OF THE U N I VERS IT Y Of ILLINOIS From the library of Professor William A. Foster Presented by his family 1941 261.7 Scb<3s Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. The State, The Church, And The School. % frtenBEp Jmif: wherein one Cae0ar Bp l$ame, an£> one, t§e Banker of ,$ui>a§—ant) ro^ose ‘Barney are 00 caffei) in Scripture—prap for a decree of BiPorce; ani>, t§e draper of t§e Petitioner granted, t§e (£>ue0tion en0ue0: €0 ico§om 0§aff Be ^iPen t§e <£§i£i> ? BY C. H. L. SCHUETTE, A. M. COLUMBUS, OHIO: THE LUTHERAN BOOK CONCERN. 1883. 8>s 11 if) i y tIUlflUdlll PREFACE.. 3 PREFACE. *• 1 r - servitude upon such men, to establish despotism over such a mighty continental nation, must be vain, must be fatal!” Lord Chatham, in the British Parliament . The men here so highly and heartily com¬ mended for their great wisdom and moral worth, and whose state-papers elicited such unfeigned ad¬ miration among the enemies of their cause, were the representative and leading minds of our Rev- I S 6 I 906 4 PREFACE. olutionary Era—the men who, in peril of all that is most dear to the human heart, laid the founda¬ tion of our Government. That they fought in defense of their homes, that they founded a new State, that they are the fathers of a great nation— these things constitute not their chief glory. Their greater, their distinguishing, glory is this, that they so fully recognized and heroically stood up for the best rights of humanity, that they did their work so wisely and well, that they are the fathers of a people truly free, and that in their every achieve¬ ment they discerned and acknowledged the guid¬ ance and support of the most merciful God. Did the profound wisdom and the nobility of character manifest from the documents of State, which they submitted to the chiefs of the mother country, wrest from these such utterances of un¬ equaled praise: greater, by far, is the honor due them for the conception and promulgation of that grand Instrument of State upon which—from May to September, A. D. 1787 * and under the presi¬ dency of George Washington —they concentrated all their efforts and to which they devoted, prayer¬ fully devoted, their best powers of mind and soul— The Constitution of the United States of America . Little good had these men and their compan¬ ions received at the hands of kings, poor protection had they enjoyed under the crowns of their trans- * If any event in the history of a people is worthy of a joyous commemoration, the completion of this work must be accounted as such; and it is hoped that the 17th day of September , A. D. 1887, will be observed as a day of national thanksgiving and as a general jubilee. PREFACE. 5 Atlantic lords: and for kings and crowns, accord¬ ingly, they found room neither in the new land nor in the law of its government, except forever to pro¬ scribe them! In a country where every man is esteemed the equal of his fellow in affairs of right, there can simply be no room for kings. And as to crowns—what other and more precious jewel can any people covet than that which we possess in the great charter of our civil and religious Liberties ? For both, our king and our crown, we point to our National Constitution ; and this—next to our God and His Word, to whom for its formation, success¬ ful operation, and happy preservation, we are so largely indebted—we prize as our dearest national treasure. Rather ought we to have said: should we prize as our dearest treasure; for, as in other things so in this, we do not what we should do. Our excellent Constitution abounds in good things. Of truths and principles, of rules and ordinances—in part revealed from heaven, in part suggested by the his¬ tory of the world, all of great moment to our tem¬ poral and eternal interests—one closely presses the other. The ripe product of close study, and of loving hearts, its every word is worthy of careful consideration. There is much to admire; the whole document has approved itself as an instru¬ ment only for good; in every way it demands of us an appreciative and grateful heart. The one grand principle of our Constitution which, more than any other and to the exclusion almost of all others, is to engage us in the following pages, is the principle of the rights of conscience 6 PREFACE. and the consequent law forbidding the establish¬ ment of any national religion. This is a gem more brilliant than the Koh-i-noor of a queen, it is the gift of One greater than the fabled Krischnu: and it is ours ! Without the guarantee of religious liberty every system of civil government is utterly worthless. But, more than any other on earth, we are a free people—we are free in the all-important matter of religion. Of this fact every one of us should have an intelligent and living consciousness, that we may preserve what is ours. As citizens, nothing becomes us so well as a careful and rever¬ ent study of the charter of these our holy rights. Than to abuse these, for us there can be no greater wrong; while their right and grateful enjoyment is sure to make us a happy and prosperous people. When, in the book here introduced to the Reader, we essay a treatment of such comprehen¬ sive themes as are the State, the Church, and the School, it is not our intention to explore to any great extent the fields respectively of civil juris¬ prudence, of theology, and of education. That were an undertaking which to execute surpasses our ability. We propose to ascertain, as best we can, the place in the social system belonging by right to each of our great subjects. With this object con¬ stantly before us, we shall first give the necessary description of the State, the Church and the School, and then discuss the relation which they ought to sustain with respect to each other. Whatever may here and there appear to be irrelevant will on that account, we trust, not be found wholly unwelcome and unprofitable reading. PREFACE. 7 The point of view assumed throughout the dis¬ cussion is that of a Christian citizen. No tenet of any Christian denomination will be found assailed except where, in letter or in spirit, it is believed to be in conflict with the doctrine of equal rights, especially as touching the affairs of God and the human soul. Wherever we found this to be the case—wherever we have discovered anything antag¬ onistic to the Magna Charta of our Liberties—we have spared none; we have frankly characterized the party and fearlessly exposed the ruinous tend¬ ency of its precepts. In our own land we have no union of Church and State; but from this it does not follow that the question no longer concerns us. A people govern¬ ing itself should thoroughly understand the philos¬ ophy of its own laws, especially of the laws em¬ bodied in its Constitution. Besides, the line of demarcation between the Church and the State is not so definite and distinct as many may suppose. Conflicts between these bodies are becoming quite numerous in our country; and the way their bat¬ tles are fought and their difficulties are adjusted, indicates anything but a thorough acquaintance with the principles involved. Sooner or later, too, such questions as e. g. the recognition of Chris¬ tianity in the Constitution, the introduction of religion into the Common Schools, etc., will de¬ mand a final solution at the hands of American citizens. To be properly prepared to meet such issues as these, he must fully understand the ra¬ tionale of our liberties; he must know the reasons why our Constitution forbids the establishment by 8 PREFACE. law of any religion and understand the full import of this law. To aid in the solution of such questions as are here no more than indicated, the book now pre¬ sented to the Reader was written. In its prepara¬ tion we have walked through pleasant fields and by the hands of worthy men—with these we have walked along often supported, sometimes support¬ ing, always instructed and delighted. No less than did we, may the Reader find their company good and pleasant. Capital University, Columbus, Ohio, June, 1883. •i 10 CONTENTS. CONTENTS. I. THE STATE. Page. Preface . 3-8 § 1. Common Rights and Duties and their free Exercise , as leading to the Establishment of the State . 17-38 National Favors and national Gratitude—Common Rights—Personal and Civil Liberty—Perplexities—Formation of a Government—State-Origin. § 2. The State , its Nature and Office defined . 39-60 Definitions — State-Sovereignty —Whence it is—In whom does it reside— Necessity of its Assertion—Whojnay exer¬ cise it—In what Form. §3. A view of the Chief Arms of State . 61-72 Object of State-Laws and Law¬ making—Different kinds of Laws—The Virtue and Force of Laws. § 4. The Sphere of State-Jurisdiction . 73-87 The Objects coming within its Sphere—Jurisdiction not Possession—Dif¬ ficulties—Education—Morals and Religion —Religious Freedom a Natural Right— Religious Freedom not Toleration—State supreme—Not independent—Moral Sup¬ port. II. THE CHURCH. § 5. Religion and Religious Rights and Du¬ ties as leading to the Establishment of the Church . 88-105 CONTENTS. 11 Religion universal — Folly of Atheism—Heathenism—Power of Religion —Revealed Religion—The Bible—Chris¬ tianity—Power of Christianity—Founded on Facts—The only Religion—In what sense fixed, in what sense progressive— Exclusive—Tendency of the age to Skep¬ ticism—The Universal character of Chris¬ tianity— Influence of Christianity—Its Conflicts and Triumphs—Its Needs. § 6. The Church defined;—its real Essence; and the outward Forms in which it mani¬ fests itself ... . The Church in its primary Sense —a Body, not an Institution—more than a Society—Faith, the Bond of Union—In¬ visible.—The Church in its derivative Sense—a Christian Congregation—Differ¬ ence between the Church and Churches— Its Tangibility—Political View of the Church—Why and How noticed by the State—Incorporations—Importance of—. §7. A View of the Church with reference to its Objects and its Means and Mode of Operation . The Church a Duality—True Visible Church—Its Object—Means—Mo¬ dus Operandi—Its social Functions—Or¬ ganization—Legislation—Power of Legis¬ lation, where resident—Vestries and Sy¬ nods. § 8. The Boundaries of Churchly Activity and the Limits of its Powers . Advantage of Order—Power and Authority—Resort to Force—The Policy of Non-interference—Minding One’s Business —Resume—Church-Supremacy. Page. 106-117 118-128 129-139 12 CONTENTS. III. THE DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION OF THE STATE AND OF THE CHURCH. Page. Preliminary . 140-141 § 9. The State and the Church are two dis¬ tinct but not antagonistic Bodies . 142-161 Analogous Features of the State and the Church—Difference of—Their Com-' mixture forbidden—Comparative Import¬ ance of—The Question of Subordination— Hierarchic Notions of Romanism—Protes¬ tant Distinction between State and Church —Practical Inferences—No Conflict pos¬ sible—Conflict possible between them only when false—Christianity adverse to Slavery —A safe Principle of State and Church- Legislation— The Rights of Conscience— Correct view of Politics and of Religion, in the United States—Hopes of Romanism— A Species of Communism. § 10. The State and the Church are indepen¬ dently existent but mutually auxiliary Bodies . 162-183 The Policy of utter Indiffer¬ ence repudiated—Folly of Enmity to the Church—Common Interests— The State has need of the Church: Worth of Religion to the State—The social merits of Christian¬ ity—Testimony— The Church has need of the State: The Church dependent on God alone—The State an Instrument of Good to the Church — Need of Protection — against Foes without—and within—State Arbitration in Church-Affairs—Explained. CONTENTS. 13 IV. THE HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION OF THE STATE AND THE CHURCH. Page. Preliminary . 184-187 §11. Arguments for their Union — refuted... 188-209 - 1. The object of the State, the Public Good—Its Office paternal. 2. Sal¬ vation of men the object of all Orders. 3. The Government’s Need of Sanctification —Recognition of God in the American Constitution — National Reform Party. 4. Establishments necessary to secure Church - Government. 5. Necessary to secure the best Religion to the Body politic. 6. Material Advantages of—Sup¬ posed Evils. 7. Necessary to establish Uniformity. § 12. Arguments against their Union — con¬ firmed . 210-248 1. Uselessness. 2. Confusion resulting from—. 3. Involves an Infrac¬ tion of civil and religious Liberty. 4. In¬ evitable Wrongs. 5. Produces revolution¬ ary Elements in State and Church. 6. The adverse Testimony of History. V. THE RELATION OF THE STATE AND THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. § 13. Official Utterances of the Constitutions.. 249-267 1. Of the Federal Constitution. 2 . Of the State Constitutions in Alpha¬ betical Order. 3. Fundamental Constitu¬ tion of Carolina, A. D. 1669. 4. Frame of Government of Pennsylvania, A. D. 1682. 5. Analysis of the Constitutions of the American Union. 6. XIV. Amendment. 7. Honor of Virginia. 14 CONTENTS. Page. § 14. Annotations , especially on the National Constitution , respecting the Relation of the State and the Church . 268-280 Our Nation the first to declare full religious Liberty—Our Constitution not indifferent nor hostile to Religion— Opinion of Judge Story—Of Judge Bay¬ ard—Analysis — The Result, a Matter of Gratitude. § 15. Inconsistencies of Practices with Prin¬ ciples - apparent and otherwise . 281-301 Sunday — Blasphemy — Chap¬ laincies. §16. General Review of Principles and Prac¬ tices , and the Problem of Harmonizing them . 302-314 Our Government non-religious — “Broad Christianity” denominational and concretely sectarian—The non-relig¬ ious the best civil Polity—Doubts difficult to overcome—Uncle Sam to mind his own Business—Stand by the Rule, the Excep¬ tions will take care of themselves—Chap¬ laincies as an Exception—Their Justifica¬ tion— A Limit to the Rights of “Con¬ science and Religion”—The grateful Hopes of Washington—Webster’s Eulogy. VI. THE SCHOOL. § 17. Parental Duties as Leading to the Establishment of the School . 315—326 The Christian Home — Our Text—The Estate of Marriage—Children, a Gift of Supreme Love—The Worth of Children — The Bestowal of favors Im¬ poses Duties — The Importance of the Parent’s and Educator’s Office—Children Belong to the Parents—The Family is CONTENTS. 15 State and Church combined—The domes¬ tic Ministry—The Father or the Mother? — Hindrances to domestic Education — Necessity of Schools. §18. The School , What it is and what it should be .. The School not a house of Cor¬ rection—Not a Nursery—Education de¬ fined — Education to Comprehend the Whole Man — Object of the School — Knowledge is Power—Our Schools and Teachers as they are—Difficulties—The only Help—The Bible as a School-book— Educational Worth of Christianity—Edu¬ cation, a divine Right to. § 19. The Relation of the School to the State and the Church . The Right to demand and the Duty to do are things different—Compul¬ sory Education — Separation of secular and religious Education — Obj ections— The Claims of the religious Sentiment— Religious Pretense not Satisfactory—Posi¬ tive Objections to secular Schools—Never inculcate Doubts—The Good of the Secu¬ lar System—The School to be given to the Church. § 20. The Problem brought Home , or, the American School . The Laws — Defects—A Rem¬ edy proposed not practicable—In what sense are we a Christian People — The Problem Stated—Deism characterized — Its arrogant Claims — The Obstacle of Equal Rights — The Church — The Plea of Conscience — A Common and Chris¬ tian School an Impossibility—Parochial Schools — Not inimical to Protection— Propositions. Page. 337—341 342—357 358—381 - . ■ ' flP I. THE STATE. 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES, AND THEIR FREE EXERCISE, AS LEADING TO THE ESTAB¬ LISHMENT OF THE STATE. To live in our own dear land, as “in the land of the free and the home of the brave,” is indeed an inestimable good. Whatever be the race, con¬ dition or color of his parent, here the new-born man greets with the light of day a life of liberty. Among us the oppressed and impoverished of other and less favored lands may find relief from unrea¬ sonable impositions and insufferable wrongs; a ref¬ uge here awaits them which promises peace if not plenty. We are a people enriched with many things great and good: but the greatest and best among them all is the freedom of their pursuit and enjoyment. And would to God that the apprecia¬ tion and gratitude of both, the free-born and the liberated, were more commensurate to the blessings on them bestowed. When in thralldom, Rienzi could bethink him¬ self of days “ when to be a Roman was greater than a king;” then could he ardently long, then did he zealously labor, for the restoration of those happy days. But no sooner was Rienzi free and himself 18 THE STATE. I. proclaimed “The Tribune of Liberty , Peace and Justice” of proud Rome, than he too became proud and im¬ perious ; and he began to encroach upon those sacred rights he himself had been foremost to re¬ store. And then?—Rienzi was deprived of his high trust; degraded, he became a fugitive from the citv, and when at last he returned it was to die at the hands of the same people who before had done him honor. Such are the ways of man! and human nature is ever and everywhere the same. First servitude and want; then liberty, wealth, power, and honor; and then, ingratitude, degrada¬ tion, and death. These are the few words that suffice to tell the history of the rise and fall of many a man, ay! and of many a nation, too. “An advance, a growth, a development, an ascendency, and then a demoralization, a subversion, and a decay.” Such are the facts as furnished by the history of nations that have been. Notwithstand¬ ing the Evolution theory of Herbert Spencer and all the nice speculations of his and similar schools to the contrary, two words tell the story of nations: “Rise and Fall!” That our own America has been greatly favored and highly exalted among the nations of the earth is a matter of most grateful joy; that she may not fall, as others have fallen, is a matter of hope most fond and of prayer most devout. With the free¬ dom we enjoy there are bound up interests which reach deeper than the body, higher than the earth, and farther than time. Not only the body and its well-being are here concerned : it affects our spirit¬ ual self and all that is most sacred and dear to us. 1 . COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 19 In view of this the cry of “Liberty or Death!” which otherwise may seem an emotional extrava¬ gance, at once becomes expressive of profound wis¬ dom, and of a sense of high duty as well. But the fear to lose and the hope to preserve a good that is our own are only then possible when we appreciate that good. Only when the heritage of liberty is often present in our thoughts and so becomes a thing familiar and precious to our hearts, will we put forth our best endeavors to hold it fast and properly to use it. Among us there are many, very many, who never give a serious thought to this blessing which has come upon them. They breathe the air of freedom as they do the air of earth, without any consideration, care and grati¬ tude whatever; and so little do some of them know • of its true nature that they often pronounce it foul when in truth it is most pure and wholesome. Judging from the indifference so often and so gen¬ erally manifested with reference to the most im¬ portant questions of common rights and duties, even when these are flagantry disregarded and trampled on with impunity, it is difficult to be¬ lieve that the love of liberty is as deeply rooted in the hearts of our people as some would have us think. Love is anxious, wakeful, circumspect, jeal¬ ous, and quickly roused to action when the thing beloved is in jeopardy. Besides, a pure and strong love of right and duty and their free exercise de¬ mands beforehand a clear and correct sense of these things; and to implant this comparatively little is done and still less is effected. Should any one think that we are looking 20 THE STATE. I. about us and judging things through the glasses of a pessimist, we are comforted by the fact that in our “ misery ” we are not without good company. “In the stress of small politics it is to be feared that Americans are giving far less attention than they should to the great formative epochs of liberty in modern history; and that while we are in the quiet, unquestioned, and unexampled enjoyment of the common blessings of liberty, we are in¬ finitely more ignorant than were the men of the past, who pioneered the way, of the principles that lie at the root of the matter, and which crys- talized slowly through centuries of arduous struggle into the institutions we now so unconcernedly in¬ herit.”* “There are, however, three tendencies abroad which aim at the disturbance of this ad¬ justment”—i. e. the separate condition of Church and State—“and which, in the event of the com¬ plete success of any one of them, must destroy it altogether .... The first of these may be described as the surviving spirit of Puritanism .... The second movement hostile to civil and religious lib¬ erty may be even more briefly referred to, for the reason that it is organized, tangible, historic, and is therefore better known. It may be designated as Ultramontanism or Vaticanism in politics and re¬ ligion .... Finally, there is a reactionary move¬ ment, provoked in great degree by the tendencies already noticed, which, for the want of a better term, may be called secularism .... It is for the most part a quiet, unavowed purpose on the part of politicians, both active and theoretical, who are * Harper’s Magazine, December, 1881, p. 148. § 1 . COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 21 either irreligious, or indifferent to all religion, to discredit the Christian Church, to limit, by un¬ friendly legislation, its activities and agencies, and finally dismiss it with contempt, or reduce it to entire subjection to the civil power . . . .” (Chris¬ tianity and Civil Soc. by Bishop Harris,* p. 110 etc.) Another, and one who has had ample oppor¬ tunity to know whereof he affirms, says: “The course display of money, the crude boasting of material greatness, the swaggering assertion of an independence which is but another name for ignorance, have done much to excite in such cir¬ cles”—the best informed of Europe—“a distate for- American character, and a disrelish for American • ideas.” (Church and State by J. P. Thompson, Intr.) What is here lamented as done abroad and to our discredit, is also done at home; and, than there, is here no less injurious and deplor¬ able. Less boasting and more of an intelligent and grateful appreciation of our glorious liberties, fewer works of impossible adventure and fiction but more on our civil rights and obligations, are things whereof we greatly stand in need. And why not have them? Certainly, American citizen¬ ship, and things thereon hanging, is a theme in itself as grand and interesting as its discussion is important and ever opportune. Our people should be brought to the convic¬ tion that the liberty they enjoy is a thing cheap as they find it not because it were worthless but be- * We regret the late appearance of these excellent lec¬ tures. We can only draw from them while our manuscript passes into the hands of the printer. 