is to despise the personal liberty of 
 the people; while to do the latter is to trample 
 on that liberty. Or to look at the question a 
 littlo more broadly, it may be said, that the 
 Jews and Christians (for there are some) who 
 deem it their duty to meet for worship on 
 Saturday, are entitled to the same protection 
 as those who meet on the Lord's Day. For 
 liberty to do the supposed will of God is what 
 the State is authorized to guard; and indeed, 
 to guard it as a matter of natural right, inde- 
 pendent of the particular creed of the subject. 
 This position is the only one that can possibly be 
 defended by men who accept the American doc- 
 trine of religious freedom — a doctrine which is 
 apostolic and reasonable, as well as American. 
 
 Still another question may be raised at this 
 5 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 point, namely: Has the State a right, on other 
 than religious grounds, to require the people to 
 rest from their ordinary vvoi'k one day in seven ? 
 If it were clearly proven, that the l^odily 
 and mental stamina of the people, and so their 
 average longevity, are dependent on their giving 
 one day in the week to such rest, it would per- 
 haps be competent to the State, being charged 
 with the protection of natural life, to enforce 
 it — on the same principle as quarantine and 
 similar laws are enforced, with a view to pre- 
 vent the spread of contagious diseases. But 
 even then it might bo doubted whether the 
 ample and exact collation of facts, affording the 
 needed proof, would not, if laid before the peo- 
 ple, secure the chief benefit of State action, 
 thus saving the magistrates great care, and 
 leaving the people more freedom. 
 
 The multiplication of laAVS should be avoided, 
 as far as possible. Nothing should be done by 
 the State which can be safely entrusted to the 
 
THE LORD'S DAY. 
 
 spontaneous action of the people. Foi* to say 
 nothing of the cost attending the execution of 
 laws, it is important to foster in all minds a 
 sense of personal responsibility — one of the 
 highest qualities of intelligent manhood. 
 
 Yet the importance of ascertaining the real 
 effects on health, longevity, and morals, of giv- 
 ing one day in seven to rest from secular 
 labor, cannot be too strenuously urged; and it 
 is the writer's belief that this effect is such as 
 to justify the State in requiring, if it can be 
 secured in no other way, a cessation of such 
 labor one day every week. But the require^ 
 ment should be based on secular, and not on 
 religious grounds; and these grounds should 
 be distinctly specified in the law. 
 
 In fixing, however, upon the particular day 
 of the week which should be set apart as a 
 period of rest from customary labors, proper 
 respect should be paid to the religious convic- 
 tions of the people. If there be any one day, 
 
68 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 as the Christian Sabbath, on which the people, 
 or a majority of the people, will fix their choice, 
 because of their religions belief, and which 
 will be kept by them, withont regard to the 
 civil law, that day should be selected by the 
 rulers as the day of rest for all; or, if not for 
 all, for those at least who do not religiously 
 suspend their business on some other day of 
 the week. Men are to be protected in relig- 
 ious worship ; and the circumstance that a ma- 
 jority of the people believe it their duty to 
 worship God publicly on the first day of the 
 week, makes it wise for the rulers to choose that 
 for the rest-day of the masses. Yet if one day 
 in seven is all that can properly be required of 
 the people for rest, and if some of them look 
 upon keeping the last day of the week as a 
 Ireligious duty, it would seem that they ought 
 to be allowed the privilege of secular labor on 
 the first day of the week, provided they do not 
 thereby disturb the worship of others. The 
 
THE LORD'S DAY. 69 
 
 present laws would, in this view of the case, 
 need but little change, except by a statement of 
 the grounds which justify civil action in such 
 a matter. 
 
 In his able address before the Evansrelical 
 Alliance, in New York, Dr. Mark Hopkins 
 maintained, "that the human constitution, and 
 the constitution of society, is so preconformed 
 to that division and employment of time which 
 the Sabbath contemplates, that neither the end 
 of the individual nor of society can be fully 
 reached except through' ' the same. He also 
 said; 
 
 **It is ascertained by adequate induction, 
 through observations and experiments care- 
 fully made and long continued, that both men 
 and animals will have better health, and live 
 longer, w^ill do more work, and do it better, if 
 they rest one day in seven, than if they work 
 continuously." 
 
 And finany he admitted, "that it is not the 
 
70 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 province of legislation to enforce the Fourth 
 Commandment in its Goclwarcl aspect, or to pro- 
 mote religion directly; but simply to protect 
 men in their rights under a great provision 
 made by God for their well-being." 
 
 One other line of ar^fument for a leijal Sab- 
 bath has been taken up, namely, this: Every 
 institution of God has a right to use the means 
 necessary to its own preservation and efficiency : 
 but sound morals among the people are prereq- 
 uisite to good government, frequent religious 
 instruction and worship are necessary to such 
 morals, and rest from secular labor one day in 
 a week is a condition, sine qua non, of this 
 teaching and worship : hence the State should 
 enforce the observance of a weekly Sabbath. 
 This argument is specious, but liable to grave 
 objections. For by assuming that every insti- 
 tution of God must }irovide the conditions of 
 its own existence, it assumes that the institu- 
 tions of God form a system, every part of 
 
THE LORD'S DAT. 71 
 
 whi(?h must take charge of every other part, 
 instead of doing simply its own work, and 
 leaving every other part to do the same, as 
 if the hand must not only perform its appro- 
 priate service, but see to it also that the 
 brain and the eye are in health. In other 
 words, it assumes that religion is dependent 
 on the State for its existence ; that the servants 
 of Christ will keep no Sabbath, and have no 
 general influence on the character of the people, 
 without the direct aid of civil government in 
 their v/ork, an assumption which is utterly false. 
 For how did the Christian religion first 
 make its way in the world? By what forces, 
 now lost, did it preserve its existence, insert 
 itself gradually into the life of the Roman Em- 
 pire, and, without the patronage of the State, 
 purify the morals and ennoble the aims of the 
 people? And how will it maintain its footing 
 on heathen shores, where "the powers that 
 be" will assuredly give it no legal Sabbath? 
 
72 RELIGIOX AND THE STATE. 
 
 The reasoning may be specious, but it cannot 
 ])e sound. For the churches of Christ will go 
 on with their work, honoring his name, paying 
 homage to his law, sanctifying his clay, teach- 
 ing his truth, and bcMring his banner in tri- 
 umph over the world, even though the State 
 give them only protection in worship. Their 
 power over morals comes from a higher source 
 than the sword. The springs of their life are 
 in God, and the State may count upon all the 
 influence which they can wield for truth and 
 right, without money and without price. In- 
 deed, *'the powers that be" will best assure 
 their own existence and usefulness, by care- 
 fully restricting their action to the sphere 
 assigned them by the Most High, and not oc- 
 cupied by another and competent authority. 
 When they overstep their proper limits, and 
 attempt to do the w^ork of Christ and his peo- 
 ple, they put in jeopardy the highest interests 
 of man. 
 
THE LORD'S DAT. 73 
 
 If what has now been said is correct, the 
 Christian servants of the State should never 
 he required to perform secular work on the 
 first day of the week, unless it can be shown 
 that such work is essential to the existence of 
 the State ; and this can rarely be done. Accord- 
 ingly, public libraries should not be opened on 
 that day, nor the courts be in session, nor any 
 ordinary business l}e transacted, for the State 
 cannot do its work in a Christian land by cut- 
 ting itself off from the service of Christians, 
 or by violating the very freedom which it is one 
 of its duties to protect.* 
 
 * At a meeting of the Baptist ministers of Boston and ^'icin- 
 ity, held in the social hall, Tremont Temple, the following 
 resolutions were unanimously adopted : 
 
 The ministers of this conference, believing that certain 
 opinions and tendencies of the present hour make it proper 
 for them to state briefly, but formally, their reasons for urg- 
 ing upon the people the duty of observing the Lord's Day^ 
 unite in the following declaration, namely : We are convinced 
 
 1. That at the origin of the human race one day in seven, hallowed by 
 the resting of God from the work of creation, was set apart by Him for 
 religious worship and joj' among men, with rest from secular labor; 
 
 2. That the duty of observing this weekly Sabbath was solemnly reim- 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 It is of course iinderstoocl, that Christian 
 magistrates will vindicate their own liberty of 
 worship, as well as that of others, giving all 
 
 posed by Jehovah on his chosen people, and, owing to its fundamentally 
 moral character, was made one of the Ten Commandments ; 
 
 3. That our Saviournot only kept the ^abbath according to the primi- 
 tive law, but also spoke of it as instituted for man's sake or good, adding 
 that He Himself, the Son of Man, was Lord of the Sabbath ; 
 
 4. That both the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week and 
 the example of the Apostolic churches in meeting on that day for religious 
 worship, make it our duty and privilege to honor the Lord's Day, instead 
 of Saturday, by devoting it to Cluistian work and joy ; 
 
 5. And, finally, that the history of Christian nations enjoins upon us the 
 same great duty and privilege, by showing that a faithful observance of the 
 Lord's Day has tended to the physical, mental, and moral good of the people., 
 
 Y/e are also convinced — 
 
 1. That, for sanitary and moral reasons, a weekly day of rest from secu- 
 lar toil should be required by the laws of the State ; 
 
 2. That, in a land where most of the people recognize the authority of 
 Christ, that day of rest should be the Lord's Day, since it will be kept by 
 large numbers from a sense of religious duty ; 
 
 3. That, by selecting any other day, the Government would discriminate 
 against Christians, who are bound in conscience to rest on the Lord's Day, 
 and who could not, therefore, hold office or perform service for the State if 
 required to work on that day. 
 
 4. That by opening public libraries or authorizing any form of public ser- 
 vice not strictly necessary, the civil authorities would not only act against 
 the judgment and conscience of a great part of the citizens, but also against 
 the general current of legislation in all our history as a people, and against 
 the recognition of Sunday by the Constitution of the United States, as well 
 as by those of nearly all the separate States. 
 
 5. That, so far as we can judge, the people do not need the use of public 
 libraries on the Lord's Day, nor do they desire the same for themselves. 
 
 In view of these considerations, we earnestly deprecate 
 every attempt to secularize the Lord's Day, and call upon our 
 fellow-Christians to use their influence by word and example 
 to avert so great an evil. 
 
THE LORD'S DAY. 75 
 
 the weight of their personal influence to the 
 cause of the Lord. By word and act they will 
 hallow his day and honor the laws of his king- 
 dom, but they will not use their official power 
 to constrain men to engage in religious wor- 
 ship, or even to cease from employments which 
 do not disturb the worship of others. The 
 zeal with which they serve Christ will not be 
 diminished by the circumstance that the weap- 
 ons they must use are not carnal, but spiritual; 
 and while they see that their service as magis- 
 trates cannot have religion for its direct object, 
 they will also perceive that it has an important 
 relation to the supreme interest of man, the 
 renovation of his soul, l>y preserving order and 
 libeit}', and so preparing a suitable field for 
 the conflict of truth with error, of grace with 
 sin. 
 
 There is therefore no discord between their 
 civil and their religious duties; both are be- 
 neficent, both ordained of God; but the former 
 
76 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 seek to gain temporal good by natural means, 
 while the latter aim to secure eternal good by 
 spiritual means. 
 
 And the vast personal influence of Christian 
 magistrates ought not to be overlooked; they 
 fill a large place in the public eye, and their 
 example may reach hearts closed to every other 
 appeal. But in our own land, at least, the 
 choice of the people will determine, in a great 
 measure, the character of their rulers. If they 
 look at the man as well as the magistrate, and 
 have respect to his unofficial conduct as well 
 as his official; if they bear in mind that the 
 higher one's position in civil life, the greater 
 his power over many in private life, they will 
 not be able to ignore altogether the question 
 of religion in the choice of rulers, though they 
 deny to the State any direct control or patron- 
 age of the Church. 
 