22 THE STATE. I. cause it is too valuable to admit of any price; that no amount of gold and silver, that nothing within the reach of man, can be accounted its equivalent; that it is a gift of heaven and as precious as is life itself; but at the same time a gift than which there are few others so easily impaired or wholly lost. In the mind of its benign Giver it is in¬ tended for all, and for all men upon equal terms and under like conditions. If one is “ born a slave” and another is “born a king,” it is so by no decree of God but by the doubtful ordering of men. That u all men are born free and equalf though it is not generally accepted as such, is, nevertheless, a sound doctrine. Only it must be properly under¬ stood. When the child is made subject to his par¬ ent he is thereby not necessarily abridged in his liberty. Filial liberty, for .example, or the freedom of an undeveloped man, and parental authority are in no way incompatible when both are rightly de¬ fined; nay, the latter is the promoter, the bound, the safe-guard of the former. When a child does what does not become a child it exhibits an un¬ due want of restraint, but it does then not exer¬ cise its freedom. When a free man waives the exercise of his right to benefit another, or when for a time he voluntarily foregoes the use of his rights to serve another, or again, when he is restrained in his freeness from injuring others, he is in each or all these respects not in the least deprived of his liberty. Rather is his liberty thus rightly either by him employed or by others put within proper bounds. Here, of course, we are not speaking of an ab- 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 23 solute or mere theoretical liberty, nor do we con • found liberty with license. We are speaking of a conditional freedom, such as is both practicable among men and real. The abstract definition of a Cicero, according to which liberty is the “potestas vivendi ut velis,” we do not believe the correct one. The mere concomitants of power and desire do not constitute true liberty: justice, at least, must be added if not goodness. It is not the power to do what one wills unless one wills to do only what is right and what comes within man’s appointed sphere of action. The desires of man may extend to things right and wrong, possible and impossible; and to call the gratification or the ability to gratify each and every desire that may arise in the human heart, liberty, comes little short of making man a being divine and his liberty a thing devilish. The freedom of man is this that he be able and free to do what he wills but that he wills to do only what is accordant with the will of God concerning his nature and destiny. These, the nature and destiny of man, not such as they may be but such as they are designed to be, constitute the basis, and fur¬ nish us a criterion, of whatever is worthy of the name of human liberty. To apply this term, the import of which is comprehensive only of things to us sacred and good, to actions other than good, is worse than an impropriety of language—it is profanation. Man in his dual or, let us say, in his triple nature: the physical, the mental, and the spirit¬ ual, is endowed throughout with powers capable of, and calling for, development. He is a living 24 THE STATE. I. soul, and created for action. He has a thousand wants that must be supplied, and ten thousand more which he seeks to gratify. He is a moral, and therefore a responsible, being. He is made for a high purpose which remains to be accomplished. To attain the end for which he is both created and redeemed, the way is all open before him and the means are all present, and he is called to walk that way and to employ those means until he shall have become what he is designed to be: the crowning work of God’s creative goodness and of His redeem¬ ing grace. From man’s nature, its needs and capabilities, and from God’s design concerning them we reason to man’s rights and duties; and, above all, to that right and duty which entitle and bind him to act in full accord with his created nature and divinely appointed destiny. Now to be free in both, the exercise of this right and the performance of this duty, is liberty—true human liberty. Hence to be free, not to abuse my body but properly to provide for it, not to stunt their growth but to improve the powers of my mind, not to waste my time but to re¬ deem it, not to disregard obligations but to meet them, not to wrong and injure but to perform works of justice and kindness; in short, not to act against but ever to act for my God and my true self, such is a right of which I can never be justly deprived and a duty from which no one can ever relieve me, and in the doing of which no one can rightfully hinder me. As every man is divinely obligated so to act, and forbidden to act contrariwise, it follows that his liberty so to act can not be in its nature a mat- 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 25 ter of human leave, of license, or of toleration. My duty I must always do be it with or without the leave of others, in spite of all opposition, and at any cost. My rights I dare not disregard nor abuse; and what is mine by reason of my crea¬ tion no man must presume to bestow or withhold. Then, we tolerate what we do not wholly approve; but the things here in question are good beyond all doubt and by judgment higher than that of man. Personal liberty within the sphere thus de¬ scribed is inalienable. About what constitutes right and duty men may differ, as largely they do differ; but uncommonly stupid and deeply depraved, in¬ deed, must be.he who would question the principle that every man should be left wholly free to do what is right and upon him obligatory, and that he never should be forced to do wrong. However, besides these and coming within the scope of our inquiry concerning man’s rights and duties, there are many things which, in themselves, partake of a nature neither morally right nor wrong. A person may marry or remain single, drink wine or ab¬ stain, build a house it may be of brick or of wood, buy and sell at home or abroad, hold his wheat or dispose of it; he may keep a public house or operate a rail-road, practice law or medicine, drive a stage-coach or publish a paper, speak his mind or keep his peace, carry a watch or a weapon, explode fire-crackers or discharge a cannon on the memorable 4th,—and thus he may do or not do a thousand things which, in the abstract, are neither bidden nor forbidden by the moral law. Now the 2 26 THE STATE. I. question arises: shall he be left wholly free to do or not to do in things such as these—-just as he list- eth; or in the doing or not doing of them shall he be restricted and, if so, why and to what extent? That liberty of action in all such matters can be, and when rightly applied will prove itself, highly conducive to individual happiness, there can be no doubt. Doubting it you need but ask the youth concerning the matter of fire-crackers, the man concerning the drink of wine, the maid as to the affair of marriage, etc., and all scepticism on this point will be dispelled. The truth is that the desire of the individual to be without restraint in all such things to the utmost extent practic¬ able and possible is as reasonable as it is desir¬ able. Such being the case, the principle should obtain that, even in things which are in them¬ selves considered adiaphorous or morally indiffer¬ ent, in no case must a person’s liberty of action be restricted or taken away from him without good and sufficient cause. Conceding this, the question presents itself whether there is any such cause, be it either for self-denial and renunciation or for con¬ straint and control from without—should an in¬ dividual at any time forego the enjoyment of his personal liberty, and can he on any just grounds be coerced to do so by others? Certain it is that this very thing is done. Some voluntarily keep with¬ in bounds in the exercise of their personal rights; others are forced to do so. And these are things which we all witness day by day, so common are they. But how many of us inquire into the wis¬ dom and justice, the necessity and utility of their § 1 . COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 27 doing? And yet it is a question of great moment for us all. Our liberty is dear to us above many things: if so, why should it suffer abridgment, be it to any extent whatever? Let us try to under¬ stand this matter. So long as our good friends, Robinson Crusoe and his man Friday, were alone in a land seem¬ ingly all their own they were entitled and they were free to pitch their tent, to plant their corn, to catch their fish, and to swing their axes, wherever they pleased. They were free to clear any fence, to climb any tree, and to pluck pippins or russets to their hearts content — if only they could find opportunity to do such pleasurable things. Nor was there any need of fear, of haste, or of self-re¬ proach, while they might be so engaged. They could lay their hands on any ox or ass and call him all their own, if there were but any ox or ass to stroll into their way. As to the matter simply of right and liberty they were as free to slay chick¬ ens as we are free to slay their rapacious and deadly foe, the hawk; that is, wherever and whenever we have the opportunity. All these and many, many more things like them and just as delightful, they were free to do, and in them all there would have been neither trespass nor harm. But what if you and a thousand others had been established in that famous island before them, could Crusoe and Friday then have come and pitched their tent, and planted their corn, caught their fish and felled trees, picked apples and appropriated cattle, as ever and wherever they pleased ? Not so. And we all have at least 28 THE STATE. I. a remote idea of the reason why. So, too, had you and I and a thousand others drifted to that land of solitude together with Crusoe and Friday, instead of preceding them there as we have sup¬ posed, the case would not have been materially different. In either event our good friends would have been bound to regard our rights and needs as well as their own, and accordingly they would have been held to govern themselves. Were they foolishly and wrongfully to have ignored our pres¬ ence and slighted our claims, evils might have be¬ fallen them greater by far than all the evils that go to make up the story of their sad and dreary lives. The presence even of but one man in any place and under any circumstances affects another in many ways, but in none so manifestly and directly as in the matter of personal rights and their free exercise. Nevertheless, there is not one among ten thousands of our race but would rather yield some of his rights and resign some of his freedom than wholly forego the society of his fel¬ lows. The declaration of his Creator, that it is not good for man to be alone, finds a clear and lasting affirmation in the heart of every human being. Howbeit, Crusoe without his man Friday and all alone was richer and more free, though far less happy, than he was with Friday, whose rights as a fellow man were co-equal with his own. Here the question might even be raised whether, by the arrival of the one the other did not lose in reality the one half of his “vast dominions?”—to decide which, however important and interesting it may be, we will leave, for reasons all our own, to the § 1 . COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 29 doctors learned in such things. We are sure of this one thing, however, that Crusoe alone was just a little more independent and free—though less happy—than was Crusoe the master and mate of Friday. Crusoe alone, for example, could close his eyes and discharge his blunderbuss, or musket, or whatever it might be called, whithersoever he pleased and without fear or favor of any body. Not so Crusoe the master and mate: he had to ascertain first whether or not Friday was in the way before he could so fire at random—he was not at liberty to point his weapon upon his companion. Thus the presence of the latter enforced upon the former the exercise at least of some circumspec¬ tion and care, and of a consideration and restraint for which before, there was neither cause nor occa¬ sion. Having thus gone abroad and back in time to inquire into things we hold to be common and uni¬ versal, we may now return to our own shores and our own times and safely apply the lessons learned. The Robinson Crusoe liberty we have just recalled to our minds is full personal liberty; the liberty of Crusoe in company with Friday is civic liberty in its incipient stage; and the liberty which Crusoe and Friday, you and I, and a thousand others might have planted, had we together migrated to a land wild and new, would have been civic liberty—civic liberty, if not perfect at least complete. We would have defined the nature and established the limits of our common and mutual relations upon the principle that in all questions affecting the soul and conscience each one should be entirely secure 30 THE STATE. I. against coercion; and farther, that in all other things all should be left free in the greatest meas¬ ure possible yet compatible with the true interests of each and all alike. So we must have done in order to have done wisely and well. Civic liberty is the God-given liberty of the one limited by the God-given and equal liberty of others. It is that relation of men to men by which all are alike free and independent to act, and to act without guilt and punishment, so long as they do not trespass upon the rights nor interfere with the obligations of others. Its sphere, and hence its measure also, are both determined by a proper definition of what constitutes these rights and duties to which it pertains. When we say that all men are born free and equal we enounce the whole principle of civic liberty. The word “free” denotes the thing itself and hence its essence; the word “equal” points to its bounds; “born” to its origin; “all” to its extent; “men” to its reasonableness and utility. From faith in one God and Father of us all we arrive at the reality of our com¬ mon human brotherhood; from this we deduce our equality; w T ith this as a standard we ascertain the extent of the freedom to be enjoyed by each—and by so believing we bear within us by far the best, if not the only, subjective assurance of its proper use and preservation. Simple and truthful as the principles thus enunciated are in themselves and accordingly must appear to every one of fair mind, their application is all the more complex and difficult. So much is this the case that the profoundest wisdom and the 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 31 strongest arm are at times hardly equal to the task. To understand how this comes about, let us return for a moment to a case we supposed above— we mean the case where a thousand and more of us were set ashore upon a strange and uninhabited land, there to remain and make our home. Many questions would immediately present themselves and demand a speedy and satisfactory solution. Questions, namely, concerning the divi¬ sion of the land and other things thereto appur¬ tenant; and with these the innumerable questions of rights and duties, of peace and order, of rewards and punishments, of rule and obedience, etc. To settle these matters, and if possible to settle them to the satisfaction of all concerned, it would seem most natural to call a general public meeting. At least that is just the thing we Americans would think of doing first and last and all the time; and therein we would manifest our superior common sense, if nothing more'. The meeting called, many things might aggrieve us in the outset. A num¬ ber of our companions might not attend: some on account of inabilitv, others on account of indiffer- ence and indisposition, and perhaps a few from motives positively wicked. Of course, all such actions are unreasonable; but we must take men as they are—and some people are unreasonable. Then among those attending there would probably be found such as have little or no judgment on the matter in hand; others again there might be who, though more knowing than those just named, might manifest themselves as persons wholly de¬ void of the sense of justice and at the same time 32 THE STATE. I. as headstrong; lastly, and worse than all put to¬ gether, there might be a few who are sordidly selfish, covetous of wealth or of vain glory and dominion and, to secure their selfish ends, ready to employ any means and to resort to any measures fair or foul. Such being the case, think you that it would be an easy thing, say, to preside over such a meeting? that it would be a pleasure to be pres¬ ent and co-operate? yea, that nothing would be hazarded by attending? that the accomplishment of its great purpose would be easy, and that the prospects of giving .general satisfaction, and of securing safety and peace, would be very bright? Hardly. However, we will suppose that, in the face of all such possible and probable obstacles, good sense and the majority on its side prevail, what was the real object to be attained, and what has been accomplished by this meeting? None other than this: in some just and fair way to ap¬ portion and to convey to each his share of land or its equivalent, and then to secure him in the enjoy¬ ment as well as in the possession of his property; farthermore, to determine, so far as possible, what actions in any way questionable in their character might be observed as right and free and which must be avoided as wrong and culpable; lastly, to give permanency and force to the proceedings so taken by charging certain of their number with the care of these things, bidding them to enforce whatever has been enacted and to perfect whatever may have been left unfinished—and in all this to proceed in strict accordance with certain principles clearly defined and permanently established. 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 33 Now the difficulties experienced in all this work, and in its constant prosecution as well, are which? Summarily these: first, correctly to ascer¬ tain and clearly to enunciate what things were to be considered right and free and which obligatory; then which were to be held wrong and punishable, —legislative element; secondly, the interpretation of the text of things so established and its applica¬ tion to persons accused of trespass,— judicial element; and thirdly, the enforcement of whatever has been agreed upon and ordained,—the executive element: all this on previously understood or adopted general principles of action,— the fundamental law or constitu¬ tion . The coalition of elements here merely indi¬ cated signify the creation of an organized society; and their united and continued activity mean a society’s lasting and progressive existence. And, if before you knew not, by participating in this you must learn, in part at least, how very perplex¬ ing, laborious, and harassing is the work—the work of laying the foundation of, and of establishing and maintaining, a government—the work of creating, upholding, managing and furthering a State; for such is the meaning of the proceedings just de¬ scribed, crudely as it has been done. Moral and political philosophers have again and again propounded the question of State origin , the one advocating this theory and the other that. So great is the conflict of opinion on this subject, so bewildering is the confusion here, that to this day ideal States are cast upon the world like so many foundlings—foundlings, not for the want of pater¬ nity but for too much of it. One reason of this is, 34 THE STATE. I. no doubt, the fact that the distinction between the foundation and the nature of the State, then also between the principle and the end of government, is not sufficiently observed. Other sources of this clash and chaos are the different schools of philos¬ ophy, religious and political bias, the varied con¬ struction put upon historical events, liobbyhorsi- cal notions, self-interest, etc. As an illustration of what has been said on this subject, witness the fol¬ lowing. “ First, then, we must determine the funda¬ mental question, What is the State?—what is the philosophical basis of civil society?” (These ques¬ tions are certainly not strictly identical.) “To this question there have been various answers. Con¬ sidered in its relation to the Church, some of these answers have emerged in history as the character¬ istic views of ecclesiastical or political parties. For instance, the Papist would define the State as a creature of the Church; the Erastian would make the Church a department of the State; the Puritan would regulate the State on Church ideas; the Hobbist would rule the Church on reasons of State; the Quaker would abolish Church organization; and the Menonite would suppress the office of the civil magistrate.* All these views are held in our own land and age” (Christianity and Civil Society , by Bishop Harris , p. 14.) Governments, says “the king by divine right,” are an immediate gift of heaven, bestowed upon a higher order of men—for the benefit of the plebeian. “A more certain re- * Bishop Warburton: The Alliance between the Church and State, chap. 4, p. 41. 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 35 ceipt for producing misgovernment, and national calamities of all descriptions,” than this claim set up by kings, “ it would be difficult to devise.” Thus says the political philosopher Henry, Lord Brougham . Expediency, continues this same Lord Henry, “is the only governmental principle, and the only solid foundation of all rights.” Nay, says “the Lord Bacon of his age, the great high-priest of legislation, the chief among law-givers,”* Jeremy Bentham , it is not Expediency but Utility, Utility first and last and all the time. But while his numerous and enthusiastic followers say Amen to this oracle of their high-priest, there are many who doubt and not a few who deny its correctness. Among these there are those who hold that the State is the creature wholly of a stark and stern Necessity—a kind of evil that is inevitable and which must be endured. Then there are the speculators of the school of De Groot, Pufendorf, Rousseau, Locke, Warburton and others, who de¬ fine the State as a social compact and accordingly would have its origin traced back to a contract of individuals. Another theory, and akin to this, sets forth that organized society comes into exis¬ tence “bv virtue of its own social forces.” •/ To these notions of State-origin may be added those of the speculative historians—or those his¬ torical in their answer. Among these it is main¬ tained by some that all governments originally spring from the patriarchal system which obtained among the first of our race: that the State is noth* ing more than an extended family. Unique, if * Bentham’s Princ. of Leg. by John Neale, p. 14. 36 THE STATE. I. nothing more, is the opinion advanced by von Hoff¬ mann. “The common body politic has its origin ... in an historical event by which the human family was divided into a plurality of tribes—Kreise— each independent of the others. For every part, into which it was thus separated, there and there¬ by began a separate history in a land its own, with a language its own, and with forms of social and common life its own. The State is therefore by no means an extended family. But neither is the State a community of individuals, and least of all a community of individuals by compact. Individ¬ uals are members of the common body by virtue of their membership in the family. The State is a number of families . . . bound together. That in¬ dividuals can also belong to organized society is an accidental exception.” ( Theol . Moral., p. 262.) Thus from all that has been said on the subject of State-origin it appears that doubt and darkness envelop it to such an extent that it can do no harm to advance another notion about the matter in question. We give it in -the laconic words of Topsy: “I spect I grow’d!” There is evidently more or less of truth and good in all these divers and divergent views con¬ cerning the genesis of the State. We believe that God and the Church, that expediency and utility, want and necessity, the forces social and religious, the individual and the family, the patriarchs even and historic events—have each and all of them something to do, be it much or little, with the paternity of the State. The chief difficulty pre¬ sents itself in the attempt to find the true unity of 1. COMMON RIGHTS AND DUTIES. 37 all these factors, as also in the endeavor to find an adequate expression for it where it is held that this true unity of thought is discovered. A part can never be made to cover the whole to which it belongs. Hence it is a mistake to fix upon any one factor, for example that of utility or of neces¬ sity, that of the paternal or of the social force, and then in the face of the laws both of good thought and language proceed to press every other factor to take its place, whether or no, within the narrow limits thus set up. On the other hand, to make a choice of one—say of the one held to be the most comprehensive among them—as the leading idea and then to reduce and conform all others to the one thought thus chosen, or, where such cannot be properly done, to bring them into due connection— such is a process entirely legitimate. In fact, this is the only method available so long as the sum¬ mary concept has not been found and formulated. Hence, when in these pages the doctrine of equal rights and duties has been selected as the funda¬ mental and leading principle in the discussion of all questions pertaining to the State, this is not done on the presumption that herein is involved each and every subordinate principle entering such discussion as by right. Rather is this chosen, first, because it is thought to be the most important and comprehensive; and secondly, because it is the leading idea of our own civil jurisprudence and therefore the one most familiar to our common mode of thinking. Man’s sense of right and duty:—common, be¬ cause implanted by their Creator in the hearts of 38 THE STATE. I. all; developed in the course of time under the edu¬ cating influences of experience, observation and pre¬ cept; a living moral force constraining to action; entitled to freedom of movement; divinely author¬ ized to exert itself against all opposition; purpos¬ ing the well-being of men; faithful within, and never transcending, its own appointed sphere:—in this we recognize that intelligent energy which, more than any other, is designed to build the ship of State, to launch it upon the wide-spread and tumultuous waters of the world, to secure it against injury, and to direct its course to the peace and prosperity of all within its hold. Such, in the main, are the principles which shall guide us in the farther discussion of our subject. That, for the present, we have in view no particular historic State, but the State in its ideal, need hardly be mentioned. It is true, few men, very few, are ever called to found a State; but all are called to do what is virtually the same thing, i. e. to place ex¬ isting States upon the only true foundation, to secure tneir safety and to enhance their efficiency for the common good. To do this is no more nor less than the privilege and obligation of our ordi¬ nary citizenship; and for this reason all should become conversant with at least the leading prin¬ ciples of state-craft. 2. ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 39 § 2. THE STATE—ITS NATUTE AND ITS OFFICE DEFINED. “The word State brought with it from its Latin parentage no necessarily political meaning. The Romans said status nostrae civitatis (the state or con¬ dition of our civic community); but never, so far as I have noticed, does status itself mean what our State means—that is, a self-governing community, organized under permanent law which has for its aim justice and the security of all. It is however, at present, the best term for denoting communities on their political side, whatever their form of gov¬ ernment be.” (Pres. Woolsey in Johnson’s Cyc. App.). According to its present technical use, therefore, the term State designates a body of peo¬ ple organized and operative for purposes common, public, and civil in their nature. It is already im¬ plied in this definition, as well as by it presup¬ posed, that the State, which it describes as a so¬ ciety in character and as a people in substance, possesses the power and exerts the authority neces¬ sary for the attainment of its own peculiar object. This its power and authority rather than the body politic itself, we prefer as a center from which to prosecute our investigation in order to arrive at a clear and correct understanding of what we call the- State proper. So doing, several distinct questions present themselves. First of all it \Vill be neces¬ sary to define what constitutes the power and au¬ thority to govern; or, what is political sovereignty 40 THE STATE. * I. —the u jus summi imperii .” Then follow the ques tions: Whence is this controlling power? In whom does it ultimately reside? Who may actually hold and exercise it as a trust? and lastly. In what manner may it be made operative? It is highly significant that in the Scriptures the word tzouGla or power, as our English Version renders it, is employed where obedience to the State is enjoined. Of this power, this authority, this lawfulness, they affirm that it is “of God;” and to this power we are commanded to render obe¬ dience. What is this power which is to be obeyed, this authorized and authoritative power? We an¬ swer : it is the people’s sense of right and justice in affairs purely moral and civil and to which they give expression by certain fundamental laws, by statutes, rules and regulations, and to which they demand conformity of action by force moral and, if need be, physical. When a fellow both strong and shrewd, and with thievish proclivities stronger still, after all thinks it the better part of valor to curb his rul¬ ing passion and not “take in” Mrs. Smith’s gold and silver plate, in nine cases out of ten he so con¬ cludes upon in-action not from any fear for Mr. S. nor from any kindly consideration for Mrs. S.—0 no! he so does wholly from wholesome “respect” for the people’s sense of right and justice. Again, when you and I, free and worthy citizens of these U. States, and men of means and influence, too, withal that follow Tom O’Flaherty, by any way or by-way, and that at any hour of day or night, to appear before a court of justice: we do so not from 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 41 any particular attachment we might have for Tom or Tom’s society, least of all is it done from any fear of that club we see dangling by his side. No sir! as reasonable men we submit to his imperative summons only from a regard for, and in deference to, the sovereign power that has commissioned him- As friends of peace and order, and as lovers of right and justice, we obey their voice, and so to obey we esteem an indispensable duty if not an unexcep¬ tionable honor. Subordination to the State is dis¬ honorable to no one, be he saint or sinner, king or beggar. If it were, then were we all dishonored; then to bid defiance to the common law were a vir¬ tue ; and among us the lawless, roving gipsy would be the wiser and the nobler man. He, of course, who discerns in the power of State nothing better and higher than the mere ar¬ bitrary will of man, must as its subject consider himself a person deeply abased and, now and then, badly used. But there is little sense in a view such as this; and if it breeds bitterness in the soul and rancor in the breast, as at times it must, such misery is wholly without cause. By reason of hu¬ man frailty, and of depravity too, there may be, there always are, mingled with the true principles of government things that are foreign to them. The principles themselves, however, are none other than those which underlie and pervade, describe and secure our common rights and obligations — in short, the principles of common justice. “Jus¬ tice” — says Alexander H. Stephens — “is the great regulator in the government of human af¬ fairs, as gravitation is in the government of the 2 * 42 THE STATE. I. material universe . . . Justice, rightly administered, stays discord and produces peace, quiet, order, and happiness in communities, states, and kingdoms. The rule of justice is the divine injunction, appli¬ cable alike to all: ‘As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise’.” These prin¬ ciples in themselves are unchangeable and eternal, as are all truths of this class. As they pertain to man so are they designed for his good, and only for his good. But in part it is left for man to discover them and to interpret them; then also to define and to publish, to apply and to enforce them. And it is in this their human handling that they be¬ come, in a measure greater or less, corrupted, oner¬ ous, and pernicious; and yet not the principles themselves, properly speaking; but things false and unjust are substituted for them, or are attached to them, and in their guise made to bear upon human affairs. i What then constitutes the real essence of the power of State is not man; for we distinguish be¬ tween sovereignty and the sovereign, between the power and the one holding and wielding it—be it a power so held as one inherent in himself or in trust of another, we ask not here. This essence of power is a something in man, partly innate, partly acquired. But yet again it is not his will, nor any¬ thing produced by it, nor his heart or the desires of his heart. It is that something in him which, based upon a consciousness of himself as a rational and moral being, and as a being designed for a high order of existence, demands that he live, and be left free to live, in full accordance with this his § 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 43 nature and destiny; and desires , moreover, that all and all things about him be made to subserve this purpose of his being. The object of the State is to protect man in his rights, and in his freedom to live consistently with his true self and with the end for which he was made. Reasoning back from the object to the principle and therefore to the power of State, what other can these possibly be than this same common right and duty of man and his sense of them? These then, we conclude, constitute the principle and power of State—the k-ouGia of the Scriptures to which these would hold us all to render obedience u not only for‘wrath, but also for conscience ’ sake” According to this view our subordination to the State is not a subjection to men or a body of men, not to human arbitrari¬ ness, caprice, and wantonness—no, it is a submis¬ sion, and should be a devotion, to something that is, in its inmost self and true nature, divine. Conceiving the essence of political sovereignty to be a moral principle, not a device nor a mere ex¬ pedient and whim of man, the question whence it is is really solved. “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God” Obedience to the State is obedience to God in a twofold sense. It is His command that I obey the law of the land. This law always is an expression of the will of man, but it may at the same time be an expression of the will of God. In really good laws there always will be a concurrence of the two, whether expressed or implied. For example: “Thou shalt not kill,” and, “Thou shalt not steal,” are plainly the will and command of both; and in 44 THE STATE. I. so far as I am found obedient to them I am obe¬ dient directly to both, God and man. But how about the purely human law?—that part of the law which itself is not an expression of the divine will? We claim that also to this there is attached a divine element. Take the mat¬ ter of paying tribute. God does not* levy taxes, nor does he order its doing or fix the amount. Yea, an exorbitant and unnecessarily oppressive imposition is no doubt contrary to His good pleas¬ ure ; and yet He commands us to pay what is de¬ manded when and where such tax is levied. And why is it that God would have us to submit to de¬ crees of men, such, too, as He Himself does even not approve? Is it that the will of certain men may be gratified, or that a certain few may be aggrandized or enriched by humiliating or impov¬ erishing the many? By no means! It is that we may escape greater evils—some near, others remote. The evils near and immediate are those of personal fines and imprisonment; those afar, but instigated by each disobedience, are the disparagement and overthrow of government and all the ills that such calamity brings with itself. Briefly: the State is God’s own creation — with certain restrictions. Closely viewed and properly speaking the State, or rather the power of State, is not “from below” but “from above.” Its employment and its form and mode of activity are indeed human; but in its true foundation and real life it is divine. Call the energy which creates the State by whatever name you please, the true force is divine and clothed with divine authority. It is God’s will that there 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 45 be rule and obedience among men; and acknowl¬ edge it or deny who will: the powers that be are by Him ordained. The power which the State wields it has derived from Him; it is a factor and instru¬ ment in His own government of the world; He wants it to serve a purpose with respect to His higher economy of grace. For these reasons has He ordained “the powers that be,” and has He allowed to them so large a latitude of action, and does He require us to hold them sacred even to the extent of submission in matters unreasonable, unnecessary and grievous. Holding, as we do, that the powers of State are God’s and by Him bestowed, it follows that our subordination is really a subjection to God Himself; and our obedience is therefore more than a mere physical necessity—it is a religious duty! And this explains why we are to be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience’ sake. Now in whom does this political supremacy, which is of God, reside? Ay! ay! who is the sovereign —the sovereign di¬ rectly under God? Who holds the power of State as an immediate gift from heaven? The impious and senseless say that it is a something that is, and is very desirable to have, and that it belongs to anybody who can get it and assert it. The heroes of many battles say: it is ours. Men learned and wise—in their own conceit—answer: no, it belongs to us. The king maintains that it is his. The pope declares up and down that it belongs to no¬ body but himself, or to whom he may be pleased to assign it. For thus says the “Civilta Cattolica,” a doctrinal authority by papal brief: “God has 46 THE STATE. I. simultaneously ordained the civil and spiritual powers for the external government of the world; He has willed that between them both such a rela¬ tion subsist that they may accomplish in common the purpose of their being. Now it is absurd to say that the spiritual Power should be subordinate to the political, since one would subvert the natural hierarchy of things, were he to subject the spiritual to the worldly; therefore nothing remains but the opposite rule” (alas for the world and its logic!): “to subject the worldly to the spiritual. This re¬ lation is entirely analogous to that existing be¬ tween body and soul .... It is therefore necessary that he who is in possession of the sovereign power of worldly government be guided by the pope . . .” Again: “While the State has rights, she has them only in virtue and by permission of the superior authority: and that authority can only be ex¬ pressed through the church” (of Rome, of course); “that is, through the organic law infallibly an¬ nounced and unchangeably asserted, regardless of temporal consequences.” ( Catholic World , July 1872). Such—we imagine Luther would say—is the arro¬ gance of hell. However, these utterances are in full harmony with the famous Bull— Unam Sanctam —of Boniface VIII., promulgated in 1302. This represents the pope as the vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, and as holding two swords in his hands, the spiritual and the secular. The one to be employed ab ecclesia ) the other pro ecclesia; the one in the hands of the priests, the other in the hands of kings and warriors, sed ad nutum et pati- entiam sacerdotis , that is, at the beck and suffer- 47 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. ance of the priest. Accordingly, the Infallible has decreed, and his decrees are universal as to time and place—irrevocable! But while soldier and statesman, the noble and the plebian, the king and the pope, are wrangling about the great and good power of State, each claiming it as his own by first right, where is its true and rightful owner—we mean the people? But too often these stand by and under, and—suffer! Not one but the people, collectively considered, can truly claim first right to the power of State unless by an express divine decree it has been given to another. But such a decree no man and no select body of men now living are able to pro¬ duce. However, we have more than negative, we have positive, evidence showing that the right of self-government resides ultimately and originally in the body of the people. The fundamental and characteristic element of State power, as we have seen, consists in the moral ideas of man’s collective existence, and these ideas and aims live in the common convictions of the people. Every man has a certain sense of his nature and its needs, of right and wrong, and of personal rights and obligations: and this his in¬ tellectual moral sense the Creator has engrafted in his heart. Of this moral sense all, however, are not possessed in like measure nor alike conscious; and in some it is perverted, while in others again it is improved, by outside influences. Combine this moral principle and consciousness so far as it is found living in, and common to, all or most all the people of a land and you have as a resultant that 48 THE STATE. I. truth and force which creates the State in order by means of this institution to force for itself expres¬ sion and to secure for itself a free and undisturbed activity. This “common or national Ethos ”—as it has been called — demands the State, creates it, supports and directs it: it is in itself the Power of State—the social moral force of man; and since, in the main, it is creaturely and instinctive, though greatly capable of improvement and of perversion, it is God-given; and again, since it is common, and not bestowed on one man only nor on a certain class or order of men, this ethos, as the living prin¬ ciple of governments, belongs to the body of a people as a divinely bestowed gift. Political sov¬ ereignty or, more correctly, the supreme civil power is a trust immediately and originally held only by the people. These are sovereign before God, and as such to Him accountable. The fact that I am a moral and responsible being involves the other that I am entitled to free action in all things concerning which I have such responsibility, that is concerning everything I am, I have, and I do. But more than this: it likewise involves the fact of my personal obligation to maintain this freedom of action against everything that would impair it or rob me of its enjoyment. Hence, on account of my moral nature and my per¬ sonal responsibility to God I have with these both the right and the duty of self-protection—of self-gov¬ ernment. What I thus affirm with respect to my¬ self I must affirm with regard to my kind, that is, every human individual, though each one is con¬ scious of this his right and duty in a measure his own. § 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 49 This common right and obligation to assert, to pre¬ serve, and to use our rightful freedom of action, He has imposed upon us who has made us moral beings and accountable to Himself. But obligations di¬ vinely imposed can never be humanly exempted. We can never rightfully get rid of them by any act of man, whether by our own or by that of others. If we can prevent it but do not, it is a sin for us to be enslaved, to have our bodies injured, our property stolen, our character defamed, etc. Now, though all do not consider it a sin, there are none who find it a pleasure so to be mal-treated, and ac¬ cordingly we all unite in this one great work : the work„of securing those rights and that freedom which belongs to us as men—as beings rational, moral, and accountable. And by the doing of this work — which, in plain language, is none other than the work of establishing and upholding the State—we do no more and no less than simply as¬ sert our personal, individual, but common and ir- remissible duty. To hold that political sovereignty is originally vested in, and ultimately derived from, the people — individually and collectively considered — has been denounced, even by such worthy men as the historian Seckendorf , as “ a heathenish method.’’ This it may be; but this it need not be: all de¬ pends upon the spirit and mode in which the doc¬ trine is set forth. Though neither occasion nor cause offered themselves to him to propound and develop it formally, nevertheless we have good reason to believe that the great Luf/ur h Id this same doctrine. Th tically stated, the doctrine is 3 50 THE STATE. I. this: First, that there be rule and obedience among men, is the will of God; and this His will is binding upon all men alike. Secondly, there¬ fore, that these themselves, each and all, must see to it that this will of God be executed. Hence, thirdly, that they have the right and duty to ap¬ point and depose their own rulers, accountably to Him who has given them the right and imposed the duty so to do. Now take the doctrine of the ministry as taught by Luther. Thetically stated, this may be given as follows: First, that the Word be preached, etc. is the will and command of God; and this His will is binding upon all Christians alike—these constituting “a royal priesthood” ac¬ cording to 1 Fet. 2, 9. Secondly, therefore, they must see to it that the Word be preached in its purity. Thirdly, that they may attend to this matter, every individual Christian and Christian people must be entitled and free to judge, to choose, and to depose their own pastor — subject only to the word and will of God,—and to the counsels of men, be these bishops or popes in so far only as they of their own accord may please to follow them. (See his Works, Erl. Ed. V. 22, p. 140). Now first note the analogy between the two doctrines. Then, when besides this, Luther himself draws a parallel between the office of the Ministry and the office of the State, as often he does,* we have every reason to conclude that his principle respecting the latter was no less democratic than the former. On the other hand, it is difficult to * E. g. in his Comment, on Exod. cap. 3. Also see V. XXXI p. 221 etc. V. L. p. 295, etc 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 51 conceive why the doctrine that God gives sover¬ eign power to certain individuals and families only, should be Christian; while the other, that He gives power to the people themselves, should be heathenish. And there is need of this that the people com¬ bine and act conjointly for the purpose of govern¬ ment. For there are among us two classes of be- ings who dispute this our right and duty, and who would hinder us in the enjoyment of the one and the performance of the other. The one is predomi¬ nantly anarchic , the other in like measure mon¬ archic , and this in the worst sense of the term. These, in the main, are the elements most inim¬ ical to, and constantly endangering, our common rights and all things thereon hanging. They are the people who more than any other necessitate the institution of the State, and against them it is chiefly directed. To the first class belong the greedy and grasp¬ ing of things earthly, the evil-eyed and slanderous, the noisy and the turbulent, “the light-fingered gentry ” and the gambler, the drunkard and the harlot, the burglar and the murderous, and many others. For these our courts and prisons are estab¬ lished. To the second class belong the fanatic and in¬ tolerant, the aristocratic and imperious, the usur¬ per and “the king by inherent right,” the jesuit and the pope. And to these our courts and prisons should not be closed—no, thither they should be brought more often than is the case. Albeit, be¬ fore we proceed to say any more about one or the 52 THE STATE. I. other of these passions dominant in the hearts of people just named, we may as well be honest and acknowledge that a predisposition to one or the other is latent within us all—and this is putting it very mildly. There is just a little, say, of the thief or murderer and of the king and pope, in us all: all of which signifies that the State we have created is to protect us not only against others but against our own selves also, be it ever so little. Returning to the matter really in question, we venture the opinion that of the two classes de¬ scribed the monarchic is by far the more dangerous and the more to be feared, both on account of the designs they have upon us and of the artful ways they pursue to carry them into execution. The an¬ archic chiefly disturb our peace and covet our prop¬ erty, but the monarchic our liberties and rights. The former are comparatively impotent and appre¬ hensive, mostly despised and generally kept under close surveillance; while the latter are powerful and bold, much envied and # courted, mostly unre¬ strained, and well-furnished with the means neces¬ sary to carry out their nefarious designs—the sub¬ jugation, and with this the impoverishment, of the great body of the people. With fine words and fair speeches they seek to beguile us; and slowly but surely they accomplish their base intents. Among the nations past and gone there is not one people which, if ever free to govern themselves, preserved this their freedom. They either did not value properly their inherent right of self-government and deservedly lost it, or they were meanly de¬ prived of it by dint of false doctrine and fraud or by the force of arms. § 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 53 “ Who first taught souls enslaved, and realms undone, “ The erroneous faith of many made for one; “ That proud exceptions to all Nature’s laws, “ To invert the world, and counterwork its cause ? “ Force first made conquest, and that conquest law, Till Superstition taught the tyrant awe, “ Then shared the tyranny, then lent it aid, “ And gods of conquerers, slaves of subjects made.”* History teaches us that where the people as such do not properly appreciate—or perhaps are not even aware of—their good right to self-government, there are always found those among them, or about them, who' are more than ready to relieve them of their precious burden. So often has this been the case, so full has the world been, and is it still of kings and queens, of popes and poten¬ tates, that people are quite easily led to believe that kings and queens, popes and potentates are a higher order of beings than themselves, and that they must be especially created and commissioned by heaven to govern over common mortals. But against all these misleading precedents and appear¬ ances, against all the lofty pretentions and the overwhelming pomp of royality, against the soph¬ istry and intrigue of a servile priesthood, against any thing and every thing that may set itself up against the doctrine, that the power of State is primarily vested in the people and is their inalien¬ able property—we oppose the simple truism that where the responsibility is placed there must be placed both the right and duty of freely doing the thing to be accounted for. These things are ethic- * Pope's Essay on Man , Ep. Ill, 241. 