 The statutes of Massachusetts forbid the peo- 
 ple to do "any manner of labor, business or 
 
THE LORD'S DAT. 77 
 
 work, except works of necessity and charity," 
 or to "be present at any dancing or public 
 diversion, show or entertainment," or to "take 
 part in any sport, game or play," or to "travel, 
 except from necessity or charity," on the Lord's 
 Day ; but these statutes are in great part a dead 
 letter, while the influence of Christian magis- 
 trates unites itself with that of all who honor 
 the Saviour, in giving to the Lord's Day the 
 respect which it now has (alas, too little!) in 
 the old Bay State. 
 
 The following clear and discriminating words 
 are found in the "Bloudy Tenent" of Eoger 
 Williams, pp. 372, 373. Publications of the Nar- 
 raganset club, Vol. III. "The civil magistrate 
 either respecteth that religion and worship 
 which his conscience is persuaded is true, and 
 upon which he ventures his soul, or else that 
 and those which he is persuaded are false. 
 
 "Concerning the first, if that which the mag- 
 
78 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 istmte believeth to be true, be true, I say he 
 owes a threefold duty unto it: 
 
 First. Approbation and countenance, a rev-, 
 erent esteem and honorable testimony, accord- 
 ing to Isaiah xlix, Revelation xxi, with a ten- 
 der respect of truth and the professors of it. 
 
 Secondly. Personal submission of his own 
 soul to the power of the Lord Jesus in that 
 spiritual government and kingdom, according 
 to Matthew xviii, 1 Cor. v. 
 
 Thirdly. Protection of such true professors 
 of Christ, whether apart, or met together, as 
 also of their estates, from violence and injury, 
 accordinof to Romans xiii. 
 
 Now secondly; if it be a false religion (unto 
 which the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, 
 yet) he owes: 
 
 First. Permission (for approbation he owes 
 not to what is evil), and this according to Mat- 
 thew xiii. 30, for public peace and quiet's 
 sake. 
 
THE LORD'S DAT. 
 
 Secondly. He owes protection to the persons 
 of his subjects (though of a false worship) 
 that no injury be offered either to the persons 
 or goods of any. Eomaus xiii." 
 
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 
 
 ■■i.- ■ 
 
 The object of this discussion is to bring the 
 proper relation of religion to the State before 
 the reader in as clear a mnnner as possible; 
 and there will, it is thought, be no fitter place 
 than this to consider the difficult question of 
 the use of the Bible in schools supported by 
 the State. Grave differences of opinion on 
 this point prevail among the friends of educa- 
 tion, and it is not easy to see how these differ- 
 ences are to be reconciled. For it is urged, 
 on the one hand, that the use of the Bible in 
 schools controlled by the State is necessary 
 to good government, to the protection of life, 
 liberty, and even property, and therefore prop- 
 erty may be taken for the support of schools 
 
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 81 
 
 where the Scriptures are read and taught. Or, 
 to put the same tliought in another form, the 
 State is bound hy the law of self-preservation 
 to provide for the moral, as well as the mental 
 training of the people; but moral training can 
 only be made effectual by connecting it with 
 religion, and the Bible is the only source of pure 
 and well-attested religious truth. Besides, it 
 is alleged that the State cannot remove the 
 Bible from its schools without removing, on 
 the same principle, all Christian literature — 
 and, indeed, in the last instance, all books 
 that recoii:nize the beini:: of God; but to do 
 this would be to discriminate against Christi- 
 anity in favor of pure deism — against all re- 
 ligion in favor of pure naturalism— a discrimi- 
 nation which is inconsistent with the duty of 
 the State as an impartial protector of liberty. 
 And so the protest against the use of the Bible 
 in schools is reduced, it is said, to an absurd- 
 ity. But, on the other hand, it is urged with 
 6 
 
RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 equal confidence that the State, haviiig as such 
 no control over spiritual affairs, should not 
 cast its influence into the scale in favor of any 
 particular faith; while it is also claimed, with 
 some show of reason, that even the reading of 
 the Scriptures as a religious book (and only as 
 such a book would Christians be willing to 
 have their children read them) is to some ex- 
 tent an endorsement of Christianity, and ought 
 therefore to be omitted. Thus there are si^rns 
 of a serious conflict of opinion, and in our own 
 land, as well as in England, the combatants are 
 already in the dust of battle, or girding on their 
 armor for the strife. 
 
 It would surely be presumptuous for the 
 writer to expect any marked success in dealing 
 with the point at issue; but as it falls within 
 the range of his subject, a few suggestions must 
 be offered. 
 
 And it is certain that the attempt to reduce 
 the argument for removing the Bible from pub- 
 
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 83 
 
 lie schools to an absurdity is not sound ; for the 
 Bible, if read as Christian parents would have 
 it read by their children — if read as a sacred 
 book, making known the will of God to men, 
 and so founding morals upon religion — differs 
 very greatly from all other Christian literature, 
 and must be classed by itself. 
 
 The protection which the State owes to lib- 
 erty of soul, does not permit it to favor any 
 one sect to the injury of another; but it does 
 justify it in fostering a free iuterchauge of 
 thous^ht — in treatini^ men as intelhVent social 
 beings, whose views in respect to the highest 
 matters will pass from one to another, and 
 whose education for life will consist, partly 
 at least, in learning]: to distin2:uish between 
 truth and error. 
 
 If, then, such literature only is used in the 
 public schools as depends upon its harmony 
 with reason and its power to convince the 
 understanding, for the influence which it has 
 
81 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 upon men — the interests of religious freedom 
 do not seem to be prejudiced in the least. 
 
 But the employment of a volume which is 
 supposed to teach with al:)solute authority, and 
 is appealed to as giving religious sanctions 
 to morality, cannot be justified on the same 
 grounds; and it would not, surely, be strange 
 if Jews or Chinese should object to such a use 
 of the New Testament, by authority of the 
 State, as a violation of their religious free- 
 dom: nor are there, so far as now appears, 
 any solid reasons why the State should over- 
 rule their objection. 
 
 No thoughtful man should be alarmed at this 
 conclusion. For it must be borne in mind, 
 that children whose parents arc unwilling to 
 have them read the Scriptures will not, if com- 
 pelled to read them, be likely to do it with a 
 very reverent or docile spirit; and any one 
 who has much observed the careless and per- 
 functory manner in which the religious exer- 
 
THE BIBLE LV SCHOOLS. 85 
 
 cises of many public schools are dispatched, 
 especially when the children belong for the 
 most part to Catholic families, must have seri- 
 ous doubts whether any good result can be 
 expected from them. 
 
 If the Christian influence of a teacher besrins 
 and ends with the formal service, it is worth- 
 less; but if it springs from heart and con- 
 science, it will be made efiective for the great- 
 est good, though the formal exercise be omitted. 
 
 The religious education of children cannot 
 be entrusted to the State. It must be left in 
 the hands of parents, friends. Christians. For 
 unless *'the powers that be" make it a point to 
 select none but earnest Christians to teach in 
 the public schools, there will be many schools 
 in charge of persons who have no interest in 
 the Bible, and no power to awaken such inter- 
 est. Yet who would go so far toward the 
 union of Church and State, as to have the latter 
 sit in judgment on the religious character of a 
 
86 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 i;h44^ large body of its servants ? Most certainly the 
 
 tt%t result of such inquisition and patronage would, 
 
 ' 1 ^^rin the end, be evil to all concerned. 
 
 •" But these remarks do not apply to the free 
 
 ^\^^y{jk action of teachers who may wish to read the 
 
 ' ttiAtC Bible and pray to God with their pupils ; for 
 
 Ml***4» such a service, voluntary, brief, and approved 
 
 jV^ by the parents, might be quite suitable. Yet 
 
 Jl^ in strict justice the State cannot tax the people 
 
 for the support of religion, and therefore the 
 
 teachers whom it employs are bound to give 
 
 the time, for which they are paid, to the work 
 
 • of secular instruction. 
 
 If, however, they are pleased to add a quar- 
 ter of an hour to that time daily, inviting the 
 parents to send their children to a voluntary 
 service, their course must be pronounced un- 
 objectionable, for it is a private and personal 
 arrangement between teacher, parents, and chil- 
 dren, and as a service costing eflfort and spring- 
 
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 87 
 
 ing from love, it would bo likely to prove 
 earnest and fruitful of good. 
 
 No doubt there are lions in the way of such a 
 service, difficulties to be met and surmounted, 
 but this is true of all religious efforts worth 
 naming; and so long as there are Christian 
 hearts in the world, they will find ways to 
 bring the gospel to children. Let us have no 
 State religion in schools ; there is a better way. 
 
 If now the answer comes back : Not for the 
 sake of religion, but for the good of the State; 
 for there can be no security for morals but in 
 religion, and no security for the State but in 
 morality, the reply is at hand: Eeligion will 
 prosper and do its work for good morals, with- 
 out State aid. It will find its way into fami- 
 lies, schools, communities, and scatter blessings 
 by its own agencies, all the better for being left 
 to itself. Wlien it leans on the sword, it is 
 pierced; when it rests in the lap of the State, 
 it is shorn of its locks. Relisrion is from above, 
 
88 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 and it lives by taking hold of God ; it grows hy 
 self-denial and sacrifice. The State need not 
 distrust it, provide for it, nor pamper it ; for 
 Christianity gains most when it gives most, and 
 it gives most when it sees the need of giving. 
 
 Leaving now the difficult question of the 
 Bible in public schools, it may be well to ad- 
 vert very briefly to the employment of chaplains 
 by the State. Is it right for the people to be 
 taxed for the religious instruction of its rulers 
 or defenders? Should not the officers of gov- 
 ernment, with all persons belonging to the army 
 and navy, select their own spiritual guides, and 
 if able, support them as well? If they have the 
 same religious liberty as other men, why should 
 they not honor it in the same way, and at the 
 same cost? 
 
 Why should persons differing from them in 
 belief, as a Jew differs from a Christian, or a 
 Baptist from a Papist, be compelled to support 
 their teachers ? But if men in the civil or mil- 
 
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 
 
 itary service of their country are so poorly paid 
 as to be unable, or are so indifferent to God as 
 to be unwilling to reward their pastors for the 
 service rendered by the latter, why should not 
 Episcopal chaplains be sustained by members 
 of the Episcopal Church, and Baptist chaplains 
 by churches of their own faith. 
 
 K liberty of conscience is not a fiction, it is 
 manifestly unjust to require any man to support 
 religious teaching which be does not believe, 
 and thus take away or diminish his power to 
 support the teaching which he does believe. 
 And as a matter of fact, this is done without 
 the least necessity. For there is no reason 
 whatever to doubt that any Christian denom- 
 ination in the United States would readily un- 
 dertake to support all the chaplains selected 
 from its ministry; indeed, there are large bod- 
 ies of Christians that would be only too glad to 
 have the privilege of doing their part in such 
 a field of labor. 
 