54 THE STATE. I. ally inseparable. But the people, individually and collectively, are responsible for their lives, their properties, their doings, etc., therefore they must have the right, the liberty, and the duty, of self-protection, that is, of self-government. And again, as they can never for a moment be relieved of this responsibility, they can rightfully neither divest themselves nor be divested of the right and duty bound up with it. In other words, whoever may act the sovereign, the people are , and must ever continue to be , the sovereign. This leads us to the two remaining questions proposed above. Who may hold and exercise the power of State , and, in what particular form may it be made operative? We distinguish between the master and the ser¬ vant, the right and its exercise, the obligation and its performance. The body of the people is the master and has work to do—its business it is to make the laws, to expound, to apply, and to ex¬ ecute them.. But instead of attending to this work each in person or collectively the people may, yea must appoint and employ some few of their num¬ ber to do this work for them. Only they must con¬ tinually see to it that it be done and done faith¬ fully. Thus the sovereign people of the United States have their work of governing attended to by persons they elect, or have appointed, for that pur¬ pose. The sovereignty itself belongs to the people, and these continue to hold it in their own hands; but for execution they intrust it to the three depart¬ ments of State created by themselves for that pur¬ pose, to wit: the legislative, the judicial, and the executive. Every one employed in these depart- 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 55 ments, the President not excluded, is the servant of the people; and the work by any-done is the work of the people. These are originally and ulti¬ mately responsible for it. If it is well done, they have the praise; if otherwise, theirs is the blame. “A representative democracy ”—such as is our own form of government—“ is where the functions of government are performed by agents, deputies, or delegates selected by such electors from the body of the people as may be empowered to make the choice by the fundamental law or constitution. The power of choosing such deputies is what is known as the franchise. It is an office conferred by organized society, and therefore a matter of trust, and not a matter of natural right.” ( Alex . H. Stephens). The reasons why the people govern, and must govern, by others are so close at hand and so ob¬ vious that it must seem superfluous to point them out. Suffice it to say that we cannot all be presi¬ dents and governors, statesmen and law-makers, judges and jurors, ministers foreign' or domestic, mayors of cities and magistrates of towns. Even if—and this is a very significant “if”—even if personally we each had the ability, the inclina¬ tion, and the time, such a state of affairs were wholly impracticable. If all were masters where would be the pupils, whence even should they come? All the people as a body can do toward actual self-goverment, and all they really need to do, and the best they can do, is, that they put the work into able and trustworthy hands, to see to it that these be wisely directed and restricted in their 56 THE STATE. I. appointments, and then be held faithfully to per¬ form the duties of their respective offices. Although no man, and no combination of men, can ever rightfully seize the power of State, yet the sovereign people are free to place it, as a trust, into the hands of one man or of fifty, of fifty or of a hundred and more, just as they may think best. They are furthermore at liberty to lay down the principles and fix -the conditions in accordance with which the trust so committed shall be held and be made effective. To what extent, to whom, and to how many persons, with what instructions, and on what terms, shall the power of State be dele¬ gated so that it may best serve the interests of each and all alike? Such are the most difficult and momentous questions a people can ever be called upon to decide. For thereby they determine the form of government—they decide whether they will intrust their individual and common weal and wo into the hands of a monarchy or aristoc¬ racy, a democracy or a republic.* This matter of charging individuals — call them kings, or presidents, or what you will—with the use and execution of the paramount authority * “ I know what is said by the several admirers of monarchy , aristocracy and democracy, which are the rule of one, a few, and many, and are the three common ideas of government, when men discourse on the subject. But I choose to solve the controversy with this small distinction, and it belongs to all three: Any government is free to the peo¬ ple under it (whatever be the frame) where the laws rule, and the people are a party to those laws, and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, or confusion.” Wm. Penn. Frame of Oov. of Penn., 1682. 2. ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 57 in affairs of State, explains why and in what sense we are to obey our rulers. We obey them as per¬ sons whom we, the people or the body politic proper, have chosen or caused to be chosen to rule for us, and hence to rule over us also. Now in his personal character a ruler may be a very inferior or even a wicked man, so that in our person and char¬ acter we stand highly above him; nevertheless, in the relation of ruler and subject we are placed un¬ der him and we obey and respect him, i. e. the holder of an office. If any office is degraded by the person to whom it has been intrusted, all the more reason is there for others to maintain its dignity and to uphold its authority, unpleasant though it may be to do so at times. Especially is this true of the great power of State. There is too much dependent upon it; and people cannot afford to have its authority weakened and its dignity lowered. a A jewel of gold in a swine’s snout” is indeed not where it properly belongs. A swine’s snout is neither a safe place for it, nor a place where it can best bring gladness to an appreciative eye. And yet, in spite of its ill-chosen casing, a jewel is a jewel all the same. Likewise, if the priceless jewel of State-sovereignty is fallen into bad hands, it is then not in safe hands nor in a place where it can be expected to do much good, yet we must not for a moment forget that it is an invaluable treasure all the same, that the treasure is ours, that we must not cease properly to esti¬ mate its supreme worth nor in the least relax our lawful efforts to preserve it inviolate and to have it put into worthier hands. THE STATE. I. What is thus true of a jewel misplaced is, in a measure, true of it also when stolen. People are at times defrauded and robbed of their own good and rightful power to govern themselves. Instead of being left free to delegate it to men of their own choice and in a manner they please, they are forced to surrender it to any enemy, be it that he come upon them from among themselves or from abroad. When thus the weak are swallowed up by the strong and by these are incorporated as a part of themselves, then is the sovereignty of the former merged into that of the latter, be it for better or worse. And whatever may be said of the justice or injustice and by way of praise or blame concern¬ ing such events, they do transpire in this wick¬ edly restless and changeable world; and so often have they transpired that the world’s history is in great part nothing more than a record of deaths and births, of the death of one State and the birth of another, following in quick succession. And facts must be taken as they are, not as they ought or should be, nor as we wish them to be. The simple rule obtains here that every one must sub¬ mit to the laws of the land in which he lives. That being the case, a people’s sovereignty is al¬ ways the sovereignity of that State of which they have become a part, even though they may not be permitted to enjoy its free exercise and full benefit. Such was the condition of the Jews during the times of our Savior. Many of their leaders reasoned that the only de facto sover¬ eignty was still Jewish and not Roman. Upon inquiry, the Lord directed them no less than the Herodians to render unto Caesar the things that are 2 . ITS NATURE AND OFFICE. 59 Caesar’s. Had they followed this and some other good counsel He gave them, how different might be the history of that people from what it now is. But Jerusalem would not; she was wise in her own conceit, and following her own counsel her house is left desolate to this day. Farther on we shall speak of the State only as such, as u the Powers that be.” We shall speak of it in these pages wholly regardless of the ques¬ tion whether the power to rule has fallen into the hands actually wielding it in a manner right or wrong. We shall speak of the State also with¬ out any concern about its form of government. Hence, whether its functions are vested for execu¬ tion in one man or in a body of men, in one body or in several—whether these functionaries or officials hold powers limited or absolute—whether they have rightfully or wrongfully come into possession of these powers—all these are questions we con¬ sider irrelevant to our inquiry, in as much as it chiefly purposes to ascertain and set forth the rela¬ tion of the State and the Church. And although we shall treat our subject with special reference to the United States, nevertheless the term State as here employed may stand for a monarchy or aris¬ tocracy, democracy or republic. We understand by the term State the power politic organized and which as to its first and real source, its inmost na¬ ture, and its ultimate purpose, is divine; which is originally committed to, and for, all men alike and therefore the rightful and indefeasible property of the people collectively considered; and lastly, which in its established form and way of applica- 60 T>HE STATE. I. tion is human. It is an institution which “ ac¬ cording to the ground of its existence is indeed divine, though as regards the means of bringing about and the form of its existence is human (xr c- Giq dvttpaj-hr/). It is not therefore to the Christian an incarnation of the divine will on earth, but only a human copy, with very many defects and faults; and all the different State-forms constitute only so many ways of approximating to the method of God’s government of the world in right and right¬ eousness, one nearer, another more removed from the divine model, and no one ever equal to it,—a model which Christ alone will realize in the reve¬ lation of His kingdom of glory. (Harless’ Syst. of C. Ethics § 54; 2.) 3 . ITS CHIEF ARMS. 61 § 3. A VIEW OF THE CHIEF ARMS OF STATE. To the State, having a great mission to per¬ form, more is necessary than the mere authority to act. The work to be done must be, as far as pos¬ sible, exactly described as to its general nature and object. For this there must be given certain fun¬ damental rules upon which as a basis, and within which as a sphere, the body empowered is to pro¬ ceed. Lastly, the means must be furnished, and these must be conformable and adequate to the work and its successful accomplishment. Now “the fundamental idea of the State is Justice, the right which exists between man and man . . . The State is a jural society.” (Pol. Ethics by Dr. Lieber , Vol. I., p. 161.) “All relations existing in the State, or, all strictly political relations are rela¬ tions of right, jural relations. The individual de¬ mands of the State that his right—his jural relation to others—be maintained inviolate; and the State demands that the individual do not interfere with the right of others, or, in other words, do not dis¬ turb their jural relations.” (Ibid, p. 217.) The object and duty of the State may accordingly be designated as that of Protection . The government must secure the individual subject against injury to his person, property, reputation and business; establish the limits of free action and protect him in the enjoyment of it within the lines so marked out. It must defend him against all undue inter¬ ference with the exercise of his religion and with 62 THE STATE* I. the government of his family. It must insure to him safety and liberty of action in his social and religious connections and intercourse. It is de¬ signed to compel the individual to provide for his material wants not by fraud, theft and plunder but by honest industry. It is to hold its subjects to settle any personal differences that may arise not by violence or brutal force but by arbitration or by process of law. When appealed to, it is to assist every one to procure what is his right and due in any matter of argument, of testament, and of in¬ jury sustained in person, character or property. It must suppress everything generally offensive and demoralizing. Throughout all, it must assert and maintain its own proper authority, punish contempt and the trespass of its commandments. Lastly, when the public safety and peace are en¬ dangered, it must call upon all to stand as one man, and engage them, in the defense of life and liberty, home and country. In this our general description of the object of human government we have made the protection of the individual the chief determining feature. We would guard against that pernicious notion where¬ by the State is considered not only as something distinct from the body of the people but as some¬ thing separate from and above the people and then itself is made its own object. “Fatherland must be saved at any cost” cries the mad Machia- velli, and he would accordingly have his prince pay no attention to the moral nature of the means employed for the safety of the fatherland nor in the least concern himself about the weal or woe §3 ITS CHIEF ARMS. 63 of individuals. Over against political fanaticism such as this, it is quite refreshing to read what Vinet, the champion of individualism, has to say. “It is to the individual that God says in His Word, ‘Come now, and let us reason together’ (Isa. 1, 13). Society is not a being but only an ‘arrangement’ (?) between personal beings. Or, seen from another point of view, society is an ocean on which the individual soul is cast forth in a little bark to seek the way through the rough billows to the shores of a new world, where it may land. Both the ocean and the bark are worthy of admiration. The bark, which each one is called to steer, and in which we are to reach the land in yon new world, is our own individuality. An¬ other, not myself, guides the waves, and appoints their way over the great abyss; but the bark is my own , and the ocean is on account of the bark , not the bark on account of the ocean. For the principal con¬ cern, purpose, object, is that the bark should land; that the human individual, which alone stands in immediate relation to God, and is the special object of the work of creation, should fulfil its destiny. All depends, therefore, on the right steering of the bark; for as the sea, the fluid element, which is less fluid than air and less solid than earth, has the twofold capacity to bear up the bark or to en¬ gulf it, so also with regard to the fluid social element on which individuality is launched. One may founder in the ocean of society as well as on that of the material world, and it would be of little avail to examine on which of the two oceans the most frequent shipwrecks uccur.” (Alex. Vinet 64 THE STATE. I. in opposition to social Pantheism.) Between the ex¬ tremes of the institutionalism and the particular¬ ism of the ancients, as also of the more modern realism and nominalism, in so far as these philoso- phemes are brought to bear on questions of State, we adhere to the golden mean that the State is created and is to act for the good of each one and of all alike —that it is itself not an object but a means —an instrument for the protection of each and all its subjects alike. On the one hand, the govern¬ ment is to risk its own existence to protect its every subject against injustice, be it at home or abroad — and be this subject the most humble among them. On the other hand, that the subject —and be he the most noble—risk his life, if need be, for the maintenance of the government and for the defense of his country. From the general characterization of State- business, as above given, it already becomes appar¬ ent with what means and in what manner it must be furnished, and furnish itself, in order to do the work of its calling. Since it is established for the purpose of preserving inviolate the jural relation between man and man, and also the relations ex¬ isting between itself and its subjects, it follows that it must be provided with certain authentic forms describing these relations, then also with the power necessary for their enforcement. This its armor is twofold: the Laiv and the Sword; or, in the words of the emperor Justinian: 0 portet ma- jestatum imperatoriam non solum armis decora- tam, sed etiam legibus armatam esse, etc. Though they are in a large measure the pro- 3 ITS CHIEF ARMS. 65 ductions of the people themselves, and though they are incessantly by them and for their good em¬ ployed, yet those among the people are few who have more than a superficial knowledge of those things which really constitute the arms of State. These mean infinitely more than paper and ink in buff-skin binding, and more than a sheriffs writ, a turnkey’s chain, a hangman’s rope, or even the shot and shell of great standing armies. They are so wonderful in construction, and so fine in mate¬ rial as well, that a short visit to the real armory of State must be highly interesting and profitable. Going there, what will we see and learn? The Corpus Juris Civilis—says our guide—a compilation and digest of Roman jurisprudence, has been made the basis, to a great extent, of the municipal laws of continental Europe and, though not so immediately, of almost all civilized nations. This “Roman law, as a national jurisprudence from the foundation of the city to the death of Justinian, in whose reign it was fixed in the present shape and ceased to be a growth, extended through a pe¬ riod of about 1300 years, and from an archaic state of barbarism it was transformed through progressive stages into an enlightened and philosophic code, so wise and just in its principles, and so lofty in its practical morality, that it is susceptible of little improvement from the culture of the present age.” (J. N. Pomeroy, in Johnson’s Cyc. II. p. 1682). Thirteen hundred years of growth ! And what if the work produced is such as to be “ susceptible of little improvement,” even by this our most wise nineteenth century, how surprisingly slow has been 3 * 66 THE STATE. I. its progress; how small must have been its begin¬ ning; how great must have been the cost and ardu¬ ous the labor of its perfecting; what wrongs and what sufferings, told and untold, must the many generations of people have endured whose lives and liberties, peace and happiness were so much de¬ pendent on it! But after all, when we look upon legislation as the work of man with no resources other than those naturally his own, slow progress, grievous mistakes, and imperfect results need not astonish us, unless—we are wholly ignorant of “what is in man.” Even in our own day, stand¬ ing, as we do, upon the shoulders of the many gen¬ erations past and benefited, as we are, by the rich legacy of their expedients and experiences, of their wisdom and warnings, the science of jurisprudence and the task of legislation demand the service only of the wisest and best among men. And than in this there is hardly any work in which truly great wisdom—here a combination of large intelligence, of a keen sense of justice and of a hearty good-will to men—can be more honorably and usefully em¬ ployed. Alas, that just in this, too, what might and should be, is not always! We have seen in a foregoing section that the actions and relations of men, also in so far as they come within the jurisdiction of the State, are of two kinds, namely: such as are in their nature either morally right or wrong, and such as are in them¬ selves adiaphora, that is, neither good nor bad when considered apart from the motive whence they arise and from the circumstances which sur¬ round them. Corresponding to this classification §3 ITS CHIEF ARMS. 67 we must also interpret State-laws, and accordingly distinguish between them. No power of man can make that which is right, wrong; nor, in this sense, make that which is wrong to be right. “ So far 1 ’—says Cicero—“is virtue from> depending on the enactment of kings, that it is as ancient as the system of nature itself, or as the great Being by whom nature was formed ”—a saying of which the best Christian would have reason to be proud. Men may presume to declare the right to be wrong and the wrong to be right; but within this sphere all such declarations do not make an action other than it is. The pope may anathematize the reading of the Bible and forbid and punish it as if it were a work of the devil—and all his creaturely vassals and rear-vassals may echo and re-echo his ferocious roarings as much as they please—the reading of the Bible is and remains to be a common privilege, yes, and a duty, all the same. In a thousand other things the pope—had not the poor fellow lost the power—the king, our own congress and higher courts, ane able to speak more effectively. But, as has been truly said, “A sovereign may enact and rescind laws, but he cannot create or annihilate a single virtue.” What a harmless thing and pleasure at the same time—the victim not consulted—it is to take a five-pound bass; and yet, when the sovereign people—not consulting the pleasure of the angler— declare it “ wrong,” wrong it becomes forthwith and by virtue of the declaration. Again, to establish post-offices, say, in the cities of New York, Chicago, and St. Louis, and to carry their mails at two cents 68 THE STATE. I. a letter, and other matter at prices accordingly, would no doubt prove quite profitable to the people of these great cities and more so to a certain R. R. king we all have heard about. Why now does this same king not do this very thing at once? Is he not aware that “ there are millions in it? ,J Is he not able, or not willing? These very questions he would spurn as so many insults. Why then, is it perhaps wrong, wrong to profit himself and thou¬ sands of others in such an honest and honorable way? That cannot be, and is not, the reason. No, it is because the sovereign people of the United States, for certain reasons, have thought it best to take this kind of business into their own hands and have made it a ivrong —a culpable wrong—for any one to interfere with them in this matter. Then, to show what circumstances have to do with laws and their application, this: It is evidently wrong for me to burst the door of my neighbor’s house, or to fling a brick-bat through its window ; and the statute-law will interpret and resent it as a trespass. But what if this unlawful violence be done in order to arouse my sleeping neighbor in order to save him and his own from the flames of his burning house? The good common sense of man—the common law—would pronounce my ac¬ tion right and praiseworthy in this case, violent and unlawful as it might be in others. From ex¬ amples such as these we clearly see that State legis¬ lation has a double signification. At one time it adopts and declares that which in its nature is right and just, and demands it to be so observed; at an¬ other time it declares and forbids that which is wrong § 3 . ITS CHIEF ARMS. 69 and unjust, and demands it to be avoided. In the second place, it also creates rights and wrongs, priv¬ ileges and obligations, and demands that also such laws be respected. In the third place, from the last illustration above given, we learn how the common law—the naturally self-evident and there¬ fore mostly the unwritten law—may serve as a guide for properly applying and executing the statute-law, because it is partly superior and partly supplemental to the latter. Meanwhile, are we not in the State-armory ? And what do we see but laws? And what are we talking about but laws, and the making of laws, and the* purpose and use of laws? And laws are but so many words and phrases, are they not? And these law-phrases, dry-as-dust in substance, and in their construction how lumbering, can these be really the weapon of State, the mighty instrument of government? Even so. It is this very law that speaks and, behold, the people come and go, move and rest, do and forbear to do, even as the law directs. Whence is it able to do such great and mighty things ? The answer is plain and near at hand. When God said, “Let there be light! 5 ’ there was light. You might say these words—yes, and the mighty nations might say them—and say them over and over, and for all the saying of them there will be no light. The power of the word is in Him who speaks it. Likewise, though it is, and is ef¬ fective with, a majesty much inferior to the divine, the power of the law is a thing not to be looked for as being in and of its verbal and verbose form, but 70 THE STATE. I. as resting in the people by whom the word of the law is spoken and to whom it is directed. You may have the arrogance to command me to muzzle my dog, and very likely I will do no such thing, if for no other reason than to show you what you and all your commandments amount to; but let the body of the people—the government —command me to muzzle my dog, and most likely it will be attended to at once. Little as may be the power of one man over another, the power of the people is indeed very great, and it is this which is expressed and made effective through the law. As the expression of the popular will and determination, the law is surely a powerful weapon, be it for good or evil, for right or wrong. Without this, and compared with it, that other armor of the State, i. e. its swords and bayonets, its cannon and shot, its forts and ships of war, its penalties and prisons, are as nothing. In this our view of the law we, of course, define it as it should be, and summarily as it is, not how¬ ever as it empirically always is and is in every particular. Even in a republic there are enacted many laws which are not the outgrowth of the pop¬ ular sentiment. Though some of them may meet with general approval and thus be sanctioned, others do not. In consequence these are often ig¬ nored and in time become wholly null and void—a great evil; for there are few things which so readily undermine the usefulness of government than laws made but not enforced. In other words, those in¬ trusted with the office of law-making do not all and always consult neither the just will nor the true good of their constituents—all contrary perhaps to 3 . ITS CHIEF ARMS. 71 the fair promises made in the unwholesome days of candidacy, and in violation of the solemn assur¬ ances to be faithful. If this be so in a democracy, where the responsibility is rather direct, how much more must it be the case in a kingdom and despot¬ ism that the laws made directly contravene the «/ will of the people. But while it is true that no¬ where every law can be said to be an expression of the popular will, it is equally true that in every form of government the great body of the law must conform to the will of the general body of the peo¬ ple. Were it otherwise, there might indeed be forms of laws and submission, but there would be no obedience; and where there is only submission there is no government, but a condition of out and out slavery. Such a condition of things, where one man, or a certain combination of men, so hold and exercise power over others that it requires a third party, such as a standing army for example, to give force to their commands, we cannot consent to call a government. It is either tyranny on the part of those in power or anarchy and revolt on the part of those suppressed, and when either of these evils have entered a land and . become dominant, then the ship of State has in reality become a complete wreck and ruin, and then—we have no business there of any kind. The real armor of State is neither cast of iron nor forged of steel, it is made of finer and nobler metal, if at all it is what it ought to be. It is a com¬ position and product of a love for liberty and justice, for peace and order, for prosperity and happiness, and of good-will and wisdom, as they are formed, 72 THE STATE. I. upon the whole at least, in the hearts of the body of the people. Upon the whole, we say: for it is not to be maintained that all such expressions of justice, equity and expediency as are promulgated in the form of State-laws, must originate in the hearts of the body politic as such. They may be, and often are, derived from other sources—such as the superior wisdom of the individual few, the les¬ sons of history, the example of other nations, etc.— but to be effective they must find a favorable re¬ sponse in the social and moral sensibilities of the great mass of the people; they must become the property of the people so that these may be a party to them. These intellectual and moral forces min¬ gled, as they always will be, with a little wholesome dread contributed by some as also with no incon¬ siderable measure of selfishness added by others, constitute that mighty instrument with which, as in the form of laws and their appendages, the State is equipped to do its work, be it of peace or of war. And as are its forces and means, accordingly is its modus operandij namely, strictly legal . The State in action presents itself as a mighty triple-headed body employing its peculiar sovereignty in the work of devising and making, of interpreting and applying, of enforcing and executing laws, and all that may be therein involved. And herein, as in all things, whatever of wis¬ dom and of goodness may become manifest and be made effective, the praise thereof belongs to Him who fashions the hearts and directs the hands of men to will and to do only what is just, salutary and laudable, and who sets bounds even to all I 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. things wicked and evil. On account of this, happy are we; for, in the language of another : u No man, no human authority, is in such a w T ay master of the people, that the maintenance and preservation of the powers that minister to the moral ends of human society can be thought of without the prov¬ idence of the divine government of the world.” • § 4 . THE SPHERE OF STATE JURISDICTION. In order to determine and clearly understand what is the meaning and extent of its sphere of action we must not for a moment lose sight of the fundamental idea and object of State-existence. The object we have found to be Protection; and so extensively is it thus designated, that the word in this connection may be said to convey a technical meaning. Now it is evident, in the first place, that whatever object is to be protected must to that end be put into the keeping of the protecting body so far as that is necessary for its protection. Desiring its protection for himself and his kith and kin, for his property and for all the affairs and relations of his life, the individual must necessarily place him¬ self and all he thus calls his own, under the juris¬ diction of the State. From this it follows that life, honor, property, business, the family, social and religious organizations, and corporations of every description, things good and things bad, actions moral and immoral, in short, everything external , whether good, bad, or indifferent, must be subject to State action. The State must have the authority to take cognizance of everything to it tangible, and 4 74 THE STATE. I. to treat and control it as the nature and purpose of its office demand. In the second place, Protection, as the sole object of the State, teaches us that whatever things are committed to it for this purpose do thereby not become the property of the State. Not to get rid of what we call our own and prize, but to keep and enjoy it without fear of disturbance, do we call into existence and do we support our government. When others in company with you and me employ John Warden—who advertises himself as doing business of that kind—to hold for us in safe-keep¬ ing our treasures and our wives’ trinkets, while we are “away for the summer,” and when we pay him for the service he engages to render us, we demand of him several things. We expect John Warden never for a moment to forget the fact that those treasures belong to us and not to him—a confusion of thought which is possible if not probable, as some people have learned to their cost. As we ex¬ pect John to be on guard against himself, so again do we expect him to keep a strict look-out against ♦ _ others who may covet what is ours. That these may not steal our property, John must devote the necessary time to its safe-keeping; more than that, if need be he must appropriate some part of the compensation he receives from us toward procuring and keeping in good order a fire-and-burglar-proof safe. In short, he must faithfully discharge the whole duty of his trust; failing to do this, and our valuables being stolen, be it by himself or in con¬ sequence of his negligence, he is criminally guilty of a breach of trust—and there is nothing on earth 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. 75 that needs to be put into a place of safe-keeping so much as does John Warden himself. Analagous to this case of covenant and trust, supposed here as existing between John Warden and others, is the relation subsisting between the people and those by them employed to govern in their name and behalf. Here, the time and talents —with certain restrictions—of the officers of State, the public funds and claims, lands and buildings, powers and weapons, etc., etc., are all the property of the body politic, and must be used by those intrusted with their management as so many means for ac¬ complishing the one end of State-existence, to-wit: the protection of the public and private interests of the people. A waste of time and property be¬ longing to the people is a breach of trust against public interests; and a breach of trust against pri¬ vate interests consists in this that State-authority is abused by treating the individual or anything that is his as though he and w r hatever belongs to him were the property of the State. Howbeit, though we distinguish the violation of the public from that of private trusts, they are so closely in¬ terwoven that in fact the one always involves the other. An injury done the people as such is an injury done me, and my grievance is the aggriev- ance of the people who are one with me in the body of the government. Unless the individual has in some criminal way forfeited his life, his liberty, or his property, these can never be justly taken away from him and treated as* things belonging to another. Such authority is given to no man, and least of all to the 76 THE STATE. I. State. To this least of all, because it is humanly constituted and divinely sanctioned not to rob and destroy but to preserve to me, as best it can, my life, my liberty, my property. When by levy and collection of taxes it demands of me a part of my money, it demands what is due it by virtue of con¬ tract, whether expressed or implied; for I cannot expect the State to protect my property unless I give a part of it in support of the service to be rendered me. Taxes are the compensation due to John Warden and his employes. When the gov¬ ernment forbids me in certain matters to act with¬ out its leave and direction, this is done to circum¬ scribe and protect my liberty; for this I cannot possibly enjoy when everybody, myself included, is left to do as he pleases. Lastly, when my life and my all are endangered in common with the lives and possessions of my fellow citizens, it has the right and duty, if need be, to demand of me to defend home and country at the risk of my own life; if, in that case, I lose my life I lose it indeed for the State but not by its will and decree. In all this its relation to me and mine, the State may blunder in some things, and even criminally wrong me in others; but this cannot be done from any sound principles of government, but only in rejec¬ tion or in faulty application of it. The principle must hold, and be upheld at all times and under all circumstances, that the State never has authority to rob, to enslave, to murder or to injure, any of its subjects, no, not even the least and most unworthy one among them. Anything in conflict with this is a subversion of the whole principle of State as it pertains to its foundation, nature and object. 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. 77 Easy as it may seem to determine the sphere of political jurisdiction from the general theory and purpose of governments, in some cases this method becomes exceedingly difficult of applica¬ tion. Take for example the all-important matters of education, of morals, and of religion. Has the State any right, or even duty, of action concerning these, and if so, to what extent? Ignorance of the law does not exempt the transgressor from its penalty. Moreover, the prev¬ alence of ignorance is indisputably a source of many crimes, and in so far it endangers the safety and peace of the community, and in a thousand ways proves itself a public burden and nuisance. Not to decide here who is primarily responsible for the education of the youth—a matter into which we intend to inquire more particularly hereafter— and also distinguishing between the right to de¬ mand that it be attended to and the work of im¬ parting it as a duty, this much must be conceded, that the State, conformably to its office, can be rightfully intrusted with the work, and should have the right to insist upon its general execution. It should have the right to demand the education of the masses, and this for the purpose of prevent¬ ing crime, securing good government, etc., that is, for the purpose of protection. Especially must this hold where, as is the case with us, the gov¬ ernment is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Here, at least, it is of great moment, as indeed it must be in all lands whatever the form of government may be, that education in so far as it embraces reading, writing, the inculcation of 78 THE STATE* I. sound political principles, the forming of civil manners and habits, etc., be a matter of State juris¬ diction. Circumstances, to be pointed out hereaf¬ ter, render it necessary that the government give its attention, to some extent, to the political educa¬ tion of its subjects. What this branch of education chiefly implies we give in the well chosen words of another. “The rights and duties of citizens; their obligations of obedience to law ; of seeing that good laws are enacted and enforced; that the weak and helpless are protected; that the grasping and unjust are restrained and evil-doers punished; that the enacting, explaining, and enforcing of laws are in¬ trusted to competent and trustworthy men; that the rights of both labor and capital are duly pro¬ tected; that the nature and rights of property are understood; and that all necessary burdens of tax¬ ation are equitably adjusted, and all productive in¬ dustries are properly encouraged—these are some of the lessons included in political education.” (/. P. Baird , of Com . Board of Ed .) Religion, and this really includes morality, although it is a force which more than any other molds the affairs of men and nations, and does ac¬ cordingly affect human governments either for good or bad, is a matter which from its original, nature, and object, lies entirely beyond the reach and con¬ trol of the State proper. It is in its essence alto¬ gether an affair of the soul; and, in the words of the great Reformer and champion of religious lib¬ erty, Luther: “Over the soul can and will God allow no one to rule but Hinself alone. Therefore, whenever human governments assume to dictate 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. 79 or legislate respecting the soul, they invade the do¬ minion of God, and can but mislead and destroy the soul.” ( Werke, Vol. 22, p. 82. Erl . Ed.) “The civil law extends over the body of man, his prop¬ erty, and whatever is external on earth—no far¬ ther.” (Ibid.) Religion is nothing external but something internal and wholly spiritual; it is a thing of man’s conscience, and this is exclusively God’s province. “ In this respect,” says Dr. Lieber, “the individual stands above the State. On the other hand the State stands above the individual; is worthy of every sacrifice, of life and goods, of wife and children.” All affairs and relations of the citizen come within the sphere of human laws and regulations; not so his relation to God and his worship of God. The State must have the right, indeed, of legislating concerning religion in so far as it expresses itself in confession and act, but not in a way to influence, direct and control it. The worship of God should be wholly free; and the only duty the government can properly have with refer¬ ence to it is, that it declare religious freedom to be a natural and therefore inalienable right of man , and as such protect its free exercise . . This should it do, even were a person’s religious performances false and foolish in the extreme; not , however, if they are nocuous and pernicious politically; for then all such actions must be classified no more as strictly religious but as political, and treated accordingly. Here the principle holds that anything pretendedly religious in nature and practice, but in either re¬ spect incompatible with the true and legitimate idea and business of State, is, a priori , not religious. 80 THE STATE. I. By reason of their respective origins, character, and purposes there can be, objectively considered, no contradiction between the ethics of religion and the ethics of things political. Whenever a con¬ flict does manifest itself, the cause thereof must be wholly subjective and false. Matters are either considered and insisted on as religious when in truth they are nothing of the kind; or, if they are, they are falsely adjudged political. When either the one or the other mistake is made, or both, then trouble will most likely ensue. But of all this more anon. To our own United States, and before and above all to the least State in the Union, Rhode Island, belongs the great honor of first incorporating this principle into the organic law to its full and true extent. Not as though the principle were Amer¬ ican in its origin and recognition, not as though it had never been brought into practice an}wvhere be¬ fore, but this much we must claim for our own country that it is the first intelligently and fully to apply and to demonstrate its safe and happy prac- ticabilitv. The Constitution contains but two short %j t articles. u No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States;'' and: u Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereofU More important, comprehensive and benefi¬ cent laws than are these were never enacted in the history of the world. There is no preamble of defini¬ tions, of reasons, or of purposes, but their sum and substance is this, that religious liberty is a personal right —a right which no human authority can ere- 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. 81 ate, bestow, take away, and abrogate; and then, that the attempt in any way to disparage and destroy this right is in itself not only a wrong but politically most unwise and disastrous in its conse¬ quences, and that therefore the State can, in its own sphere, do no more and no less than declare the free exercise of religion a natural and common right of man and then protect him in the enjoyment of it. According to this superior and only correct view of the whole matter, religious freedom in the United States is not a thing merely tolerated, nor is it a thing in its subject matter and form positively ap¬ proved, but it is simply recognized, designated and protected as a thing belonging to its every subject by reason of his humanity. The practical reason why the law that “all men have a natural and indefeasible right to wor¬ ship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience ” should be respected by the State and preserved inviolate, is well stated in the following language of Judge Hagans: “The religious belief of the individual, or, if he be a nullifidean, then his no-belief, is so much a part of himself, and con¬ stitutes so important a constituent of his daily life, that it is of the highest moment, not only for his own happiness, but even for the safety of the State itself, that perfect freedom and security should be assured to him. The terrible religious persecutions and wars in Europe .... taught our Fathers these lessons which they have embodied in the fundamental laws of all the States. It is one of the glories of our country, that we have no re¬ ligious establishments: and our experience has 82 THE STATE. I. not only demonstrated the wisdom and justice of these principles, but the success of our example is felt all over the world.” (The Bible in the P. Schools , Cin. 0. p. 858). From all that has been said it would appear that the difficulty of ascertaining the exact sphere of State-jurisdiction is not met in designating the objects which are properly by it encompassed. It may take action concerning every thing to it tang¬ ible. The real difficulty presents itself in deter¬ mining what action , and action to what extent , it can take consistently with its own nature and calling, and consistently with the nature and purpose of the thing in question. Since the State is political sovereignty—su¬ preme power—organized, it is evident that within its own sphere it is supreme . There is no other power given unto men that can with justice or in any way rightfully set itself up as a tribunal higher than it and to which the State were at all subject. As we would insist upon the State to keep within its own proper boundaries, and not to meddle with things foreign to its office, so must we demand of all other institutions and powers to mind each its own business and, least of all, never presume to exercise State authority. From the very nature of things, the same supreme power cannot reside at one and the same time in two dis¬ tinct bodies. If it belongs to the people and is by these vested in the State, there we must look for it and in no other body or institution. In thos£ af¬ fairs in which, by God’s own decree, we are to be subject to the State, we cannot at the same time be 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. 83 controlled by another and different power. Here, as elsewhere, we cannot serve two masters. In the affairs of government proper, this is our only master; beyond these it has nothing to forbid us and noth¬ ing to command. It is without authority beyond its domain. Supremacy, however, does not signify inde¬ pendence, nor is this necessarily involved in it. One may be clothed with the authority to do a thing, but whether he has the power and means necessary for its doing, is another question. When we maintain that the State is supreme in au¬ thority within its own province, we must deny its absolute independence. No reference is here had to its immediate dependence on divine Providence. That we consider as a matter beyond all doubt true, and as accepted among all who hold belief in the divine order of things; as to others it were wholly a loss of time and waste of energy to at¬ tempt its demonstration. What we here mean, and intend to show, is, that the State is dependent upon factors other than its own for powers which it needs but is unable of itself to produce. We have seen that the modus operandi of the State is, and can be no other than, the strictly legal. It accomplishes its purposes only and altogether by the instrumentality of laws and their enforcement. But the law cannot reach man in every respect; nay, as to the inner, the real , man it is almost pow¬ erless. It is able, in a great measure, to direct and control the outward expression of the inner man, but the inner and spiritual self is wholly beyond its reach. A fear of punishment it is indeed able 84 THE STATE. I. to incite, and thus prevent the execution of crime to some extent; but it is unable to create a hatred of crime and so truly prevent its perpetration both in the heart and by the hand. By means of rewards it can secure the outward doing of good, but it can¬ not thereby instill a pure and efficient love for the good. “The law, even in its best form, can address itself to the existing good will of man, but as to the opposing will ('Widerwillen) it is powerless. It can only lay hold of the will in its actual mani¬ festations by means of commands and promises— punishing the evil and rewarding the good.