90 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 The history of the Christian Commission and 
 its work in the late war, furnishes conclusive 
 proof that army chaplains, paid from the public 
 treasury, are needless; and if the two houses of 
 Congress, and the Legislatures of the several 
 States, were ever forced to go beyond their 
 own members for suitable chaplains, and were 
 disinclined to pay for their services, it is quite 
 certain that such service would be rendered 
 gratuitously, by any denomination from which 
 they might wish to receive it. The same may 
 be said of prison chaplains ; and the time is not 
 far distant, it may be hoped, when the volun- 
 tary system which has been so successful in all 
 its working hitherto, exciting amazement in the 
 minds of educated Christians on the continent 
 of Europe, will be thoroughly and consistently 
 applied. • 
 
 Then first will the primitive glory of the 
 church in this respect be restored. If the only 
 alternative were union of State and Church, 
 
THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. 91 
 
 eiich shaping the other to the best form for or- 
 ganic and concentrated action, or hostility of 
 State to Chnrch, the former persecuting and 
 aiming to destroy the latter, it would be far 
 wiser for the servants of Christ to choose hos- 
 tility than union; but no such alternative is 
 proposed to them in this land; they have no 
 reason to think that *'the powers that be" 
 would not welcome a ''friendly independence'' 
 on the part of all religious bodies, and assure 
 to them all a fair field of action for the defence 
 and propagation of what each believes to be the 
 truth of God. And this, only this, a friendly 
 independence of State and Church, each doing 
 its appointed work in its own way, is what 
 these pages advocate in behalf of both. 
 
 The genius of Christian liberty and reform 
 has been feeling after this blindly in every age ; 
 it has been often revealed as an ideal relation, 
 devoutly to be wished, but scarcely to be ex- 
 pected, to the clarified vision of oppressed 
 
92 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 saints ; but never until now has there seemed 
 to be any considerable ground for hope that 
 the blessed ideal might soon become a fact. 
 And now it can only be realized by apparent 
 sacrifice on the part of Christians ; it remains 
 to be seen whether they have grace to provide 
 for the future by relinquishing a seeming good, 
 in the present. 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY-SECTARIAN SCHOOLS. 
 
 According to the analysis adopted for this 
 discussion, the first right of man is to life, the 
 second to liberty, and the third to property. 
 It is needless to specify the ways in which 
 these natural rights may be forfeited; but it 
 may be well to insist upon them as belonging 
 to all persons of sound mind, unless they have 
 been forfeited. Of the first two, we have 
 already spoken; and of the last, this only shall 
 be added, that no principle of morals is more 
 self-evident than the one expressed by the old 
 maxim, suum cinque; and surely the product of 
 a man's labor, the use and fruit of his own 
 powers, must belong to himself; the originator 
 of a value must be the owner of it. This is a 
 
94 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 universal principle, the true and only basis of 
 political economy, regarded as the science of 
 property. 
 
 Reject it, and nothing remains but a choice 
 between Absolutism and Communism, between 
 the doctrine that might makes right, and the 
 doctrine that the idle are entitled to the fruits 
 of labor just as much as the diligent; that exist- 
 ence, and not the proper use of one's powers, 
 establishes the "riorht to a livinor." Both these 
 doctrines are rejected by the Word of God, the 
 former by the view which that Word gives of 
 Ahab's conduct in appropriating Naboth's vine- 
 yard, and the latter by the language of Peter to 
 Ananias: *' While it remained (unsold) was it 
 not thine own?" and of Paul to the Thessaloni- 
 ans: "If any one will not work, neither let him 
 eat. These passages are brought forward merely 
 as samples of Scriptural language, recognizing 
 the right of the people to property, honestly 
 gained. The producer owns the product. 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 9a 
 
 It must, however, be recollected at this point, 
 that a part of the value of any product of human 
 industry is due to the protection which the State 
 gives to the natural rights of man, including the 
 right of property ; and this part of the whole 
 value may perhaps be estimated as equal to the 
 percentage necessary for the support of a gov- 
 ernment able to protect those rights — a good 
 government paying for itself in the increased 
 value which it gives to property, without re- 
 gard to the protection which it affords to life 
 and liberty. 
 
 To this percentage, then, looking only at 
 property, "the powers that be" are in a cer- 
 tain sense entitled, but to no more; and not 
 even to this, in all cases, when the subject is 
 more broadly considered. For the State, as 
 previously shown, does not exist for its own 
 sake, but rather for the accomplishment of cer- 
 tain great ends ; and therefore it can claim no 
 more of the people's wealth than is requisite 
 
96 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 to secure those ends. Besides, in any well- 
 ordered State the moral sentiment of the peo- 
 ple is the chief support of the rulers, doing far 
 more than they to honor and execute the law. 
 
 In reality, the government acts for the peo- 
 ple; and, if its functions are rightly defined, 
 it is entitled to exact from them no moie than 
 is necessary to enable it to jDrotect them in the 
 exercise of their natural rights against foreign 
 or domestic agcrression. Hence it should never 
 tax them for the support of religious institu- 
 tions of any kind. For, in the first place, it 
 can hardly be shown that the influence of any 
 particular form of religion is indispensable to 
 the protective power and action of the State. 
 
 Judaism, Mohammedanism, or Confucianism 
 would perhaps serve the same purpose, in this 
 respect, as Christianity; and surely it would 
 be impossible to name any Christian sect which 
 might not aid the government sufiiciently in its 
 appropriate work. Yet if the State is to en- 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 97 
 
 courage religion at all in a pecuniary way, it 
 must discriminate between different forms of 
 religion, and assist those, or that, which it ap- 
 proves — a function for which it is incompetent. 
 
 But, in the second place — and this is the 
 most important consideration by far^ — it can 
 hardly be shown that pecuniary aid of any 
 kind from the State is necessary to the exist- 
 ence and beneficial influence of religion. In- 
 deed, there arc cogent reasons for believing 
 that such aid has always been detrimental to 
 the bodies that have received it; that the moral 
 and spiritual power of Christian churches has 
 been weakened by leaning upon the secular 
 arm. 
 
 The idle populace of Rome were never in- 
 cited to virtue, or diligence, or noble endeavor, 
 by largesses of corn from the Emperor; nor 
 have the followers of Jesus ever been raised 
 to a higher plane of spiritual life imd useful- 
 ness by State patronage. On the contrary, 
 7 
 
98 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 they have been led to distrust the power of 
 truth and grace, crying out with aUirm at the 
 prospect of a withdrawal of government aid. 
 
 Witness the attitude of many Lutherans in 
 Germany, and Churchmen in England, at the 
 present hour. Haviug been cherished by the 
 State till they have lost confidence in the agen- 
 cies provided by Christ for the upbuilding of 
 his kingdom, they are filled with anxiety, if not 
 despair, at the rapid progress of events towards 
 the separation of Church and State. But their 
 apprehensions of evil are vain. What they 
 fear, will prove a blessing to the people of God. 
 If, then, it be granted that the influence of re- 
 ligion is needed by human governments, it does 
 not follow that they are to tax the people for 
 the support of religion. 
 
 Sunlight and air are also necessary to the 
 existence of a good government; but the peo- 
 ple are not taxed for them. It must never be 
 forgotten that God has provided for the |3er- 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 
 
 petuation, diffusion, and power of religion, 
 independently of the State, and therefore the 
 latter is relieved from a task quite beyond its 
 wisdom and strength. 
 
 These sentiments are not new to Baptists. 
 They have been among the ** common places" 
 of our creed for a century, at least. 
 
 The right of the State to tax any one for the 
 benefit of religious teachers whose doctrine he 
 does not believe, was first denied, and then 
 with logical consistency the right of the State 
 to tax one for the support of religious teachers 
 whose doctrine he does believe, was also denied. 
 The Church, it has been constantly affirmed, is 
 independent of the State, but friendly to it; 
 while on the other hand the State is independ- 
 ent of the Church, but friendly to it. 
 
 All the applications of this doctrine may not 
 have been insisted on with wisdom and firm- 
 ness, but the doctrine itself, as was meet, has 
 been proclaimed upon the housetop. When a 
 
100 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 thorough application of it has been seen to be 
 for our own benefit, and a disregard of it op- 
 pressive to us, the doctrine has been earnestly 
 set forth; but when the application of it, 
 though required by principle and consistency, 
 Avould have cut us off, perhaps with others, 
 from a present relief and a seeming good, it 
 may be doubted whether as much zeal has been 
 shown in j^roclaimiug it. Nor is this a sur- 
 prising phenomenon of history. 
 
 Good men have rarely been perfect, and 
 one would sooner trust them to detect a wrong 
 which was felt as an injury to themselves, than 
 a wrong which was supposed to be a benefit. 
 The latter they might accept without scrutiny, 
 leaving the responsibility with others ; the for- 
 mer they would be likely to examine rigorously ; 
 protesting against the injury as being also a 
 wrong. And this would be specially true of 
 the less obvious violations of an accepted prin- 
 ciple. 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 101 
 
 In this way, may be explained the readiness 
 with which, in some instances. Baptists have 
 received aid from the State for the endowment 
 of schools under their control. Not that they 
 have been often gnijtified with evidences of such 
 favor, for it can be truly said of them in com- 
 parison with others, that they have only ''been 
 holpen with a little help;" yet even this help, 
 sought and accepted by them for colleges under 
 their care, has proved them careless of princi- 
 ple in the presence of a pecuniary advantage. 
 For though admission to these colleges has in 
 no case been limited by religious tests, and 
 though the instruction given in them is not 
 at ail sectarian, they have been founded and 
 fostered with a view, more or less distinct, to 
 the increase of Baptist influence, the spread of 
 Baptist doctrine, and the growth of Baptist 
 churches. 
 
 It is therefore plain, that grants in aid of 
 such schools are indirectly, and to a certain ex- 
 
102 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 tent, grants in aid of the denomination. How 
 much has been done for Unitarians by Harvard ! 
 How much for Presbyterians by Princeton ! How 
 much for Congregationalists by Yale and Dart- 
 mouth and Amherst! Many persons believe 
 that colleges and theological schools ought to 
 be supported altogether by private munificence : 
 and much may be urged in favor of their belief. 
 For if the end of human government is the pro- 
 tection of life, liberty, and property, it cannot 
 be proved that such government must offer to 
 the people liberal culture in order to accom- 
 plish that end. 
 
 The rudiments of knowledge, provided for 
 all in the common schools, are sufficient for the 
 purpose named; while the higher forms of 
 learning are certain to bo furnished by private 
 liberality, to those who desire them. Besides 
 this, it is evident that young men in college 
 need to be brought under a more positive 
 Christian influence than State institutions can 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 103 
 
 furnish. But if "the powers that be" are 
 ever to l)e justified in contributing from the 
 public treasury to the support of denomina- 
 tional schools, it is only when they make it 
 reasonably certain that those schools will do 
 their work faithfully. 
 
 The State should have the right of examina- 
 tion, the right to assure itself that the people's 
 money accomplishes the object for which it was 
 given. But it is exceedingly doubtful whether 
 aid should be given on any terms to such 
 schools. If the Baptists wish to have a uni- 
 versity under their control, let them found it; 
 if the Presbyterians desire such a school, let 
 them do the same; so of the Roman Catholics, 
 and the rest. Let none of them ask for more 
 than protection from the State. 
 
 And with still greater emphasis must this be 
 said of theological seminaries. There can be 
 no valid excuse for taxinsr Methodists and Pres- 
 byterians to support Baptist teachers of theol- 
 
104 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 ogy. There can be no justice in compelling 
 Jews and Baptists to pay a Lutheran divine 
 for inculcating doctrines which the}^ believe to 
 be false. 
 
 The cause of true religion will not be ad- 
 vanced by encouraging the State to take money 
 from Protestants to sustain Papal theologians 
 in teaching the dogmas of Rome. A govern- 
 ment which does all this deliberately, can have 
 little reverence for the Word of God, or respect 
 for the religious convictions of men. For it 
 seems to treat all forms of religion with equal 
 favor, though some of them must be regarded 
 as false, if any are accepted as true; and it 
 calls upon men to support what they do not 
 believe, for the miserable consideration of be- 
 ing in turn supported in what they do believe — 
 all denominations being required to do evil 
 that good may come. 
 