—The State must indeed appeal to the good sense and judgment of man as the motive power of all moral and just deportment—but it cannot produce that good sense and judgment.” (Dr, J. T . Beck, Kirche und Staat. p. 37). Morality, in so far as it includes a sense of just conduct between man and man and a love of peace and order, is indispensable both to the conception and enactment of good laws and for their judicious support and execution. Whence is this moral sense which itself conditions the State and all its laws, and therefore must exist independent of it and prior to it—whence is it to proceed? You say, from the hearts of the people; and you say well if —it is there and there in that purity, power and measure in which the State has need of it. Just here is where the trouble sets in, however. The moral sense, in so far as it is naturally inherent in humanity, is most assuredly very indifferent in kind and small in measure. If we were to praise it at all and give its just estimate, we would know § 4 . ITS SPHERE OF JURISDICTION. 85 of no more appropriate encomium than that passed by a country lad upon the quality and quantity of the butter on his city cousin’s table: “’Tis very good, what there is of it!”—and, “There’s plenty of it, such as it is!” Moreover, this poor article of mo¬ rality which we bring with us into the world is— like the butter named—in constant danger of far¬ ther corruption and other changes. The fact is, that, were all men morally good and wise, there would be little or no interference by man with man’s enjoyment of his rights and liberties and with the possession and use of his property, and hence little or no need of a protecting body. Every man would then be his own law-giver, lawyer, judge and master. But unfortunately for man, and fortunately for lawyers and politicians, such are not the facts in the case. Man, the moral being, is rather immoral and therefore ever prone to do ill to his fellow man. The very necessity of gov¬ ernments arises chiefly from the fact of human de¬ pravity; and he who denies the fact of the latter may as well deny the rightful existence of the for¬ mer, and does, the way they are at present con¬ stituted. On the other hand, man’s moral nature is capable of purification and improvement. Among others, this can take place, and should take place, at the mother’s knee, in the family, the school-room and in the pew. The State as such cannot do it; neither has it the call nor the means to do this work. Man can be made just and good only by spiritual in¬ struction and discipline. Since even the divine law , as distinguished from the Gospel, cannot accom- 86 THE STATE. I. plish this change of heart, much less can human and civil law. Mere legislation and police-depart¬ ments, be they never so perfect, can for this reason not suffice to secure the safety of the State and the prosperous accomplishment of its mission. For its chief constituent element it must rely upon other forces and bodies. It is not furnished with those means which alone can correct moral corruption and produce, strengthen and preserve good morals. These means God has withheld from the State and from State-control; but He has bestowed them, and bestowed them for general administration, on another body —the Church. 88 THE CHURCH. II. II. THE CHURCH. 5. RELIGION, AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND DU¬ TIES, AS LEADING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. Mankind and religion have simultaneously come into the world. Humanity and religion we hold to be inseparable. There are those who deny the existence of a supreme, intelligent Being. These know not what they say; otherwise they could not so glory in their own shame. One thing have we repeatedly observed in the atheist: he is full of earnest—of the earnest of hatred and dread. What an absurdity, oh ye men of “ superior knowl¬ edge ” and of “ extra high culture,” constantly to stand in dread of “ a mere superstitious idea ” and bitterly to make war upon “an absolute noth¬ ingness!” The truth is: you have let go your hold on God, but God has not let go His hold on you, and never will. His hands lie heavily on you; and the weight of it makes you writhe. The thought of God you can never banish from your minds; flee whither you will, do what you will, that is ever present, even as, and because, God Himself is ever present. And this thought you feel to be a power and a weight which you fain would shake off, but you cannot. 89 RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. And how strange — considering your “ un¬ bounded wisdom”—that the mere thought of what you professedly know to be an absolute nothing should thus hold you in thralldom and threaten every moment to crush you! And here another ab¬ surdity. “The impious”—says the eloquent Mas¬ sillon—“are struck with the glory of princes and conquerors that found the little empires of this earth; and they do not”—they say—“feel the om¬ nipotence of that hand which laid the foundations of the universe. They admire the skill and in¬ dustry of workmen, who erect those places which a storm may blow down; and they will not acknowl¬ edge wisdom in the arrangement of that infinitely more superb work the revolutions of ages have re¬ spected, and must continue to respect till He who made it shall will it to pass away. In vain, how¬ ever, do they boast that they do not see God; it is because they seek Him, who is perfect holiness, in a heart that is depraved by its passions. But they have only to look out from themselves, and they will find Him evervwhere: the whole earth will %j show them its Maker; and if they refuse still their assent, their own corrupted hearts will be the only thing in the universe which does not proclaim the author of its being.” Than the blindness of such creatures, far more truthful to the nature within us is the out-cry of Augustin : “Thou hast created us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless in the world, and can find no repose until they rest in Thee, 0 Lord! ” Be it that, as a result of utter demoralization, some human individuals have become brutes, and 4* 90 THE CHURCH. II. worse than brutes, from a religious point of view; in all the world’s history no people is found void of all religious belief. Comparative religion of late claims to hold in hand testimony showing that among some tribes of surviving savages there is no trace of religious feelings and observances. Suppose these evidences sufficient—which we doubt—to es¬ tablish the anomaly, it would only go to show that there are two ways leading to atheism: the one by savage ignorance, the other by self-conceited wis¬ dom ; and show farther, that the exception proves the rule, also in this case. What is remarkable in all the religious systems of the world, even down to the lowest, is the belief in a personal deity or deities. Never are these con¬ ceived as things, but always as beings personal. Even Buddhism—that despicable prototype of our own contemptible agnosticism—constitutes no ex¬ ception. Buddha, says Max Mueller, “who had left no place in the whole universe for a Divine Being was deified himself by the multitudes, who wanted a person whom they could worship, a king whom they might invoke, a friend before whom they could pour out their griefs.”* “Even here, therefore, in the very home of what seems a formal atheism, we have the same witness of the soul of man to a Personal Power—something different from either a mere law and an universal all-pervading Spirit. Although with stammering lips and falter¬ ing tongue, we call even Buddhism to join the great cloud of witnesses by whose direct testimony the belief in God is established.”f *Chips from a German Workshop, I., p. 254. tCanon Barry, Nat. Theol., p. 24. 91 RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. Plutarch says: “ You may find States without walls, without laws, without coins, without litera¬ ture : but a people without God, without prayer, without religious exercises and sacrifices no one has ever found. It is easier to build up a city with¬ out ground than that a State should preserve itself without faith in the gods. God is the bond of union in all society and the support of all legisla¬ tion.” (Advers. Colotem Epicureum c. 31). The idea, the truth, here expressed by the old Greek— himself at one time a Roman—how very true. “ My first duty”—says a modern Roman, i. e., the fatal¬ istic Napoleon—“ is to prevent the corruption of the morals of my people. For atheism is the annihil¬ ation of moruls ) if not in the individual, at least in the nations.” So closely is the moral sentiment interlinked with, yea essentially a part of, religion that the denial of man as naturally a religious be¬ ing involves the denial of his moral nature. The atheist is, and is by his own confession, an immoral being; and here for once he speaks the truth, no doubt without intending it. If the human ego is— as they say the supreme being, where is man to find a firm basis either for the moral sensibility or for the rule of its application ? Objective right and wrong were, on this supposition, an impossibility. But the objective is the foundation and norm of every moral idea; take it away, and every system of morality must fall to the ground. It is the su¬ preme Being who decides what is good and what is bad. Is man himself that high authority, then is the bad the good and the good the bad when, and just because, he wills it so. View it as we may, 92 THE CHURCH, II. man’s moral and religious nature demands the ex¬ istence of a Being higher and more consistent than is man himself; and it testifies to His reality and moral goodness. “ In whatever direction we look, the fact meets us that, in the mirror of man’s own nature as in that of the world, he encounters a power which is higher than himself and the world—a power which binds him and the world, which elevates him by this very restraint above himself as well as above the world, and holds out to him, as the aim of life, a communion, whose traces he finds in himself and in the world.” (Harless Syst. § 7). In nature man sees displayed a superhuman power, be it to create or to destroy; he beholds a wisdom—not simply an order—which he cannot fathom; he perceives, and himself enjoj^s, a lavish kindness that makes his heart go out in song, and yet again a wrath that makes it quake with fear. Then looking within himself he finds “his thoughts the meanwhile ac¬ cusing, or else excusing one another.” All these phenomena, constantly open before him, are so many evidences of the existence of a Power, yea of an intelligent and moral Being, other and infinitely greater than himself. This testimony, at least, was present to the heathen world. And the heathens doubted not but believed; they all believed, religiously believed and worshiped the great Power they saw so mysteri¬ ously yet distinctly manifesting itself. Whatever the forms, whatever the distinctions, and whatever the errors may have been in the various creeds of the pagan religions, one truth is fundamental and 93 § 5 . RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. common to them all—they all sought to know and intended to worship the “unknown God.” Besides, their united experiences demonstrate beyond all doubt that the religious disposition is natural and universal and therefore characteristic of humanity. The nations of the past have demonstrated re¬ ligion to be a tremendous power, either for good or for bad. It is wholesome or pernicious in its influ¬ ence : wholesome, when it comprehends the truth and when this truth is rightly applied; pernicious, when it embraces error, or when the truth is abused. True, the beliefs of heathendom, from a Christian point of view, were almost throughout their whole line of thought nothing more than so many superstitious ideas. As a matter of course, the cultus conformed itself to the creed, and was in some things incredibly absurd, in others, shock¬ ingly cruel. Notwithstanding all this, the wor¬ shipers were sincere. Think of the sacrifices, of the self-inflicted castigations, of their zeal in propa¬ gating and defending their tenets: and their hon¬ esty of conviction and intention you can not doubt. Though in themselves all these religions were erroneous, though as to the real purpose of religion they were vain, notwithstanding this they were not altogether useless. The fundamental idea always was the belief in a higher being, or powers, loving and rewarding the good, hating and punishing the evil. And thus they were all per¬ vaded by that conservative element which in a manner quickens, preserves and strengthens that common moral sentiment which binds a people to¬ gether and constrains them to respect their mutual 94 THE CHURCH. II. rights. And there is, among some others, another important purpose served by these systems, to wit: they demonstrate the impossibility of knowing the true God by mere human reason or any other nat¬ ural energy. Paganism in all its forms was the re¬ ligion of inquiry ; the gentiles sought the true God, but they found Him not by their own powers. The one, true, personal, almighty, holy and merciful God cannot be known except by special revelation. It is the same God who manifests Himself in the book of nature and in the Bible; but the manifestations are different in kind and degree. The one is His work, the other His word. The one speaks after the manner of things; the other in the language of man. Loud and terrific is the voice of nature in the fall of waters, in the troubled winds, in the pealing thunder, in the sweeping flames; but how feeble when compared with that other voice which, going forth from Sinai into all the world, to this very day continues to drive into the hearts of men a dread as of eternal death! Soothing and delightful, indeed, is the language addressed to us in the varied beauty and sweetness of creation; and yet it utterly fails to quiet the restless spirit and to comfort the sorrow¬ ing soul: rest and gladness of heart are found alone in that word which points us to Bethlehem and Golgotha! So inadequate is the revelation of things divine by nature, that it fails to teach man¬ kind even the rudimentary truths of true religion. The heathens of the past, for example, never even knew God as the Creator; and the heathens of to¬ day, who will not read in . any light other than that 95 .§ 5. RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. of nature, are still without a Creator. Notwith¬ standing any child on the street could tell them, and tell them truly : they to this day know not whence the world has come—and it is said to be a mark of wisdom not to know ! The heathens felt and feared .the anger of God ; but sin, the real cause of anger divine, they never rightly comprehended. They understood not the offending nature of sin because they had no conception of God as the Holy One. Nature and reason were powerless to teach them better; but we have in every way a better book of instruction, and a greater power to convict us, in these things. In the Bible, facts are clearly stated, truths are clearly taught; and in all its statements and teach¬ ings there is a light that enlightens every mind and a power that conquers every will, except the mind and will of such as obstinately resist the truth when brought to them. The inspired word is the repository of religious truth; and its meas¬ ure is full, complete, and sufficient to do the work it is sent to accomplish. Jehovah, Himself the speaker, there speaks to us of His eternal triune Essence and of His wonderful attributes; then of His will to us ward as a will all-holy and right¬ eous, and as a will merciful and kind; also of His work in the beginning of time, and of His work in the fulness of time. Throughout the whole He points away from time to eternity—to an eternity of darkness, death and damnation, but to an eter¬ nity also of light, life and joy unspeakable and full of glory. But the center of all is Christ , God incar¬ nate, the God-Man. By Him were all things made; 96 THE CHURCH, II. by Him were all men redeemed; to Him are all to be sanctified; and all who are sanctified are sancti¬ fied through Him. To Him is given all power in heaven and in earth; He is the Judge supreme, and of all; He reigns in glory everlasting; and with Him shall reign all who have, by faith, be¬ come His own. In a word: the Bible is the book of the Christian religion —of our religion. Christianity is revealed; it is a divine gift di¬ vinely bestowed; it is in itself something wholly divine. It is in part an idea, but an idea entirely conceived by the mind of God. Take any of its peculiar truths, and you may be able to point to the man to whom it was given, but never to the man who originated it. The Christian doctrines of the personality and perfection of the supreme Being, of creation and providence, of man’s condi¬ tion and destiny, of the Redeemer and of redemp¬ tion, of the Spirit and of sanctification—all are so many truths which in their very nature wholly transcend all the powers of natural reason and the highest philosophy this has been able to produce —yea, and ever will produce. So manifest is this fact that, because above all reason, the distinctively Christian truths have time and again been de¬ clared as contrary to all reason. It is one of the many weak points of “the pure reason/’ as it has ostentatiously called itself, to set down every thought not its own, and which it cannot master, as simply foolish. But Christianity is not, and does not at all account of itself, as a thing unrea¬ sonable. It is the highest wisdom; but it is from above. Every one in real possession of its truths, 5. RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. 97 in possessing them, declares: “ Thus saith the Lord.” It is intended for the whole man; and to the whole man it addresses itself. It directs itself chiefly to the heart; but also to the mind. It so¬ licits belief, but desires also understanding. In every case does it seek to win both, the good-will of the heart and the service of the mind and body; but in no case will it allow either the one or the other to dominate over itself. Christianity is a power gone forth from heaven to conquer all things, but to be conquered by none. It wants to subjugate man, but for no other purpose than to make him truly free. Strange as it may seem: it smites in order to heal, it afflicts in order to lead to joy, it humbleth in order to exalt; in order to acquit it must first con¬ demn, to make us the first of God’s creatures it first convicts us of being the least. Such are not things of man’s invention; they cannot be thoughts and ways humanly conceived. Beyond our comprehension, how can they be of our find¬ ing out ? And yet, that these things are true, and have all the power and all the reasonableness of truth, of divine truth—than this, nothing on earth is better attested. It comes with the claim of be¬ ing divine truth and power, and the irrefutable tes¬ timony of being everything it claims to be, to do and to give, it has planted in the hearts of thou¬ sands upon thousands receiving it, and set up against thousands upon thousands rejecting it. Its conflicts and its victories are so many that they cannot be numbered. We simply refer to its engagements with Judaism in the beginning of its 5 98 THE CHURCH. II. era; with the paganism of Greece and Rome; with the New-Platonic philosophy as led by a Celsus, Porphyry and Hierocles; then with the Barbarism of the North; with Mohammedanism; and lastly with rationalism, and with science falsely so called —past and present. From all these its conflicts it has come forth, never conquered, mostly victori¬ ous, and always with a full vindication of itself as the holy and gracious truth and power of God. Were Christianity a mere idea, even an idea of God, it could not have such power. But it is more than a great thought of God; it is an eter¬ nal and divine plan purposing facts and demand¬ ing action. It is a plan of God realized, almost fully; and what few of the promises still await fulfillment, in due season will be accomplished. Christianity is founded not upon thoughts and theories but upon facts. It does not think things, and speak of things, which might be but are not. No, it deals with realities only, and then with the statement of the truth concerning them. With abstract thoughts and speculations it has nothing to do other than to discard them as matters for¬ eign to itself. Its central truths, the incarnation of God and mankind by Him redeemed, were ideas of divine conception, but now are become facts by divine accomplishment. Were a Christian to think that these things might be facts but are only ideas, what a revolution there would be in his convictions, in his consciousness, in his affec¬ tions and feelings, in his fears and hopes, in his words and actions! Then would the Christian man be an impossibility. For it is the God-given RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. 99 5. confidence, that the things he believes are true and real, which makes him what he is and moves him to act as he does in this life. The power of Chris¬ tianity rests in the reality of the things which it proclaims. Objectively considered, Christianity is the only true, the one absolute, the perfect religion. There is no other true religion; and whatever truths the many false forms of beliefs may contain, they are surely found in the Christian religion like¬ wise. It has to do with facts, mostly with the wonderful deeds of God’s power, holiness, justice, and grace; and these facts are divinely mediated, interpreted, and applied. Errors can only be sub¬ jective, that is, in our understanding and applica¬ tion of revealed truth. Christianity itself is a fully rounded and perfect sphere of truths; and in this view of it, it is incapable of change, develop¬ ment and progress. When we speak of its pro¬ gress we can only mean, if at all we speak intelli¬ gently, either that such come into possession of it as never before have received it, or that others receive it more clearly and fully than thus far they have enjoyed it. Progress is not in the truth but in its growing and continued conquest over the hearts of men. When error is made to give place to truth, darkness to tight, doubt to confi¬ dence, slavish fear to filial love, and sin to holi¬ ness, then is there spiritual growth and Christian progress. And this is not mainly conditioned by mental development, nor by an advance in the arts and sciences, in civilization and culture, as we are want to understand these things. The truths we 100 THE CHURCH. II. speak of are not only divinely revealed; they must also be divinely implanted, nourished, and brought to fruition. A person may have received the very best mental training, may be the most learned and best cultured among his fellows, and notwithstanding all such acquirements be an in¬ fidel. Christianity must be made subjective not by anything subjective, but by its own peculiar power. The Gospel of Christ is truth and is power; and in both these features it is divine. We cannot lay hold of it, it must lay hold of us; otherwise it can never count us among its spoils. The complaint is made that Christianity and that Christians are exclusive, intolerant, positive, and not at all open to compromise. And so they are, but in a spirit and manner their own. And how can they ever be otherwise? How can truth be expected to embrace error, and what part can light have with darkness? In things wherein the mind and the heart are divinely convinced, how can they be expected to doubt, to opinionate, to brook the opposition of error without a staunch profession and defense of the truth in answer to it? How can a man be expected to be indifferent or in the least to yield in matters whereon he be¬ lieves his everlasting happiness to be dependent? Indeed, the charge of exclusiveness and bigotry comes with a bad grace in this case, inasmuch as it is raised by those who are most loud in the cry that u every man has a right to his own opinion.” If so, we meekly inquire: why is not a Christian to have a right to his faith, and to his free and manly confession of it ? While we must condemn all ar- §5. 101 RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. rogance, over-confidence and dogmatism in matters of doubt and mere opinion, as selfish and hurtful to the cause of the truth, we cannot but respect a man who boldly and firmly holds to his convic¬ tions. Even when I consider his convictions er¬ roneous, I must accord him the honor due him as a man of principle and character. But, excepting perhaps the field of the physical sciences, objec¬ tive truth and its embrace by an unswerving faith appear to have become things discreditable ; subjec¬ tivism and doubt are become fashionable, and are in many ways the curse of our age. If you desire to be numbered with the wise, doubt Moses and the prophets, and you have your desire; question the pronouncements of a Darwin, a Haeckel, a Strauss, a Spencer, and you will surely be ac¬ counted a fool. So long as the truths and facts are not ascer¬ tained and apprehended, doubt is in order, and may then prove itself quite serviceable as an in¬ centive to inquiry and research ; but when once the truth is found, doubt must give way to knowl¬ edge and faith. Then it is out of place; and if adhered to, it will render useless the work it has instigated and make the truth found ineffective. * True, human fallibility is universal; but that means that every one is liable to err and that he may err concerning everything; it does not mean that he necessarily must err, nor that he always does. The most gloomy and pernicious pessimistic notion ever advanced concerning humanity is this, that man can in no way become certain of anything; 102 THE CHURCH. II. that he must in all things always doubt and waver; that he can have no grounds for his fears and for his hopes other than those of probabilities and uncer¬ tainties. Above all is this held to be the case in the sphere of morals and religion. As for us, we beg leave to apply this notion to this notion itself and so set it aside as the most doubtful and silly idea ever put forth. Christianity has to do only with objective truths concerning realities. At least, thus every true Christian believes; and so believing he holds fast to the truths given and ex¬ cludes everything in conflict with his faith as in conflict with the truth, and with the true interests of himself and of mankind. From its very na¬ ture, Christianity can never compromise with error, never countenance sin; but in other things and re¬ lations, it is ever ready to yield and accommodate itself to the people it is designed to bless. It is bound to no particular time, or country, or cus¬ toms, or forms of governments, or language, etc. It is, in these respects, truly universal or catholic— it is the religion of Him “ in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blest.” A greater, more thoroughly revolutionizing and highly beneficial force than is the power of the Christian religion there is none. There is none that can so change, expand, fill, quicken, cheer, move and control the human heart—and all for the better. It has been counterfeited, it has been mis¬ applied and abused; and hence it may appear to have done harm. The truth is, however, that it has never done anything but what is good for man and for the human race. To deny this, one must deny 103 5. RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. history. We admit that it has been corrupted at times and places, even as is still done; and the spurious article has been the cause of much mis¬ chief, yea, of things criminal. We admit farther that, even in its purity, it has at times been forced to do injury either by reason of blind zeal on the part of its friends or when used as a covering and instrument by men of evil design. These facts have misled some to look upon it with suspicion and to deny its excellence and utility; but with¬ out reason. People who are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the genuine and the false, between use and abuse, have no ability and there¬ fore no business to form and pronounce judgments. Nevertheless it is done; Christianity is misunder¬ stood, misjudged, assailed and wronged. Over against this and all opposition it must be defended. Christianity affects every thing within its reach. It lays hold of the entire man. It en¬ lightens his mind, converts his will, and purifies his heart with all its powers and passions. As a new life-power it changes the human nature in all its moral and religious dispositions; it changes and renews, but it does not destroy. By it the mind is delivered from the bondage of spiritual ignorance and set free to receive, and to be enriched in, all true knowledge. The will is turned from things evil and hurtful to things good and sal¬ utary; and thus renewed and invigorated, it deter¬ mines to flee the one and to follow the other, according to the new light directing it. Things, of which the old heart has been fond and fruitful, become distasteful and even infamous to the heart 104 THE CHURCH. II. so regenerated; and objects formerly feared, or despised, are now loved and prized. A wonderful transformation, indeed! And pervading the whole there is such a consciousness and certainty of its reality, such supreme rest and joy, such an im¬ pulse for good action, such a fullness of emotions, that the heart must break unless it find utterance. “ We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." The entire man has become sub¬ ject to a new power, the power of Christianity, of God, and finds himself transplanted into a new dominion, the kingdom of Christ and of God. As a matter of course, this must in some wav affect his relation to every person and to every thing about him; it must determine his entire conduct with reference to the world in which he lives and moves. And since the change in the man is for the better, this change in his life can be no other. This change, however, is gradual and progress¬ ive. It is in each case the work of a life-time. The work is greatly hindered and therefore arduous; it is opposed, and assumes the nature of a struggle. In these his labors and conflicts, the Christian needs assistance; and this he finds in part among those who are undergoing the same renewal, are engaged in the same work, are enlisted for the same fight, bear the same burdens, and endure the same tribulations. In these he recognizes children of his Father’s house, citizens of his Savior’s king¬ dom, laborers in his Master’s work-shop—and all alike away from home in a strange land. What can be more natural than that he be drawn into fellowship and co-operation with them ? In a word: 105 RELIGION, ITS RIGHTS, ETC. the fact of a people of God on earth results in the fact of a kingdom of God on earth—the fact of the Christian Church. Christians of like mind, and one in spirit, are by this spiritual affinity drawn to each other and held together. Having common inter¬ ests and purposes they labor together; having com¬ mon needs, and being exposed to the same dangers, they help and stand by each other. From within and from without they are constrained to hold to¬ gether as one body—and that so they do, is the will and work of God. 106 THE CHURCH. II. § 6. THE CHURCH DEFINED—ITS REAL ESSENCE, AND THE OUTWARD FORMS IN WHICH IT MANIFESTS ITS EXISTENCE. The word “church” is a term of many mean¬ ings. It is used, ad libitum , to denote the body of religious people generally; then a certain organiza¬ tion of a particular class of religious people, or a denomination; then also it means a local organiza¬ tion of such people, or, in other words, a local con¬ gregation ; and again it is made the synonym of a place of worship, and also of the act of worship itself. As will appear farther on, it is the Church in a derivative and modified sense with which we have to deal chiefly in these pages. To understand it, however, in this sense, it will be necessary for us first to ascertain what it is and signifies in its primary sense. We have noticed that Christianity is, and has proved itself, a power—an ethical and spiritual power conquering and controlling the hearts of men. Now call it a regenerating and paternal, or a kingly, or a quickening and sanctifying power: in either case there will result an organic union between those and all those who submit to it, and also a definite relation of these to Him whose is the power and who operates it. In other words : there are begotten and gathered from among men a family unto a common Father; or, a people is conquered and made the subjects of a common kingdom; or, there are called into being, and separated from the 107 ITS ESSENCE, AND FORMS. world as having become distinct from it, those who are of a kindred holy nature, and these are made to grow together into one spiritual body by one and the same Spirit who has sanctified them. You may call the Christian Church the household of the Father, the kingdom of the Son, or, the Commun¬ ion of Saints by the Holy Spirit—it is always the same thing, only considered and named from a dif¬ ferent point of view. The Scriptures define the ecclesia of Christ as His 0-ayaa, His body. Of this body, they farther teach, Christ is the Head and Christians are the members. In these statements we thus find given every thing needed to arrive at a clear conception of the Christian Church. It is a Body, not an institution merely; and it is a body of people, but not of all people; it is a body of such people only as are Christians, and it is com¬ posed of all such people, not one excepted; lastly, it belongs to Christ — to God. Accordingly, the Christian Church is the whole body of all who truly believe in Christ. From the definition so given, many important inferences can be deduced, which are well worthy of consideration, and to some extent relevant to the object we have in view, inasmuch as they will preclude a misconcep¬ tion of manv statements to follow. •/ From the fact that the Church is a union of people, it follows that it is a society; but to stop with this idea were to come far short of the truth. It is a society; but it is more—more than a simple union and association of rational beings. It is a spiritual organism. The forces producing it, the material constituting it, the means and mode of its 108 THE CHURCH. II. production, the structure itself, its life and its man¬ ifestations of life, all point out its organic nature. For this reason it is, and is called, a body— rrti/ia, and its constituent parts are, and are called, mem¬ bers—i. e. part of an organic body. The Church “ is not merely a human society . . but more. It is a creation of God—a work of the Holy Ghost. Whatever things make the Church to be the Church are not outward forms and manners, but it is the Spirit. He is the soul that fills it and quickens it, and who binds together all the indi¬ vidual members into the oneness of the body.”— ( Luthhardt ). Then, the kind of this organism is pointed out by the words “Christian believer.'' The life and forces at work here are not natural but spiritual; the Church is a spiritual body—not a plant or be¬ ing produced by creative power as that from whence nature came, but a product of ethical di¬ vine powers and operations. When it be asked : who is a member? we can, in this place, only say in answer that he is a Christian and member who is apprehended by Christ and in whom His Spirit is generally predominant. A man who has the form of godliness but denies the power thereof is as far away from the kingdom of God as is he who knows nothing about such things. Neither is it sufficient to be somewhat influenced and affected by divine powers in order to be a member of the Church : at least the fundamental truths of Chris¬ tianity must be known and received by faith and become a life-power prevalent in the heart. In this spiritual body, Christian faith is the bond of 6. ITS ESSENCE, AND FORMS. 109 union between the head .and the members, and Christian love the bond between members and members. The fact that throughout all times and in all places there are people on earth who are bound to God by this faith, and to each other by this love, is the evidence of the real and universal character of the Christian Church on earth. Think of Christians as they exist in all times and places, and think of their union and communion with God and each other, and so thinking you think the Church. This is the kingdom of heaven and of God of which the Scriptures speak. It is the Church in its essential, unchangeable and everlast¬ ing reality. Of this Church Christians have from the earliest times to this day commonly confessed that it is an object not of sight but of faith. “ I believe—not I see—“a holy Christian Church.” Such are the words of the oldest and most gener¬ ally accepted symbol, and which is still in use. Hence, in the sense in which we have thus far con¬ sidered it and spoken of it, the Church is invisible. Being an essentially spiritual body, it cannot be other than invisible. But the reality of its exist¬ ence is manifest in many ways: its powers make themselves felt, the means of its creation and ad¬ vancement are sensibly operated, and the word of God declares its reality, describes its nature and foretells its destiny—but the Church itself is not seen. For this reason the State can have nothing to do with it as we have here defined it. In this it is as far beyond the reach of the State as is the Christian religion itself. Quite a change of meaning, however, takes 110 THE CHURCH. II. place in the term “Church” when from the ex¬ pression “The Christian Church” we pass over to phrases, such as: “the churches”—“the Romish Church” — “the Protestant Church” — “the Lu¬ theran Church"—“the Reformed, the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, Church,” etc.; then the “St. James' M. Ep. Church,” etc., etc. Here w T e em¬ ploy the word “Church” in order to designate re¬ ligious divisions, denominations, congregations, etc. These, as we shall presently see, are very different things from that one and only Church which we have just described. We now come to treat of something tangible, a something palpable; and though a thing different from the State, yet in some things analogous to it. Christians are kindred in spirit. By the law of affinity, which is also applicable here, they are drawn together so that the inward unity finds ex¬ pression in an outward union, and the inner same¬ ness of forces and purposes is made effective in an outward uniform and conjoint activity. We may say that it is in part the social nature of man which here asserts itself, but in its hallowed and re-enforced condition. Besides, it is the will of their common Master that the love implanted in their hearts be mutual and produce fellowship. As thus there are ontological, so there are teleological, reasons. External churchly union is not simply to satisfy an internal desire, but it is at the same time for the accomplishment of certain ends, namely : the united defense and propagation of Christianity. Suppose now that in a certain locality Christ¬ ians meet Christians, and that they are one in the §6. ITS ESSENCE, AND FORMS. Ill faith. This being the case, we can foretell the re¬ sult almost to an absolute certainty. Since they find pleasure and profit in communion, since they have a common calling, and since they know it to be a privilege and duty to co-operate in this, they will formally unite and constitute themselves a Christian congregation or a local church. Since it need not necessarily be a corporation; since, to be real, it cannot be a mere association called into ex¬ istence by articles of agreement only ; since it must be, and is, a living structure, brought forth, sup¬ ported and directed by a living moral and religious force—a Christian congregation is, in view of these features, an organic body. % From the above the conclusion might be drawn by one or the other, that the Christian congregation is nothing other than a local and separate division of the Christian Church—an unalloyed, component part of the whole. But that is a mistake. In the first place, the constituent element of the Christian Church is faith and love; the constituent element of a congregation is the profession of that faith and love. Because men cannot see faith and love, they must of necessity be satisfied with their profession. But this may be hollow and hypocritical; the prob¬ able result is that with the believers of a church there are unbelievers mixed up. Now this proba¬ ble admixture is one consideration which must prevent us from pronouncing a Christian congrega¬ tion, as such, a part purely of the Christian Church. Of course, you may think away everything spurious and foreign to a Christian congregation, and then consider what remains a part of the Church; but 112 THE CHURCH. II. then you must not forget that you are viewing it not as it is but as it should be. A second reason why the above inference is fallacious, is this: while the Church is an organic body and spiritual only, the congregation is more—it is also a community reg¬ ularly formed and externally established. Necessary constituent factors of the latter are forms of doc¬ trines, church-constitutions and laws, church-rites, etc., and these are things more or less humanly de¬ vised and instituted, and hence liable to errors even and changes. In the Church general the members are united only by an inward, invisible bond; a congregation presupposes this bond; and on it as a foundation, and moved by it as a power, its mem¬ bers are also bound together by articles of agree¬ ment as laid down in the constitution and by-laws of their own formation and adoption. It is in this respect, and considered apart from its origin and its peculiar life and purpose, an association of men and an external community—an analogy of the State. Quite a practical way of pointing out the dif¬ ference between the Church and a congregation, is the following. By regeneration or conversion a person is made fully a member of the. Church, but not necessarily a member of a congregation; a member of the latter he is made only by formal reception, but this formal reception never makes a person a member of the Church. Membership in the one and membership in the other are two dis¬ tinct relations, for the one can be without the other, though this should not be the case. What then is a Christian congregation? We answer: it 113 ITS ESSENCE, AND FORMS. is a society of men, but of a peculiar kind. It is a society produced by Christian truth, resting on a Christian foundation, pervaded by Christian life, furnished with divine means and existing for ends distinctive of the Christian religion. In all this it is something entirely different from every human organization. Generically, it is classed as an or¬ ganized society—an external association of men, indeed, but of men professing Christianity. It is a religious society, and whose religion is the Chris¬ tian. The word “ society ” tells us what it is; “religion” expresses its general quality or charac¬ ter, and the word “ Christian” specifies the charac¬ ter as peculiar and distinctive; “of men” points out its tangibility. Understanding what are Christian congrega¬ tions, we can have little or no difficulty in making out what is meant by the word “church” when ap¬ plied to Christian denominations. Generally speak¬ ing, these are the aggregate of the former. Take all the Christian congregations of a certain distinct order—the Episcopal for example—and conceive them to be more or less united into one whole, and you have what is called, in this case, the Episcopal denomination or church. Again, because Chris¬ tians differ more or less in points of doctrine and on questions of forms and practices, this gives rise to denominations or churches, expressive of these differences. Thus the sum-total of Presbyterians and Presbyterian congregations constitutes the Pres¬ byterian denomination or Church; the sum-total of Baptists and of Baptist congregations is the Baptist Church; and so on. As a matter of course, 5 * 114 THE CHURCH. II. these parts, as constituting a whole, are not a whole merely in conception but they are really bound together, inwardly by their common belief, outwardly by articles of agreement and by laws of their own free enactment. On account of this latter bond between the several parts, these again pro¬ duce a whole which in its nature and mode of be¬ ing has all the essential features of an organized society. Now in both, the Christian congregation and denomination, we have come upon an entity , called “church,” of which the State can take cognizance and concerning which, for various reasons, it must take some action . The Church, in this sense, is a thing just as substantial, perceptible and tactile as is the State itself, or as is any merely human society. Though it is upon the whole an outgrowth of an invisible body—of the Church proper—yet it is a something more, and again a something less, than the invisible made manifest—it is a different body not only in formal but in essential parts; for to its existence the formal constitutionality is es¬ sential !. On the other hand, it is a body essentially different from the State, as also from every combi¬ nation of men merely human; in this namely, that it is organically Christian. The question of Church and State is therefore an inquiry into the relation between the State and the Church as an external religious association , and not between it and the Church as a body spiritual and therefore invisible—largely though this, be¬ cause of its close relation to the external body, is affected by the position assumed by the first named 115 ITS ESSENCE, AND FORMS. body with respect to the other. We have thus de¬ termined the sense in which we now intend to em¬ ploy the word “Church” generally throughout these pages. We might, following the example of an¬ other, preserve more clearly the distinction estab¬ lished by using the word “church-dom; ” but, in the first place, this term is unusual, and in the second place, it seems to us to exclude too much the spiritual side of the Church’s existence. By “the Church,” then, we intend to designate the aggregate of those organized societies which are so many forms in which the living reality of the kingdom of God is manifest—in the one with greater, in the other with less, purity and power. It remains for us to see how the State takes official notice of the Church, and defines and classi¬ fies it. This evidently must differ somewhat from our own Christian view of it. The State can only judge it according to its own powers; and here we must remember that it has no power of judgment and discrimination in matters purely religious—at least, not in revealed religion. It has the ability to perceive the fact of its existence from the exter¬ nal evidences, for to do this the intellect alone suf¬ fices; but to form a true opinion on the essence and nature of any religion transcending the natural, it has not the faculty. Spiritual things must be spiritually discerned; here the natural powers are wholly inadequate. But in the State there reside, and are active, none but natural powers—the in¬ tellect and the common moral sense of the com¬ munity, not to mention the physical. Just so soon, therefore, as the State presumes to pass a defining 116 THE CHURCH. II. and discriminating judgment on spiritual things, it exercises powers which are foreign to itself, and thus passes out of its legitimate sphere of action. How r ever, it can know and notice the Church in its capacity of a society; and more than that, it can know and classify it as a religious society and so distinguish it from itself as a society politic, then also from municipal societies, from eleemosynary associations, from unions, stock-companies, and the like. Farther it cannot go, and need not go. It cannot distinguish between the religiously false and true, between the religions of the Jew and the Gentile, of the Christian and the deist, of the Protestant and the Romanist, of the predestinarian and Pelagian, etc. A church can do these things, and therefore also a state-church and a church-state can do them, but never a State as such. The most complete definition this can possibly give is accord¬ ingly this, that a church is an external religious society; and, as w^e have seen above, it is correct though not exhaustive. Its internal, spiritual na¬ ture it cannot understand nor describe. The question also suggests itself here how a religious society comes to have an existence in the recognition of the State. It is plain that an asso¬ ciation may be formed and hence exist de facto , but whether also de jure is quite another thing. It certainly does not exist by right if founded con¬ trary to law, no matter what its virtues and its w r orth may be. So too, though its formation may not be illegal, still the State may ignore its ex¬ istence unless it have complied with certain re¬ quirements of law. The rule is that no society 6. ITS ESSENCE, AND FORMS. 117 have an existence in the eye of the State except by virtue and in consequence of a certain process called u incorporation To effect this act, three gen¬ eral modes are conceivable. First, the State may legislate to the effect that the fact of its formation shall be all that is required to constitute a society a body incorporate—a very loose way of doing business, this is; still it is not only conceivable but even in vogue to some extent. Secondly, a society may become a body incorporate by pre¬ scription ; that is: by the fact of its existence and operation without State-interference for a certain definite period of time—generally by the lapse of some years. Thirdly, a society may become a cor¬ poration by charter, or by a general or special legis¬ lative act, whereby special rights are granted and special duties exacted. The last we believe to be the rule generally in vogue throughout the United States—though the first and second methods are by no means unknown. Here then we learn the ad- ditonal fact that the Church is to the State a body u incorporate” or, as it is perhaps more properly called, a u person by fiction of law ” Now it is by this act of incorporation, really—which being in its nature a contract between the Church and the State—that the relation between the two bodies is established. By it the Church may be recognized simply as an entity existing in the State, or it may thereby even be made an integral part and depart¬ ment of the State —hence the importance of the con¬ tract entered by the act of incorporation. 