 But in the end it is sure to bestow its am- 
 • 'plest favors on that form of religion which is 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 105 
 
 least spiritual and most politic. Let no one 
 suppose that, in the long run, any Protestant 
 denomination will be able to compete with 
 the Papacy in winning assistance from the 
 State. If the functions of civil government 
 be not restricted to secular affairs, to the pro- 
 tection of natural rights, it will be found cast- 
 ins: its influence in favor of the Church which 
 is most like itself, and will give the most 
 votes. 
 
 With nearly the same emphasis may this 
 course of thought be applied to church prop- 
 erty. There seems to be no sufficient reason 
 why the increase of such property should be 
 especially fostered by the State. It may, in- 
 deed, by cultivating piety and morality, be 
 more useful to the people than other property^; 
 but it has never been proved that human rulers 
 are charged wath the duty of taking care of re- 
 ligion, nor has it been proved that State aid is 
 necessary to induce or enable Chiistians to 
 
106 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 increase church property as rapidly as it will 
 be used for the good of men. 
 
 Is it probable that the splendid cathedrals of 
 the Papal Church, erected at vast expense from 
 the contributions of the poor, and owned by 
 the hierarchy instead of the congregation,* do 
 any more for good morals among the people, 
 than would be done by humbler edifices ? Is 
 it certain that the costly Gothic churches, built 
 by some Protestant congregations, serve the 
 cause of genuine virtue and piety better than 
 it would be served by less expensive buildings. 
 Certain it is, that in the Middle Ages vast accu- 
 mulations of ecclesiastical wealth were wholly 
 untaxed; while the burdens of civil government 
 pressed with crushing weight on secular estates. 
 
 From the nature of the case, therefore, and 
 from the lessons of history as well, it may be 
 inferred that a moderate tax, levied on church 
 
 * See "Church and State in the United States," by J. P. 
 Thompson, p. 74, for a particular statement as to the laws 
 of New York. 
 
PROTECTIOX OF PROPERTY. 107 
 
 property, would tend in no degree to weaken 
 the power of religion; but would act as a 
 wholesome check to extravagance in building 
 and in heaping up wealth under priestly con- 
 trol. 
 
 "A moderate tax" is mentioned for these 
 reasons : 
 
 1. Because the market value of church prop- 
 erty is in reality far less than its cost, and far 
 less than it would ordinarily l)e estimated to 
 be worth by its owners. Yet the market value 
 is obviously that which must be taken into view 
 in taxation. 
 
 2. Because all property which is held in 
 trust for a purely benevolent use should be 
 lightly taxed. Ordinarily, church property is 
 held in this way. Those in whom the title is 
 vested cannot sell the property, and divide the 
 proceeds among themselves. They must use 
 the property for a certain purpose; they are 
 
108 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 virtually trustees, not owners; and the purpose 
 is supposed to be charitable. 
 
 Many intelligent Christians take the ground 
 , that property held in trust for benevolent uses 
 ought never to be taxed at all; and that all 
 property held for religious uses must be put in 
 the same categorj^ since it l)rings no pecuniary 
 income to those holding it. But there are diffi- 
 culties in the way of accepting this view with- 
 out qualification, though much certainly may 
 be said in its favor. 
 
 For in the first place, the profession of relig- 
 ious ends does not always exclude other ends; 
 some of them possibly dangerous to the rights 
 of men, if not to the State itself. 
 
 And in the second place, when religion de- 
 generates into superstition, there is danger from 
 the accumulation of property held for relig- 
 ious purposes. The Mormons may put all their 
 property into the hands of their chief; the Pap- 
 
PROTECTION OF PROPERTY. 109 
 
 ists ir.ay put too much of theirs into the hands 
 of their bishops. 
 
 But the relief of church property from taxa- 
 tion has been no more unwise, except as it 
 operated on a larger scale, than the relief of 
 school property under sectarian control. For 
 it cannot be denied that many executive 
 boards have proceeded too hastily in the erec- 
 tion of costly buildings, involving themselves 
 in debt and lowering the standard of merit in 
 their teachers — a mistake which would proba- 
 bly have been prevented by a knowledge that 
 property in the form of school buildings must 
 be taxed. 
 
 It is also to be observed that vast estates in 
 the hands of a religious body, for purposes of 
 education, but free from secular control and 
 paying nothing directly for the support of hu- 
 man government, may prove exceedingly dan- 
 gerous to freedom. The religious body may 
 
110 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 become unfriendly to the State, or may believe 
 itself authorized by God to use the State for 
 its own ends, and may therefore need to be re- 
 minded of the supremacy of the State in its 
 own sphere. Hence, on grounds of mere pru- 
 dence, it seems desirable to tax such property 
 and compel it to honor "the powers that be.'* 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. 
 
 In the preceding section, a few reasons were 
 assigned for believing that neither church prop- 
 erty nor school property, under the control of 
 a religious body, should have pecuniary aid 
 from the State, even by way of release from 
 taxes. On the latter point many will dissent 
 from the writer; but it seems to him plain 
 that there is no difference, in principle, between 
 giving a sum of money out of the treasury yearly 
 to a sectarian school or church, and releasing 
 the school or church from the payment of that 
 sum yearly into the treasury. In either case 
 the sum must be added to the amount raised by 
 tax from the people, even though two-thirds of 
 
112 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 them reject the cloctrmes of religion taught by 
 that school or that church. 
 
 If now it be said that school-houses and 
 meeting-houses are in a pecuniary sense un- 
 productive, the same may be said of dwelling- 
 houses occupied by their owners ; and if it be 
 asserted that the former enhance the value of 
 real estate, and so benefit the town, the same 
 may be asserted in many instances of the latter 
 also. 
 
 Again, if it be said that a company of private 
 citizens may give to Baptists or Methodists 
 church lots, with a view to attract purchasers 
 of a certain class, or to establish a church of 
 their own faith, and that the said Baptists or 
 Methodists may accept them without scruple, 
 and use them for religious purposes, all this 
 is freely admitted; but it furnishes no argu- 
 ment for the reception of corner lots from the 
 State; for such a company is like an individ- 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. 113 
 
 iial, not like a civil government — it acts for 
 itself, and not for other men. 
 
 It is not a question with us whether persons 
 may assist any religious society they please, 
 for this is their natural right as moral beings ; 
 but it is a question whether the State may make 
 use of purse and sword — constraining men, 
 against their convictions of duty to God and 
 their sense of loyalty to truth, to uphold re- 
 lio^ious sects, or indeed reliirion itself. The 
 two cases are by no means parallel. 
 
 A single observation may l)e made at this 
 point, on a subject germane to the one under 
 consideration. In some parts of the land the 
 property or income of clergj^men is said to be 
 exempted from taxation. If this be so, it is 
 a misfortune to them ; for no men ought to feel 
 a deeper interest in the welfare of their country 
 and the stn])ility of its government than minis- 
 ters of re]i2:ion; and no better way can be 
 
114 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 devised to keep alive iin interest in any good 
 institution, than to call upon men to give of 
 their means for its support. 
 
 Besides, if the true relation between State 
 and Church has been advocated in these pages, 
 such discrimination in favor of religious teach- 
 ers is wholly indefensible. They should be 
 supported by those whom they serve, by those 
 who believe the doctrines which they inculcate, 
 and not by those who believe their doctrines 
 false. 
 
 The State, therefore, has no moral right to 
 give them, indirectly, a regular stipend from 
 its treasury, though it be done by releasing 
 their property from taxes, and thus augmenting 
 the burdens laid upon others. The evil may 
 be slight at present, but the proportions to 
 which it will grow in time arc unknown. It 
 should be enough for any Christian that the 
 principle on which such discrimination rests 
 is unsound and dangerous. 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. Uo 
 
 Another observation will bo in place. Chris- 
 tian missionaries have sometimes engaged in 
 teach ins: the rudiments of knowledo^c to the 
 Indians of our land, and the national govern- 
 ment has rewarded their service in this direc- 
 tion by * 'grants in aid." The same thing has 
 been done for the missionaries to the Karens, 
 by the English government of India. Is the 
 acceptance of such "grants" inconsistent with 
 the proper relation of Christians to the State ? 
 Do they sanction by it an attempt of the State to 
 patronize or propagate Christianity, thus pass- 
 ing beyond the limits of its appointed sphere, 
 and usurping the functions of a higher econ- 
 omy? Perhaps not. 
 
 If the missionary is only recognized and paid 
 as a secular teacher, his religious work being 
 done under other auspices, and the freedom of 
 the people to hear or forbear being maintained, 
 the reception of "grants in aid" would appear 
 to* involve no violation of principle; for the 
 
116 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 missionaries would do for the State no more 
 than the State might lawfully employ them to 
 do. How far it may be wise for missionaries 
 to seek government grants for the partial sup- 
 port of schools under their care may be doubt- 
 ful, but wherever they obtain such assistance, 
 they should submit their work to the scrutiny 
 of State officers; and this is probably done in all 
 cases; certainly it is in Burmah. 
 
 The only other topic which calls for notice 
 in this discussion, is that of charitable action 
 bj' Church and State; and it is obviously one 
 of the most difficult. Many, indeed, who have 
 given years of study to political economy, are 
 appalled at the problem which clamors for so- 
 lution, the problem of what the State ought to 
 do for the poor. 
 
 If *'the powers that be" are in full sympathy 
 with the best aspects of Christian civilization, 
 and are intent upon a faithful discharge of their 
 duty as protectors of human life, they will dis- 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISIIMEXTS. 117 
 
 cover in cities, if not in ruraJ districts, a great 
 number of persons who need assistance; and 
 the question of their official duty to the poor 
 will be thrust upon them from every side. 
 
 Perhaps it will assume the form of this alter- 
 native : OuHit the State — i2:norino: as it were 
 the family, the church, and the various springs 
 of unconstrained beneficence — to hold itself pri- 
 marily responsible for the support of all within 
 its borders, who cannot take care of them- 
 selves ; so that those in want will be taught to 
 look to it, in the first place, for help? Or 
 ought civil rulers to regard spontaneous char- 
 ity, the help of kindred and friends, of lovers 
 of man and lovers of God, as the primary and 
 natural resource of the poor, while the State 
 comes in to help at the last moment, when the 
 springs of spontaneous charity fail ? And the 
 longer they reflect upon this alternative, the 
 more cliflicult will the answer which is sought 
 appear. 
 
118 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 It is easy to say that the State is bound to 
 take care of its poor ; but is it not as easy to 
 say and to see that Christians are bound to take 
 care of their poor ? that neighbors are bound 
 to help their destitute and suffering neighbors ? 
 that strangers, like the good Samaritan, when 
 Providence permits, are bound to help strang- 
 ers in distress? 
 
 Is there anything in the Word of God favor- 
 able to the idea of taxing the property for the 
 benefit of the poor, instead of relying upon the 
 alms of good men and women to meet their 
 necessities? Is not State charity more likely 
 to be received as a debt than as a gift, educa- 
 ting the public mind to a false view of the case, 
 and destroying in paupers the sense of their 
 j^ersonal responsibilitj^ and of their duty to 
 earn their own bread? Would not a true econ- 
 omy in the use of wealth be promoted b}^ leav- 
 ing almsgiving to individuals and voluntary 
 associations? Would not the children of want 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. 119 
 
 be more wisely and tenderly assisted by this 
 spontaneous charity ? 
 
 Or, passing by all these questions, is it right 
 for Christians, with the New Testament in their 
 hands, to plead the duty of the State to care for 
 the poor as a reason for its aiding them to sup- 
 port their destitute brethren? And if it be said 
 in justification of such a plea, that the State 
 concedes its duty in this matter and provides 
 after a fashion for paupers, taxing all the peo- 
 ple for their good, so that if Christians provide 
 for their own poor, they are loaded with a 
 double burden — it must be responded, that this 
 is true ; yet the Jews of our land do this very 
 thing, taking care of their poor brethren, and 
 at the same time paying taxes for the support 
 of public paupers; audit maybe added, that 
 giving does not impoverish them; the language 
 of their ancient Scriptures is verified by their 
 prosperity ; 
 
 **He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth to 
 
120 RELIGION AXD THE STATE. 
 
 the Lord, and that which he hath given will He 
 pay him again." 
 
 Besides, if the State assists a body of Chris- 
 tians in founding and sustaining a great char- 
 itable institution, because this institution will 
 probaljly relieve it from the care of a certain 
 class of paupers, it must assist other bodies 
 in the same way, vvhatever be their-' religious 
 creeds, provided they will relieve it of similar 
 burdens. And in the end it will be found im- 
 possible to discriminate between a home for 
 aged and pious women, and one for orphan and 
 destitute children, though the inmates of the 
 former have a settled religious belief, and the 
 inmates of the latter are the fittest subjects for 
 proselytism. Nor will it be easy to limit the 
 sums which may be given by the State to a pol- 
 itic denomination in aid of charitable houses, 
 or to measure the sectarian influence emanating 
 from them, when under the control of a skilful 
 priesthood. 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. 121 
 
 It is uot, therefore, enough to show that in 
 a given case no denominational advantage is 
 sought throusfh the establishment for which 
 state aid is obtained; it should also be made 
 to appear that a dangerous precedent is not 
 thus given, or a dangerous policy endorsed, 
 })y which the way will be opened for others to 
 obtain aid from the public treasury, when the 
 end is really, though not ostensibly, sectarian. 
 Besides, it is difficult to justify the State in 
 furnishing assistance to institutions which it 
 does not frequently examine, for the purpose 
 of assuring itself that the public benefactions 
 are not diverted from their appointed use. 
 
 For various reasons, then, it seems to the 
 writer dangerous for the civil authorities to 
 cooperate with religious bodies in charitable 
 work, except by way of protection. How far 
 the State should ensfao^e in such work is a 
 question not yet answered. Whether Chris- 
 tians have a risfht to transfer the care of tlirir 
 
122 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 poor brelhreD to the State, is also a question not 
 yet answered. Whether they have a right to 
 call upon the State for aid in caring for them, 
 is another question to be answered. Whether 
 it is for the real good of Christians to have 
 their charitable work diminished by the State, 
 is also to be carefully considered. But a few 
 things are tolerably certain, and worthy of 
 deep reflection: Christians are authorized by 
 the nature of their religion and the precepts 
 of the New Testament, to provide for the wants 
 of their brethren ; and by the favor of God they 
 are able to do this, while meeting all their ob- 
 ligations to ' 'the powers that be. " Again, they 
 will be sure to increase their influence over 
 the hearts and consciences of men by doing 
 without complaint more than their proportion 
 of charitable work, and by doing it independ- 
 ently of the State, whose means for charity 
 are secured by constraint. 
 
 And, finally, it may be said, without injus- 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. 123 
 
 ticc to civil rulers as a class, that they are 
 likely to do most, not for those religious or- 
 ganizations which seek with singleness of pur- 
 pose to elevate the moral and spiritual aims 
 of men, but for those which are specially ser- 
 viceable to the rulers themselves for the time 
 being; and therefore it is unwise, if it be not 
 wrong, for Christians to look to them for help 
 in their work. 
 
 The writer, however, deems it simple justice 
 to say that, in his opinion, the Christian women 
 who have obtained from the State of New York, 
 at a nominal rent, a site for their projected 
 Baptist Home for Aged Women, have secured 
 aid from the State in one of the least exception- 
 able forms, and in reality, though not in name, 
 for one of the least sectarian purposes. 
 
 If it were wise for a religious body to look to 
 the State for pecuniary aid in any case, it might 
 be in theirs. And if the usages of the denom- 
 ination in the past were to be taken as conclu- 
 
124 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 sive ill respect to the rii^lit or wrong of tlieir 
 action, they would ceitainly be justified. But 
 it cannot be denied that special thought, both 
 in England and America, has recently been 
 given to the proper relation of the State to re- 
 ligion, and that local events have awakened 
 the earnest attention of the Christians of New 
 York to the same subject, so that the final 
 acceptance of the Lease was a marked and 
 even national event. It represented a princi- 
 ple and endorsed a policy. Whether in har- 
 mony with Baptist ideas and aims, or against 
 them, it w^as a memorable act, and the honor- 
 able and devout w^omen, as well as men, who 
 were concerned in it, ought not to be surprised 
 at the notice which was taken of it by some of 
 their brethren, nor to regret that the great 
 questions involved in their action have been 
 brought before the minds of the people. 
 
 It is time, surely, for us to review our the- 
 ory and practice on the matter in the question, 
 
CHARITABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. 125 
 
 or rather, on the principle involved. If our 
 theory has been correct, onr practice has been 
 to some extent wrong; if our practice has been 
 right, our theory has been erroneous. 
 
 A great step in advance will be taken, when 
 the proper sphere and end of civil government 
 are made plain to Christians, and their minds 
 are so filled by the truth that they will spon- 
 taneously act in agreement with it. For how- 
 ever inadequately the subject has been treated 
 in these pages, no graver or more far-reaching 
 question than this is now before the public 
 mind. Let it not be dismissed until the true 
 answer is found. 
 
 Having now examined the most important 
 applications of the doctrine that the State 
 should give to the people "protection and 
 nothing more" in matters of religion, it may 
 seem to the reader time for the discussion to 
 be closed; but there are a few general consid- 
 erations, bearing on the subject, which must 
 
126 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 be noticed before the present writer can feel 
 that his duty is accomplished. Many obsta- 
 cles which seem to lie in the way of adopting 
 the view defended in this essay, and which at 
 first appear insurmountable, may, it is be- 
 lieved, be removed by these considerations; 
 the reader's favor is therefore solicited until 
 they are laid before him. 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS, 
 
 It seems to be thought by many, that if 
 Christians now admit the impropriety of their 
 havino^ aid from the State for relisfious or sec- 
 tarian purposes, they must in equity repay the 
 body politic for all they have received in the 
 past. But this is evidently a mistake. In 
 many instances such repayment would be im- 
 possible; in others it would be plainly unjust. 
 In thousands of cases, perhaps, the grant has 
 been used for the purpose intended, and neither 
 it, nor a pecuniary equivalent for it, any longer 
 exists. In almost as many cases, societies have 
 been led, by the proffer of State aid, to do what 
 they would never have attempted without it; 
 and, as a natural result, they are quite unable 
 
128 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 to refund such aid. For instance, in consid- 
 eration of a grant of land from the town for a 
 site, and of freedom from taxes for the whole 
 property, a church has erected a liouse of wor- 
 ship far more costly than it would otherwise 
 have built ; the value of the site and the ag- 
 gregate amount of the taxes remitted have both 
 increased year by year for a longtime; and 
 the church w^ould now hQ found unable to repay 
 the town. Nor, indeed, ought it to do this; 
 for its past action was due to an error of the 
 town as truly as to its own error. 
 
 The civil authorities acted in good faith when 
 giving, and the Christian society wdien receiv- 
 ing such help ; and though a better way has been 
 discovered, it would be futile to attempt a re- 
 storation of the condition of affairs before the 
 help was granted. All that can wisely be done 
 is to accept the situation as it is, and act for 
 the future on right principles. 
 
 The writer believes that he does not under- 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 129 
 
 rate the difficulties which must needs be met in 
 changing the policy of the State as to the ex- 
 emption of religious and educational property 
 from taxes. They have seemed to him so for- 
 midable that he had thought of attempting to 
 suggest certain steps preparatory to the final 
 change. But the following remarks of the 
 Honorable Josiah P. Quincy are, on the whole, 
 satisfactory to his judgment, as pointing out 
 a reasonable method of reaching in due time 
 the desired result. 
 
 ''While many good men feel strongly, and 
 even bitterly, the impolicy of these (our exemp- 
 tion laws), all wise men must unite in opposing 
 their immediate and unconditional abolition. 
 Any one but a fanatic must see that it would be 
 inexpedient — and inexpedient because it would 
 be unjust — to assess the Institute of Technology 
 or the noble Catholic Cathedral upon Washing- 
 ton Street, on their property valuation in the 
 
 coming May. The penalties of injudicious leg- 
 9 
 
130 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 islation cannot be remitted by drawing the pen 
 through a bad law. If taxes are ever to be 
 assessed upon existing corporations now ex- 
 empted, they must come very gradually, after 
 due warning, and as part of a statesmanlike 
 scheme of economic reform. I offer three sug- 
 gestions, which embody all the legislation which 
 seems to me desirable at the present time : 
 
 First. That, so far as regards all corporations 
 hereafter to be created, this objectionable form 
 of State aid shall be abolished. If assistance 
 is to be given them, it shall take the form of 
 direct appropriation. 
 
 Second. That no existing corporation shall be 
 permitted, upon sale of exempted property, to 
 appropriate its increased value for secular or 
 non-charitable purposes; except such corpora- 
 tions as shall elect to purchase this right by 
 paying, principal and interest, all taxes which 
 have been remitted to them. 
 
 Third. That a commission be appointed to 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 131 
 
 consider what may be the just claims of tax- 
 exempted corporations upon the State; and 
 also how that mode of State assistance may 
 be finally abolished with the least possible 
 injury to the religious and educational inter- 
 ests of the Commonwealth; and to the just 
 property interests of any special class of her 
 citizens; and that this commission shall report 
 to some future legislature. ("Tax-exemption 
 no Excuse for Spoliation." p. 1.) 
 
 Treating the matter in this way, the work of 
 disconnecting the Church from the State in our 
 land would be far less difficult than the "dis- 
 establishment" of the Irish Church; yet the 
 latter is going steadily forward, and is ex- 
 pected, by all the friends of religious equality, 
 to prove a "grand success." 
 
 \Yhen a given course is seen to be right, 
 and Christian men resolve to follow it unflinch- 
 ingly, difficulties vanish. St. George Mivart, 
 in his recent treatise on the "Genesis of Spc- 
 
132 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 cies," maintains that *' natural selection," as 
 explained by Charles Darwin, "could not alone 
 have given rise to the maxim, Fiat justitia, 
 mat ccelum;^' and he might have added, that 
 no men have proved themselves more willing 
 to act on that maxim than enlightened Chris- 
 tians. Many a time have they been forced to 
 cry out, in view of perils or sacrifices, — 
 
 "Let right be done, though the heavens 
 fall;" but lo, the heavens did not fall! 
 
 It is also believed by many, that whatever 
 in the abstract may be the right or wrong of 
 the case, in the concrete, in the present condi- 
 tions of religious life and power, it is expedient 
 and therefore right to cooperate as heretofore 
 with the State. And a principle reason for so 
 doing is the assumption that two or more great 
 denominations in our land will not consent to 
 relinquish the State patronage which they have 
 largely secured in certain places, and which 
 they hope to secure in others, w^hile "the pow- 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 133 
 
 ers that be" will not find it for their interest 
 to withdraw their patronage from their friends. 
 
 Then, further, it is silently assumed that 
 State patronage is a real benefit to the relig- 
 ious bodies that enjoy it, and therefore, in 
 fairness, should be accorded to all, or to 
 none. But this argument is specious rather 
 than convincing. Not one of the assumptions 
 on which it rests can be accepted as sure by 
 a wise student of history. For such a student 
 is prepared for surprises. 
 
 He knows that the unseen forces which 
 mould the minds of men often change the 
 belief and policy of those who mean to be 
 inflexible; and he would not dare to say that 
 even the Papal hierarchy may not abjure the 
 aid of the civil power, in deference to public 
 opinion; much less would he dare to affirm 
 that the rulers of the land may not find it 
 prudent to side with the Protestant majority 
 in favor of ''protection" against a Papal minor- 
 
134 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 ity in favor of ** cooperation;" above all, he 
 would not dare to assert that State patronage 
 is in reality a blessing to the Church which re- 
 ceives it, that "provision of the King's meat 
 and of the wine which he drank," is better for 
 the children of God than **pulse to eat and' 
 water to drink." 
 
 A historical survey of Christendom from 
 the ascension of Jesus to the present time, 
 ought to convince any one that the power of 
 religion is not due to the civil purse or sword. 
 It has a higher and a purer source. It reveals 
 its grandeur when the world frowns. It has 
 made the lowly and persecuted illustrious, by 
 working in their hearts, transforming their 
 characters, uplifting them in the scale of moral 
 worth, and making them kings and priests unto 
 God in the realm of spiritual truth. It has filled 
 the valleys and the mountains with Christian 
 heroes, preserving the gospel free from age to 
 age. It is simply a mistake to suppose that 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 135 
 
 revivals, conversions, reformations, have come 
 in the line of governmental favor and support. 
 It is simply an error of judgment to think 
 that Christians would have done more for the 
 spread of the gospel in foreign parts and the 
 conversion of the world, if they had been 
 helped by larger grants from the State at 
 home. That they have been overburdened, 
 is not true. That they have been called to 
 give more than they were able, is not true. 
 Is there the slightest reason to believe that 
 any amount of State patronage, during the 
 last hundred years, would have made the num- 
 bers of actual Christians in our churches 
 greater than it now is ? Is there the faintest rea- 
 son for supposing that Baptist churches would 
 have fewer worthy members or less religious in- 
 fluence hereafter, if they alone should decline 
 all aid from the State ? Such a result would 
 contradict all we know of the kingdom of Christ 
 and of the nature of man. 
 
136 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 Again, it is alleged that Christians should 
 cooperate with the State for its benefit. And 
 this is certainly true, if a suitable meaning is 
 given to the word "cooperate." No one can 
 be more willing than the writer to admit the 
 duty of Christians to seek the welfare of the 
 
 State. 
 
 They should obey its laws, honor its rul- 
 ers, and use their influence in every proper 
 way to make it just and beneficent. They 
 should aim to fill the minds of the people 
 with Christian principles, and to win them to 
 the service of the Master. They should also 
 be ready, if need be, to take any official posi- 
 tion, high or low, in peace or in war, which 
 they are qualified to hold, making it a point, 
 however, to maintain always and everywhere 
 their religious faith and life, while employing 
 the power of the State with scrupulous fidelity 
 for the attainment of its appropriate ends. 
 But they should never, either directly or in- 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 137 
 
 directly, impose on the State a part of the 
 burden which belongs to them as Christians. 
 They should never tax the people nor de- 
 plete the treasury for the support of sectarian 
 institutions, or, indeed, of religion in any 
 form. 
 
 For the State is charged with secular duties, 
 and the Lord has no need of its purse and sword 
 for the establishment or extension of his spir- 
 itual reign over the hearts of men. All that 
 Christians can do for the benefit of the State, 
 they are bound to do and will do freely, ask- 
 ing no return but protection in the exercise of 
 their natural rights. If they ask for more, it 
 will be under a mistaken view of the relation 
 of civil government to religion. 
 
 Again it is asserted that Baptist usage and 
 precedent endorse positive action by the State in 
 favor of religion. By accepting church-lots and 
 release from taxes of church property, and grants 
 in aid of denominational work in schools. Bap- 
 
138 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 tists as well as others have really given in their 
 adhesion to the view that the State as such may 
 enter the domain of religion, and constrain men 
 to support a faith which they do not approve. 
 And surely, it is sometimes added. Baptists 
 have gone far enough in defence of religious 
 liberty; they have proved themselves radicals 
 in assertins: the riijhts of the individual con- 
 science; and it may he taken for granted that 
 no further progress in that direction is either 
 safe or right. But no such thing can be taken 
 for granted. The fact is, that Baptist usage 
 has been inconsistent in this matter. 
 
 It has allowed in one form what it has con- 
 demned in another. It has protested, even to 
 imprisonment, against direct taxation for the 
 support of religion, but has winked at indirect 
 taxation for the same purpose. It is charitable 
 to believe that this inconsistency has not com- 
 monly been perceived ; but it is now manifest 
 to all, and the only proper course is to bring 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 139 
 
 our practice as soon as possible into agreement 
 with our theory. 
 
 For the latter is Scriptural, and the former 
 is not; the latter accords with the genius and 
 spirit of our churches, and the former does not; 
 the latter is in harmony with all the better ten- 
 dencies of Protestant Christianity, and the for- 
 mer is not. By clinging to precedent in dis- 
 regard of principle, the Baptists of America 
 would ally themselves with the Papacy, and 
 close the door of hope for the future. Of all 
 men they should be the last to take the prac- 
 tice of their own churches, instead of the Apos- 
 tolic, as a guide to duty. In this respect above 
 all others they should be careful to shun even 
 the form of evil; for a sacred regard to ajDos- 
 tolic teaching and precedent is the source of 
 their power. When there is danger of turning 
 to other masters, their watchword should be, 
 ohsta principiis, let the first indications of reli- 
 ance on human authority be resisted. 
 
140 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 Since entering upon this discussion, the 
 writer has been reminded more than once of 
 the words of Jehovah to Israel: *<Thou shalt 
 take no gift; for the gift blindeth the wise, 
 and perverteth the words of the righteous." 
 
 The deep wisdom of this prohibition, and 
 the tremendous force of the reason for it, 
 have come into his mind like a new revela- 
 tion. For besides a painful sense of reluc- 
 tance to advocate a view which condemns, in 
 some measure, the practice of his brethren in 
 the past, and calls upon them to forego a large 
 amount of pecuniary aid for the future, he has 
 been forced to recognize an ever-obtruding con- 
 sciousness of the fiscal relations of the matter 
 to his friends and himself, and to see in many 
 others the same tendency to study the princi- 
 ples under examination in the light of the 
 money at stake. But this light is an ignis 
 fatuus, sure to lead the mind astray. It is 
 better to look at principles in the dry light of 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 141 
 
 reason, or in the great and holy light of love. 
 
 It is safer to turn the mind away from self, 
 and ask what would be the bearing: of action in 
 harmony with a given doctrine, upon the char- 
 acter of the poeple and the success of another 
 denomination. Would the Presbyterians incur 
 any serious risk of harm, should they hereafter 
 accept from the government "protection and 
 nothing more?'' Would the Congregational- 
 ists lose anything worthy of special regret, by 
 declining from this hour all pecuniary aid from 
 the State? 
 
 A distinguished Methodist is said to have 
 remarked, within a few weeks, that the Papal 
 doctrine of the relation of Church and State 
 is correct, for the State ought to serve the 
 Church — only it should serve the right Church; 
 but would the Methodists be strengthened in 
 spiritual might by wielding the forces of the 
 State? or Aveakened by losing its patronage? 
 These questions do not refer to the secular 
 
142 RELIGIOX AND THE STATE. 
 
 power of churches, but solely to their spiritual 
 power, their ability to reach the souls of men 
 and lead them to Christ. For it canuot be de- 
 nied that a Church, which has virtual control 
 of the sword and purse of the whole people, 
 may do much to enforce certain rites and forms 
 of religion. Indeed, the power of the State 
 never seems to be more terrible than when it 
 is directed by priestly counsels to the exter- 
 mination of alleged heresy. But this is not 
 spiritual power. It does not fill the churches 
 with believing souls. It does not carry the 
 gospel of peace and love to the ends of the 
 earth. 
 
 Protestant missions appear to be the only 
 ones that truly illuminate the minds, elevate 
 the purposes, and Christianize the life of the 
 heathen, and Protestant missions are the work 
 of spontaneous charity. Let no man, then, 
 reject the doctrine of "protection and nothiug 
 more," because he shrinks from the sacrifice 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 143 
 
 which it calls upon his own denomination to 
 make. 
 
 The writer cannot deny himself the pleasure 
 of borrowing an illustration from the paper read 
 by Dr. AYoolsey, of New Haven, before the 
 Evangelical Alliance. - 
 
 '*Dr. Dwight, President of Yale College, a 
 wise and large-minded man, died in 1816, 
 while an agitation was going on in Connec- 
 ticut, which destroyed in 1818 the last faint 
 trace of State religion in that Commonwealth. 
 I can remember, as a boy, that he thought thnt 
 the foundations of religion were giving way; 
 and in this feelino^ of his there were mins^led 
 no elements of sectarianism. So Dr. Lyman 
 Beecher, also one of his scholars, a hopeful, 
 courageous, seK-relying man. Of the crisis he 
 writes, being then a pastor of an important 
 church in the State : 
 
 ** 'It was as dark a day as ever I saw. The 
 injury to the cause of Christ, as we then sup- 
 
144 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 posed, was irreparable. For several days I suf- 
 fered what uo tongue can tell for the best thing 
 that ever happened to the churches. It cut the 
 churches loose from dependence on State sup- 
 port. It threw them wholly on their own re- 
 sources and on God. They say ministers have 
 lost their influence; the fact is, they have 
 gained. By voluntary efforts, societies, mis- 
 sions, and revivals, they exert a deeper in- 
 fluence than ever they could by queues, and 
 shoe-buckles, and cocked hats, and gold-headed 
 canes.' " 
 
 Yet, looked at from another point of view, 
 to wit: the duty of the State to treat all relig- 
 ions, considered as religions, and all religious 
 sects in one and the same way — a treatment 
 which they can claim as their due — it must be 
 concluded that whatever relief from pecuniary 
 burdens is granted to one should be granted to 
 all, and that any religious sect would have just 
 reason for complaint should the State discrim- 
 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. 145 
 
 inate against it on religious grounds. Civil 
 rulers have no right to wield the power of the 
 State for one religion or sect in preference to 
 another. They should grant the same privi- 
 leges to all. 
 
 But, we add, it will be forever true in the 
 realm of spirit, that **it is more blessed to give 
 than to receive." These words from the lips of 
 Jesus, preserved by the greatest of the apostles, 
 suggest the line of spiritual advance for his peo- 
 ple. Not by grasping, but by giving; not by 
 begging the favor of princes, but by offering the 
 truth freely to all ; not by leaning upon others 
 for support, but by going to the help of the 
 weak, will they find joy and strength. That 
 which tests their faith, invigorates it. That 
 which enkindles their love, ennobles and aug- 
 ments it. 
 
 The servants of Christ grow into his likeness 
 by following in his steps, and the story of his 
 work on earth may be condensed into these 
 10 
 
146 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 words, He gave his life for the sheep. Yet, 
 He said, My peace I leave with you; my peace 
 I give unto you. The most bountiful was the 
 most blessed. And the Church will then be 
 strongest and fairest and most jubilant, when it 
 is most self-forgetful and self-sacrificing, giving 
 always with a willing mind to those who are in 
 need. 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 
 
 It TT^ill be recollected that, according to the 
 view maintained in these pages, the great end 
 or office of the State is to protect men in their 
 natural rights — their right to life, unless it is 
 forfeited by crime; their right to liberty of 
 action, unless that action is injurious to others ; 
 and their right to property, the product of their 
 own labor, unless a fraction of it be required 
 for the support of government. But many per- 
 sons will reject this view, and hasten to deny 
 that the functions of civil government arc sim- 
 ply protective. Possibly they are right in so 
 doing; at all events, such are the limits set to 
 this discussion, that the writer cannot attempt 
 to confirm his own view, or refute theirs, by 
 
148 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 further ars^ument. Nor is it needful to do 
 so; for ilie doctrine that the relation between 
 Church and State is properly one of friendly 
 independence, does not rest on the particular 
 theory of the true end of the State, which has 
 been advocated by the writer. 
 
 For *'the powders that be" may aim to pro- 
 mote as well as to protect the secular interests 
 of the people, and yet restrict their action to 
 that class of interests, leaving the propagation 
 of religion to the agencies which God has ap- 
 pointed for that service, to the Word, and the 
 Spirit, and the Church of Christ. 
 
 And it can hardly be questioned that Baptists 
 have intended from the first to maintain this 
 division of labor between the respective forces 
 of the kingdom of Christ and the rulers of 
 mankind, confining the action of the State, as 
 far as was in their power, to civil or secular 
 affairs. 
 
 In proof of this statement, two or three 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 149 
 
 passages may be cited from documents of the 
 highest authority. 
 
 Tiie first written compact (1637), now in 
 existence, of the inhabitants of Providence, 
 Ehode Island, reads as follows: 
 
 **Wc whose names are hereunder, desirous 
 to inhabit in the town of Providence, do prom- 
 ise to subject ourselves in active or passive 
 obedience to all such orders or agreements as 
 shall be made for public good of the body, in 
 ail orderly way, by the major assent of the 
 present inhabitants, masters of families, and 
 such others as they shall admit into them, only 
 in civil things;" and there cannot surely be a 
 doubt in any one's mind as to the purport of 
 the last and limitins^ clause. 
 
 Eoger Williams and his associates meant to 
 restrict the action of the State to secular af- 
 fairs, and to deny it any control over religion, 
 Vvhether by way of patronage or repression. In 
 the time of Isaac Backus the same theory of 
 
150 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 civil government was strenuously asserted by 
 Baptists. A memorial was addressed by them 
 to the General Court of Massachusetts in 1775, 
 which contained the following words : 
 
 *'For a civil Legislature to impose religious 
 taxes is, we conceive, a power Avhich their 
 constituents never had to give, and therefore 
 going entirely out of their jurisdiction. We 
 are persuaded that an entire freedom from 
 being taxed by civil rulers to religious worship 
 is not a mere favor from any man or men in the 
 world; but a right and property granted us by 
 God, who commands us to stand fast in it. 
 We should wrong our consciences by allowing 
 that power to men which we believe belongs 
 only to God.'' 
 
 It is needless to adduce other testimonies, 
 for the historical fact stated above will not be 
 denied. But it should bo remarked — for on 
 this point there appears to be some doubt — 
 that there is no difference in principle between 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 151 
 
 taxing the property of men, for the support of 
 a form of religion which they reject, and re- 
 leasing from taxation property used for the 
 benefit of that form of religion. The only 
 difference is this: In the former case, the 
 process is direct and open; in the latter, it is 
 indirect and covert. 
 
 If church property ought to be exempted 
 from taxation on religious grounds, the ques- 
 tion at issue is settled forever; the State has 
 a right to tax Baptists for the support of Uni- 
 tarians, or Presbyterians for the support of Ro- 
 man Catholics, and vice versa. But there are 
 few intelligent Protestants in the country who 
 will advocate such a view. Here and there 
 a voice may be heard saying, that the State 
 ought to support the Church, meaning the right 
 Church; but surely, it is too late in the history 
 of the world to impose upon civil rulers the 
 duty of ascertaining for the people which or 
 what is the true Church, or to require them to 
 
152 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 recognize the Church which a majority of the 
 people favor as the true Church. Political lead- 
 ers or majorities are by no means qualified to 
 settle religious questions. 
 
 But ought not the State as such to recognize 
 God and religion? Nay, more, ought it not to 
 recognize Cliristianity as the true religion, and 
 thus proclaim itself a Christian State? Most 
 certainly it should do this, if the common law 
 of England and America is to be allowed to 
 furnish the answer. Most certainly, too, if the 
 views of distinguished statesmen are to be re- 
 ceived as conclusive. Most certainly, again, 
 if civil government is bound to use its power 
 in every sphere of life for the promotion of 
 every good cause. 
 
 But if these things be granted, the State 
 ought to go still further, and sustain in the 
 sphere of religion that which is purest and 
 best, that form of religion, or that denomination 
 of Christians which holds the most truth with 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 153 
 
 the least error. If there be such a thing as 
 a State-conscience towards God, which has a 
 right to enforce its claims by purse and sword, 
 it surely has a right to keep itself pure by en- 
 forcing all its claims. But there is no such 
 conscience. For the State is not a living per- 
 son; it has no common soul. 
 
 The fifyment of an oro^anic life of the State 
 should have been buried and foro^otten lono: ao^o. 
 Here, if anywhere, mysticism is out of place, 
 and men ought to deal simply with facts, look- 
 ing at human government in a practical way. 
 
 Looking, then, at facts alone, one is com- 
 pelled to say, that there are certain ends which 
 a State can accomplish without interfering with 
 other institutions equally divine, and there are 
 other ends which it cannot thus accomplish, 
 though they are no less important in them- 
 selves. 
 
 To the former belongs the regulation of 
 niarringe, at least, to a certain extent. For 
 
154 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 example, polygamy may be treated as a crime 
 against society, and therefore amenable to the 
 laws of the State. For, apart from the teach- 
 ing of the Scriptures, it is evident that mar- 
 riage is the normal condition of men and 
 women. Both are adapted by their physical, 
 mental, and moral nature, for this condition. 
 And the number of the one sex qualified and 
 disposed to enter the marriage state is about 
 equal to that of the other, the world over. 
 Hence any man who appropriates two women 
 to himself, deprives another of a blessing to 
 which he is entitled by the very constitution 
 of his being ; and such an act should be pro- 
 hibited by the State as a violation of natural 
 right. 
 
 The only alternatives on a large scale, are 
 monogamy and sexual communism. But the 
 latter is demonstrably incompatible with the 
 higher and purer instincts of our nature, as 
 well as with the proper support and training of 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 155 
 
 children. The State, then, without regard to 
 tlie claims of religion, should enforce the law 
 of monogamy, as against communism or polyg- 
 amy. In doing this, it will of course have 
 the united and hearty support of Christians; 
 their religious convictions, their consistent ex- 
 ample, and their strong social influence will 
 make the task of the State comparatively easy 
 in every country where they are numerous. 
 
 But there are other ends that must be sought 
 by different means. For instance, God has not 
 seen fit to entrust the interests of his spiritual 
 reign over men to the State, but rather to the 
 free action of his people, under the guidance of 
 his Word and Spirit. Every member of the 
 State, whether officer or private citizen, has 
 indeed a conscience, and is bound to act for 
 himself in behalf of the truth as it is in Jesus. 
 For worship is evermore, and by the nature of 
 the case, a free and personal act. Just so far 
 as it becomes a mere legal formula, an act, not 
 
156 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 oi human souls, but of State routine, does it 
 lose its true character, and become an insult 
 and offence to God. 
 
 If, then, the people wish to honor the Most 
 High, let them receive his truth into their 
 hearts, form churches after the Apostolic ex- 
 ample, preach the gospel to old and young in 
 every corner of the land, select men for their 
 rulers who fear God and work righteousness, 
 and insist that all shall be free to worship 
 Jehovah or refrain from his worship, as their 
 consciences dictate, without constraint and with- 
 out molestation — and the nation will become 
 Christian in the only true sense of the Word. 
 But to put the word "God" into the Constitu- 
 tion, or any Christian formula into public doc- 
 uments, will amount to nothing. If the Pres- 
 ident desires to speak and act as a Christian 
 man, let him do so, for it is one of his natural 
 rights. If the Houses of Congress desire to 
 worship God, let them do so, at their own 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 157 
 
 charges, or by the favor of the clergy. But let 
 there be no attempt by the State to patronize 
 religion, much less to support it by purse or 
 sword. Christians may certainly do many good y ^ 
 things by means of the State, just as they can 
 do many good things by means of the steam- 
 engine or the electric telegraph ; but thc}^ can- 
 not safely employ it in the realm of spiritual 
 life ; its rough and compulsory forces belong to 
 a lower plane of action, and must not be turned 
 asrainst the conscience. 
 
 Again, Christians may sometimes be respon- 
 sible for the existence and character of the State ; 
 but the converse of this is never true, that the 
 State is responsible for the existence and char- 
 acter of Christians. It is not a religious insti- 
 tution, nor can it be made to do the work of 
 such an institution, without usurping the func- 
 tions of a Church and trampling on the con- 
 sciences of men. Even then it will no more 
 
158 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 do the work of a Christian Church than a whirl- 
 wind will do the work of a syllogism. 
 
 In stating some of the reasons for his view of 
 the proper relation of the State to religion, the 
 writer begs leave to refer again to a lesson of 
 the past, which may have weight as a prudential 
 consideration. Every reader of history is fa- 
 miliar with instances of the confiscation of 
 ecclesiastical property by the State. These 
 acts have generally been stigmatized as deeds 
 of robbery and sacrilege. And from certain 
 points of view they must always be so regarded. 
 
 Yet it should not be forgotten, that, in many 
 cases the rulers of the people have but re- 
 claimed by force what they had given with- 
 out right. By releasing the vast possessions 
 of the Church from taxation, they had been 
 compelled to exact larger sums from the labor- 
 ing poor, and had thus added year by year 
 to the wealth of the former, by deepening the 
 poverty of the latter. It is true that these 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 159 
 
 great monastic establishments Tvere expected to 
 bestow alms on the poor; but was it just to 
 render the people objects of charity by show- 
 ing special favor to those who were building 
 up charitable institutions ? Would it not have 
 been more equitable to relieve the secular es- 
 tates and the common people of oppressive 
 burdens, by a moderate tax on ecclesiastical 
 property, thus preventing pauperism, than to 
 provide for the relief of poverty by means 
 which multiplied the number of the poor? 
 And especially when it is recollected that 
 only a small fraction of the vast church rev- 
 enues went to the aid of paupers, most of it 
 going to the support of an idle and sometimes 
 vicious clergy ? 
 
 In view of all this, it may be said that there 
 has been a sort of rough and grim justice meted 
 out to religious orders, or ecclesiastical au- 
 thorities, by some of the acts of confiscation, 
 wresting from them hoarded treasures. Or, 
 
160 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 if this language be objectionable, it may at 
 least be said, that the State has only reclaimed 
 by force a little more than it gave -without 
 right; that having largely increased the prop- 
 erty in question, by layiug unjustly the whole 
 burden of taxation on other property for cen- 
 turies, it has at length reversed the proc- 
 ess, taking unlawfully even more than it gave 
 unjustly. 
 
 But is there any danger of great accumula- 
 tions of property in the hands of American 
 ecclesiastics ? Is there a particle of reason to 
 fear that any Church will draw from the people 
 larger sums for sectarian purposes than the 
 good of the country requires ? or that religious 
 corporations, favored by the State, will obtain 
 through their wealth a power which is far from 
 religious or safe? These questions are relevant 
 to the discussion at its present stage, and their 
 answer must be a decided affirmative. 
 
 If the writer is not misinformed, there are 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 161 
 
 Bishops in the land who have not scrupled to 
 make use of their vast revenues to control leg- 
 islation. 
 
 The Protestants of St. Louis have felt in 
 times past, it is said, not simply the spiritual, 
 but also the secular power of a distinguished 
 prelate of that city, and have found the taxing 
 of church property a benefit rather than an evil. 
 The Protestants of other cities would doubtless 
 have the same experience, and come to the 
 same conclusion, if they were wise and strong 
 enouofh to obtain such a law. But whatever 
 may be thought of the past, so far as this land 
 is concerned, there are influences now at work 
 which tend to put vast accumulations of eccle- 
 siastical wealth in the hands of a few men at 
 the head of certain denominations, and it is 
 worthy- of serious reflection whether, in the 
 light of mere prudence, it is wise to exempt 
 such wealth from taxation. 
 
 The testimony of history is a warning against 
 11 
 
162 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 these accumulations, as being likely to wield a 
 mighty influence in the political world. If 
 they cannot be altogether prevented, they can 
 at least be left without encouragement. Yet it 
 will be found impossible to discriminate be- 
 tween property held for religious purposes by 
 one or five men, and that held by large num- 
 bers of men. If a Protestant congregation may 
 hold and use, without taxes, property worth 
 fifty thousand dollars, it will be difficult to 
 prevent a Roman Catholic Bishop, or three 
 ecclesiastics with two laymen, as in New York, 
 from holding and using fifty millions of prop- 
 erty, without taxes, for the same alleged ends. 
 With these remarks, the writer submits the 
 subject to Christians of every name. It is cer- 
 tainly worthy of their careful consideration, 
 and it has been his aim to present it in the 
 fairest manner possible. There may be defects 
 in his statement of principles, or errors in his 
 application of them, but that the general views 
 
FURTHER REMARKS. 163 
 
 set forth in this discussiou are correct, he is 
 unable to doubt. 
 
 And it is hoped that by this examination, 
 with others more thorough and equally dis- 
 passionate from abler pens, some real progress 
 may be made towards a full comprehension of 
 the great question at issue, and the churches 
 be led to favor such action in the future as 
 will best accord with the will of the Master, 
 whose kingdom is not of this world. If love 
 to the truth and love to one another prevail, 
 no evil can result from the freest discussion of 
 such a topic. 
 
As some of the questions noticed in this dis- 
 cussion have been recently pressed upon the 
 attention of the public, by persons who are 
 considered unfriendly to religion, the writer 
 will be pardoned for recapitulating briefly, the 
 principles set forth by him, and adding a few 
 thoughts not before expressed. 
 
 The State is not an end, or a good in itself; 
 but simply a means to an end. It has no per- 
 sonality, or life, or worth of its own. It exists 
 by the will of the people and for the good of 
 the people. Its value is found in the service 
 which it renders to the men who constitute it; 
 for these are immortal, and the characters which 
 they form in this life will be theirs forever. 
 
RESUME. 165 
 
 The State is not a parent, and the people chil- 
 dren, nor an employer, and the people employ- 
 ees ; nor a giver of bread and the people panpers. 
 To imagine it identical in nature with an Ori- 
 ental monarchy, a great business firm, or a 
 gigantic poor-house, is to forget the best les- 
 sons of history, and revive the political notions 
 of an age long past. It may serve as a comple- 
 ment to the family, the church, the college, the 
 fii^m ; but it differs from every one of these in 
 nature as well as purpose. 
 
 For the supreme end of the State is the pro- 
 tection of the people in the exercise of their 
 natural rights. If this were needless, if every 
 man were duly respected by every other man, 
 civil government would have little or nothing 
 to do. Other and simpler agencies would soon 
 take its place. United action would sometimes 
 be needed for the achievement of difficult enter- 
 prises; but it could be readily secured without 
 
1G6 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 constraint. Protection is therefore the supreme 
 end of human government. 
 
 The State should afford reasonable protection 
 to the lives of the people. In doiug this, be- 
 sides punishing violence, it may guard the door 
 of admission to medical practice, may enforce 
 sanitary regulations in times of pestilence, and 
 may prohibit the sale of anything dangerous to 
 health. It may also enter the family circle and 
 prevent parents from neglecting their helpless 
 children, or children from neglecting their fee- 
 ble parents. In a word, it may do all that 
 oujrht to be done in this direction. 
 
 The State should also protect the liberties 
 of the people. And among these the highest 
 place belongs to liberty of worship. With this 
 *'the powers that be" can never justly inter- 
 fere, unless it takes a course incompatible with 
 rights which they are called to defend. But no 
 man can be permitted to wrong his brother, 
 
RESUME. 167 
 
 even though it be under pretext of conscience 
 towards God. 
 
 The State should likewise protect the people 
 in holding and using their property. For the 
 fruits of labor be]ong of right to the laborer. 
 He who creates a value is the natural owner of 
 it. But there is need of peculiar caution in the 
 application of this principle; for no man has 
 the same original right to the soil which he 
 cultivates, or to the materials of Nature which 
 he employs, that he has to the improvement 
 which he makes in them, or to the value which 
 he adds to them. A discussion of this vital 
 question in political economy does not, how- 
 ever, come within the intended scope of this 
 essay. But since it is a question of growing 
 interest, a few hints may be offered to those 
 who have given it little thought. 
 
 The earth itself, and especially the surface 
 of the earth, is God's gift to mankind, for the 
 benelit of all. 'But this circumstance does not, 
 
163 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 as some appear to think, prove that it must 
 remain forever midiviclecl, the common pos- 
 session and camping-ground of the whole race. 
 For the value of any part of it is chiefly 
 due to cultivation by the hand of man; while 
 the privilege of personal ownership is by far 
 the strongest motive to this cultivation. But 
 ownership is valid and practical no farther than 
 it is protected by the State. Plainly, therefore, 
 the State ousfht to assure to individuals a title 
 to portions of the soil. But this title should 
 be given on such terms and with such limita- 
 tions as best accord with the right of the peo- 
 ple to life, liberty, and the fruit of their labor. 
 Moreover, the State should protect itself, its 
 purity and character, by requiring the people 
 to obtain in some way an education that will 
 qualify them for the discharge of their civil 
 duties. And the citizens of a free republic, 
 called to select their own rulers, need more 
 than the rudiments of learning to prepare them 
 
RESUME. 169 
 
 for intelligent action. But whatever the stand- 
 ard may be, up to that standard they should be 
 brought, lest the blind lead the blind, and both 
 fall into the ditch. So much education may 
 certainly be given by schools supported by the 
 State. 
 
 The revenues of the State should be drawn, 
 as equitably as possible, from all the persons 
 and property under its protection. This will 
 be recognized by every man as a just rule; but 
 in applying it, differences of opinion will be sure 
 to appear. Self-interest will cast its shadow 
 over this mind from one point, and over that 
 from another. Here partial knowledge, there 
 strong desire, will lead to error of judgment. 
 One will believe that incomes should be taxed, 
 anothel' that property should bear the burdens. 
 And much that is plausible can be urged by 
 every man in support of his own view. Yet it 
 is important for those who justify the exemp- 
 
170 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 tion of certain kinds of property, to bear in 
 mind several facts; namely: 
 
 1. The property in question, whatever it be, 
 has been put to the use which it now serves by 
 the free act of its owners. It is just where 
 they choose to have it, and doing just the ser- 
 vice which they prefer to have it do. In a 
 majority of cases, though not in all, it would 
 have been put in the same form, to do the same 
 work, had it been subject to taxation from the 
 first. 
 
 2. The protection of this property by the 
 State gives it a considerable part of its value 
 for the use to which it is applied. Thus the 
 State is actually doing something every year to 
 preserve or increase its value. It watches over 
 it by day and by night. It defends it from the 
 thief, the robber, and the mob. It warns every 
 man to avoid every act that can interfere with 
 the use of that property for the purpose chosen. 
 And often in large cities, through the protection 
 
RESUME. 171 
 
 of government and the enterprise of business, 
 this property increases in value almost a hun- 
 dred fold, so that the favored organization is 
 made rich. Who of us is conscious of his full 
 obligation to the State for his peace in the 
 house of God? or for his success in the rooms 
 of any great Christian Society ? 
 
 3. The State is supported, in part, at least, 
 by taxes levied upon the property of the peo- 
 ple; and therefore, if a part of that property is 
 devoted to uses which exempt it from taxation, 
 a heavier burden must be laid upon the rest. 
 Is not this the same in effect as a gift from the 
 State of the amount saved to the Church by ex- 
 emption? It must be, if we look at the matter 
 from a simply fiscal point of view. But would 
 Christians of any name in this land be willing 
 to commit themselves for the future to the pol- 
 icy of receiving from the State a yearly stipend 
 for the prosecution of their work, that stipend 
 being exacted from the people without regard 
 
172 RELIGIOX AND THE STATE, 
 
 to their religious belief? If not, then it is 
 clear that they should not wish their church 
 property to be relieved permanently from tax- 
 ation. 
 
 But it is said, that much property besides 
 that which is held by Christian churches, is 
 exempted from taxation; and that if the ex- 
 emption is withdrawn from the latter, it should 
 be from the former also. This is no doubt 
 correct; but the present essay is concerned 
 with the honor and influence of religion, es- 
 pecially the Christian religion, and the writer 
 is chiefly solicitous to have Christians look at 
 the question with candor from as many points 
 of view as they can take. If the true spirit, 
 the very genius of Christianity requires the 
 friendly independence of Church and State, it 
 is highly important for the followers of Christ 
 to see this, and act in harmony with their Mas- 
 ter's will. It must be wiser for them to do 
 this of free choice under the pure light of 
 
RESUME. 173 
 
 truth, than to be coustmined to do it by the 
 wrath of evil men, which is so often overruled 
 for good in the progress of events. 
 
 It has also l)een said, that churches render 
 invaluable service to the State, more than equal 
 to the favor of exemption. This may also be 
 true; but it is not usual for good men to ex- 
 pect a recompense in this life for their moral 
 influence or their liberality to the poor. Be- 
 sides, the service which churches render to the 
 State is incidental; it is not an end distinctl}^ 
 contemplated in their organization. Still fur- 
 ther, they are more numerous in many local- 
 ities than the service which they render to the 
 State requires. Why should the government 
 release from taxation three houses of worshi23 in 
 a small town, when a single house would accom- 
 modate all the worshippers who can be brought 
 together, and when the different churches are 
 equally useful as a police force ? And lastly, 
 it is not certain that such a church as the Cath- 
 
174 RELIGION AND THE STATE. 
 
 olic will always be useful in a free State. It 
 may now be useful in this country, and indeed 
 the writer presumes that it is ; but for a single 
 important reason he cannot repress a fear that 
 it will not always remain so. 
 
 The head of that church, residing in a for- 
 eign land, is supposed to be infallible. If he 
 is not so in reality, but is liable to fall into 
 error and sin, even when acting as head of the 
 church, his authority is such as to make those 
 who submit to it without reserve an element of 
 some danger in a republic. For a man who 
 is obeyed as infallible may have ambitious 
 thoughts, plans, purposes, not altogether in 
 harmony with the spirit of freedom and free 
 institutions. The case is very different when 
 the infallible authority is a book which has no 
 ambition to gratify, no personal aim or preju- 
 dice to affect its teaching, and, above all, when 
 every man is encouraged to interpret that book 
 for himself. History has proved that the in- 
 
RESUME. 175 
 
 fluence of the Bible, freely interpreted by 
 Protestants, will never endanger a republican 
 form of government. Can the same be said 
 without qualification of the influence of the 
 Papal See? If so, the suggestion of doubt in 
 respect to the possible attitude of that church 
 towards the State hereafter, may be passed by 
 us superfluous.