118 THE CHURCH. II. / § 7 . THE CHURCH WITH REFERENCE TO ITS OBJECT, AND ITS MEANS AND MODE OF OP¬ ERATION. When, in our description of the Church, great prominence was given to that side of its existence according to which it is a legally constituted society, this was done for a twofold reason, first: to distin¬ guish it from the Church invisible and thus with all possible care to guard against their identifica¬ tion; secondly: to hold it up in that light in which alone the State is able to know and take action concerning it. But when thus, for a special reason, one essential feature of our subject is emphasized we must not for a moment lose sight of the other and the far more important, because it is the fun¬ damental and characteristic part. The Church, as we now conceive it and speak of it, is a duality. It is spiritual and corporeal, a community bound together inwardly and outwardly, in spirit and in body. “ The Church is not only a communion of things and usages external, as are other communi¬ ties— politiae —but pre-eminently the communion of faith and the Holy Spirit in the hearts.” Normally, it is the inward unity which ex¬ presses itself in the outward union; it is the nature of the Spirit that gives character to the form; and it is the life within that manifests itself in the work without. Empirically, however, existing churches are not so many manifestations of the one true Church—of the body invisible. If they were, then, 119 ITS OBJECT, AND ITS METHODS. because these churches are more or less antagonistic, would the Church, the kingdom of God, be divided against itself, which would be impossible. Wher¬ ever a church in all things spiritual is in full ac¬ cord with the whole of divine truth and in its confession neither adds thereto nor subtracts there¬ from, there is, what is called, “the true visible church.” But the fact is that churches, as they are, only more or less approximate this perfect ideal. They are not what they should be, and do not always what they should do, in every respect. Generally, they err in doctrine and sin in practice. Some, for example, dabble in politics, others in doubtful business-speculations, while still others bring reproach upon the good cause they profess to serve by converting their temples into exposition- buildings, theaters, ball-rooms and restaurants. Now it will not do for us to consider phenomena such as these to be in any way indicative of what really the Church is, nor of what may be its proper business. To ascertain with safety its true and legitimate object, we must be wholly guided by what the Church itself is and is for—is, and is for according to the will of its Creator and Lord. It being in its inmost and living self a spiritual or¬ ganism and, by the meaning of the word used to designate it, a something distinct from everything else, it is beyond the power of men to create any body and this for any purpose they please, and then call the medley so produced a “church.” The attempt to do this—and it has been made—is pre¬ posterous in the extreme. With just as much reason, or rather want of reason, might a boy 120 THE CHUHCH. II. whittle a pine chip into a jumping-jack and then call this “areal live monkey;” and no more fool¬ ish were it to call an orang-outang fresh from the hands of a taxidermist a living man. Reasoning from the true nature of the Church and guided by the express will of God concerning it, what is its real object? and what are the means and methods to be employed for the accomplish¬ ment of that object? To answer these questions we must first of all direct our attention to those features of the Church which are essential and in¬ dispensable and, at the same time, peculiar to it; and in the second place, to such matters as are ac¬ cidental and yet necessary to it, but at the same time more or less common to other entities. Individual Christians and Christians collec¬ tively have a mission intrusted to them. They are divinely charged to teach, or rather to make disciples,—“ ^a^revaare ^—of all nations. In these words of its commission we find expressed in its entire compass the work proper of the Church. The propagation of the Christian religion is its object . To disciple all nations includes two things : to ad¬ vance and confirm those already discipled; and, to disciple others. In other words, the object of churchly organizations is: with reference to them¬ selves, edification; and with reference to those without, conversion; hence, self-edification in, and conversion unto, things spiritual and divine. Since the work to be done is spiritual, the means employed for its execution must necessarily be of the same nature. Forces purely physical and 121 ITS OBJECT, AND ITS METHODS. intellectual can never produce moral and religious results; neither can, what is strictly moral only, beget anything fully religious. Here, too, like be¬ gets like. A lesson from natural philosophy, a lecture on the fine arts, a discourse on the mind— be the truth taught and the truth be learned in each—in no case will truth such as this bear spirit¬ ual fruit. Things of this sort may in a remote way subserve the great purpose of the Church, but they can never accomplish the purpose itself. To do this there is given but one truth and power of truth. When the Church is commissioned by the Lord to do His work, He plainly points out the means for its doing, namely, the Gospel, or the divine Word. That is the living and ever-abiding power by which men can be born again and re¬ newed unto the image of God. There is none other; and there need not be, it is all-sufficient. This Word, including the saving ordinances there¬ in instituted, has been intrusted to the Church for administration. Now, just here it would be well for us to notice, and then to remember, that these means and no other , and that this office of their ad¬ ministration, and no other office , have been com¬ mitted to the Church, and committed to no other body. There is nothing which can better serve to make clear the distinction existing between the Church and every other organization than can this its pecu¬ liar object and these its peculiar means and this the office of their handling. So intensely charac¬ teristic are these features of the Church that any society, no matter what its name and purpose are otherwise, just as soon as it makes it an object “ to 6 122 THE CHURCH. II. * preach the word” is thereby at once turned into “a church.” From the kind of work it is to do and from the means placed into its hands for the execution of that work, the modus operandi of the Church is obvious. It is, in this respect, not legislative, judicial, and executive, as is the modus operandi of the State and of men in affairs political. Its methods and manner of working are wholly didac¬ tic, admonitory, persuasive, regenerative, liberat¬ ing, sanctifying, saving—and all this, and through¬ out it all, without anything in its hands but the word of divine truth. This it is to teach and preach with power, in purity, and in love. Souls, to be won, must be wooed; to be won for God they must be sought with the truth of God, and in a manner ever solicitous though sometimes painful, and never compulsory and repellent. The only thing aimed at is religion, a supreme fear, love and trust of God—in all its parts, therefore, affec¬ tions of the heart. To implant and cultivate these the heart, to which alone they can be made in¬ digenous, must be worked; and thus the nature of tha field as well as the fruit to be grown points out the way in which the labor must necessarily be performed. Such is the object, such are" the means and methods, of the Church by divine appointment. Because divinely ordered, they are essential and unchangeable. They are to the Church the sine qua non of its existence, progress and final con¬ summation. They must be , and they must be just so , in order that it may be and abide, and be true to it- 123 ITS OBJECT, AND ITS METHODS. self and faithful to its Lord. But since an orderly and prosperous administration of this its office proper renders a legally constituted form of exis- ence necessary, the Church must, as a society humanly constituted, attend to many other things besides the work thus far described. Which are these other things? Inasmuch as the outward and humanly or¬ dered side of its being is subservient and second¬ ary to its inner divine side of existence, we may very appropriately call all those matters, which pertain more directly to the former, the accessory. Accessory only, however, in their relation to the things spoken of above and found to be divinely established; for in themselves they are, in part at least, most important if not indispensably neces¬ sary. In its capacity of a human society the Church possesses and exercises all the junctions of a human association. Here now it presents itself to our view as a body legislative, judicial, and execu¬ tive. The naming of these powers involuntarily reminds us of the State; and to this we might point by way of illustration, were the analogy more complete. Though there is similarity, there is not much likeness—but of this more anon. When a number of Christians will constitute themselves a church, they must proceed as men generally do when they organize a society. They must devise and adopt a constitution. The for¬ mality is in both cases much the same, but in the giverr substance they differ very widely. Whereas in the one case men give expression to their own thoughts, will and purpose, and in matters human; 124 THE CHURCH. II. in the other, expression must be given to the will of God in things spiritual. The most important fea¬ ture is, of course, the doctrinal or confessional basis, that is, the form of faith to be adhered to and to be promulgated. For this the material is indeed given in divine revelation, but men must formu¬ late it. And since this confession is designated to give character to the whole body and to serve as a directing principle in all subsequent action, a more important business than the agreement upon a doctrinal basis can never present itself to a body of Christians. Next in importance is the condi¬ tion of membership whereby the Church is to se- « cure and preserve its integrity. For this, too, the material is really given; but it is the office of the organization to give it shape, and to see to it that no one be admitted whom God would have ex¬ cluded and no one be excluded whom He would have admitted. The spiritual privileges and du¬ ties of church-membership are in no way to be subject to the mere whim and will of men; and herein the Church has to do no more than to ascer¬ tain which these are by the will of its Lord, and then plainly to enunciate and faithfully to apply that will. Moreover, since its prime object is to be obtained by teaching and preaching, it must be its business to educate, to appoint, to support, to su¬ pervise, and, if need be, to depose, its own teachers and pastors. In all this it must proceed in full accord with divine direction. In other affairs, concerning which no higher instruction is given, such as are the number, the kind and the powers of its officers; the ordering of its culture; the style and 125 ITS OBJECT, AND ITS METHODS. cost of its buildings; the management of its prop¬ erty ; its ecclesiastical connections, to some extent; the transaction of business, etc., it is left free to use its own good judgment and to proceed accordingly, subject, however, to the general rule that every¬ thing be done decently and in order, to the edifying of the whole body, and that in nothing there be implied even the least contradiction to the prin¬ ciples of the divine word. Now when we say that the Church makes laws and applies and enforces them, this is said more with regard to the form of action than the spirit of it. The form is legal, the spirit must be evangel¬ ical. In their form its enactments are laws, in their spirit they are rules and regulations. There is good reason for this; for they are intended to serve a double purpose, if need be. They are to be used as laws against any disturbing element from within and from without when nothing that is less peremptory and authoritative than is the power of law can answer the purpose of protection. With reference to the members themselves, however— excepting the unreasonable and rebellious just named—church-legislation has simply and solely— should have, at least—a directing, educational and regulative, and not a legal, significance. No mat¬ ter how small the affair may be concerning which “laws” are laid down, and how earthly it may be in itself, if the Church legislate concerning it at all, it must ever do so with an eye single to man’s highest relation of life—his relation, and of all he has and does, to God. And from this view of the action, nothing less than an intelligent and willing obedience can be satisfactory. Properly speaking, 126 THE CHURCH. II. then, it is the business of the church to lay down rules of action and seek their cheerful observance on the part of all its members, not by the force of law, but, by inculcating in their hearts that wis¬ dom, sense of right, and goodness, of which such rules are the expression. Human societies, and the State, may be, and often must be, satisfied with the overt act of obedience; the Church cannot—it must inquire into the motive. To eradicate the bad, to correct the wrong, and to implant good motives of action is, so to speak, one-half of its mission. Having ascribed governmental functions to the Church, it is important to note the nature of those affairs and relations with respect to which it possesses such powers. In so far as God Himself has spoken, it has simply to state the fact: “ Thus saith the Lord!” Here it has no legislative author¬ ity. But, as we have seen, there are many things not divinely established but left for the Church to determine and arrange as best it can. Herein it legislates, and herein only; here it governs with the liberty given it so to do, but always in accord¬ ance with, never contrary to, the Word which at least furnishes general principles for all kinds of action. Then, that it legislates and governs at all is a matter due chiefly to its constitutional mode of existence and its existence in the world. “ But that must never be forgotten, which many are dis¬ posed to forget: so long as there can be mention of a constitution or an external regulation of the Church—and there will be mention of this, through¬ out its earthly existence, whatever may be other¬ wise thought of its condition—so long will it also, even when all constraint of conscience is excluded, yet § 7. ITS OBJECT, AND ITS METHODS. 127 continue under judicial regulations, even though these be self-appointed; and to these its members must submit, so far as they wish to continue its members: so long will there be in the Church also an external legal Moment, a nomistic Moment, which does not accord (fully) with the ideal of evangelical liberty, of the liberty of God’s children. As an earthly society, with external ordinances, and a mixture of pure and impure, living and dead, or half-dead members, the Church will al¬ ways be different from the kingdom of heaven, of which our Lord speaks in His parables, and which never attains perfect manifestation here below. To this diversity and contrast it belongs also, that it —the Church—can never be perfectly freed from the external law, and all the contingencies which accompany the relation of liberty to these. The external appointments of justice find their most perfect representative in the State, but are impera¬ tively necessary for every earthly society which as such seeks to enter the outer world, and which has therefore a side which is allied, is analogous, to the State.” ( Martensen’s Eth . § 144). While speaking of its governmental powers, it will not be inappropriate to say a word or two in answer to the question : in whom does this authority reside? We answer: originally and ultimately in the members of the Church . Not in the vestry, not in the ministry, not in conferences, synods and councils, not in the bishops, not in the pope. We maintain that every Christian congregation is itself the highest judicatory in its own affairs. Were we at all to discuss the matter we would follow the same course of reasoning adopted to show that political 128 THE CHURCH. II. sovereignty originally rests in the body of the peo¬ ple. As there we started out from the indisputable fact that all men, as the creatures of God, are equal and that no one is created the subject and slave of another—so here we would start from the fact no less incontrovertible, namely, that Christians are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus— that no one is more and no one is less; that no one is lord and no one is servant, but that all are free. Then, in the second place, since no one is the lord of another, neither by natural generation, polit¬ ically, nor by spiritual regeneration, churchly—all are in both spheres free and equal in authority, un¬ less there can be produced a divine order to the contrary. But as no man or body of men can show up a divine brief granting them political authority over others, no more will any pastor or priest, bishop or pope, synod or council, be able to show that they are divinely appointed to rule in the Church. The Christian congregation can, of course, intrust the administration of its own inherent powers to individuals and individual bodies—but these powers themselves belong to the Christian people; and for their use and abuse these will ever be held responsible by Him who has conferred them. The powers of a vestry, of a council, etc., are delegated powers only; and they extend over the congrega¬ tions of their belonging. As in affairs civil, so in affairs ecclesiastical, people should bind them¬ selves, by this delegation of powers, as little as pos¬ sible. In them both we hold the best form of gov¬ ernment to be the democratic—the government by the people themselves, and with as little representa¬ tion as expedient. LIMITS AND POWERS OF ACTION. 129 A § 8. THE BOUNDARIES OF CHURCHLY ACTIVITY AND THE LIMITS OF ITS POWERS. Among all those propensities of human nature which men generally consider to be comparatively innocent there is none so pernicious and disastrous in its workings as is a presumptuous and meddle¬ some disposition. Safety and prosperity are every¬ where largely dependent on good order. The Jack- of-all-trades is most always a man poor and un¬ happy; and the moral of Jack’s life is highly significant. It teaches us the importance of that wisdom which would have each man to abide in his own appropriate calling; yes, and not only each man, but likewise every body of men, be it a busi¬ ness-firm, a stock-company, a scientific, a literary, or a benevolent society, and be it the State or be it the Church. On account of its high calling and special moral worth, it cannot be considered as anything amiss if we expect the Church to be a model in its love and observance of order. It is taught and it teaches that “ God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints;” and certainly, the example should accom¬ pany, follow, illustrate and confirm the precept. We have seen what is the purpose and what are the means and ways of churchly activity proper. We now inquire more particularly within which sphere it is to be thus active, and what are the limits of its rights and powers. Judging from the way it is constituted, there are few things it might 130 THE CHURCH. II. not be able to do; for it is a vast spiritual, moral, intellectual and material power. Conscious of this fact, it is always tempted to step out of its own do¬ main over into such as are forbidden; and, we are sorry to say, it does at times yield to the tempta¬ tion. But here, as elsewhere, the power to do a thing must be coupled with the authority to do it before it can rightfully be exercised. Where the one is applied without this other, there is trespass, even if it is the Church that does it. But, since this is called to disciple all nations , how, you might ask, can there be a limit to its sphere of action here on earth ? True, it has a call embracing the whole of mankind. The entire world is its field. Notwithstanding this, there is a possibility of trans¬ gression even here already. Suppose an individual, or an entire nation, objects to its ministration and forbids it to take place within his own territory, as is not infrequently the case, what then? Under such circumstances a double procedure is possible, but only one course of action is really legitimate. The Church might attempt to win or to force its way. To win its way by moral suasion, if it can, is perfectly proper—even its duty; but to force it vi et armis is decidedly wrong. When it is writ¬ ten that the Church, that Christians are to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature, it is written likewise that where they are not received and their words are not heard, there, going forth out of that house or that city, they shall shake off the dust from their feet. The Church may be as powerful even as is the State, and more; but its rights with respect to the 8 . LIMITS AND POWERS OF ACTION. 131 liberty and property of the individual outside of its connection, are none other than that of a private person . It is bound to respect the civil and relig¬ ious liberty of every man; and if he abuse his lib¬ erty by disallowing all religious ministrations in his presence and on his premises, it has no right of recourse to compulsory measures. In a word no missionary, no pastor, has a right to force himself and his services on any individual, family, or na¬ tion ; neither has the Church such right, though it possess ample power to do things of that kind. If it does, it goes beyond the work of its calling. To spread religion with the aid or by the use of the sword or at the point of the bayonet, is a Moham¬ medan abomination and incompatible with every humane, not to say Christian, principle and senti¬ ment. As it is unlawful for the Church by other than moral and spiritual means to advance its cause, no more has it the right to defend itself by any other than these same means. On this point the words of its Lord are conclusive. He says: “ My king¬ dom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence.” And when the san¬ guine Peter, forgetful of this, nevertheless drew the sword in defense of his Master, he was forthwith rebuked, and commanded to sheathe his weapon. But what is the Church to do in case it be as¬ sailed, and brute-force be turned to its destruction and extermination, if this were possible? We well know that in the past it has been forced more than 132 THE CHURCH. II. once to run the ordeal of the sword and the spear, the dungeon and the den, the rack and the gibbet, the caldron and the pyre, as of other instruments of torture. Those were sad days, indeed! and more horrible scenes than these the world has never wit¬ nessed—unless it was when, in the sweet name of the Prince of Peace Himself, the Church, but no, rather what was called the Church, acted—let us say—no less inhumanely! Happily, such tyranny and cruelties belong to the past; but the Church may be persecuted again, and the question remains unanswered, what is it to do in defense of self? We answer: its members are citizens of the State, and in this latter capacity they demand protection at the hands of the government for their every legiti¬ mate relation and pursuit of life, hence also for their religious fellowship and exercises. When¬ ever, therefore, it needs the protection of the sword, it must call on that power to which the sword has been intrusted also for its benefit. Under no cir¬ cumstances must it constitute itself the State and usurp the office of the sword. No, not even then when the body appointed to protect it, itself be¬ comes its oppressor and assailant. What in the meantime its members may do as men and citizens is no more nor less than men gen¬ erally may do for self-protection—what that is and is not, are questions here irrelevant. * The point *“The speculative line of demarcation, when obedience ought to end, and resistance must begin, is faint, obscure, and not easily definable. It is not a single act, or a single event which determines it. Governments must be abused and deranged, indeed, before it can be thought of; and the 8 . LIMITS AND POWERS OF ACTION. 133 which concerns us now is, that the Church, as such, has no right ever to seize the reigns of government or transform itself into an army after the manner of this world. If it does this, it leaves its own God- appointed sphere.—A Quaker, so the story runs, once upon a time was asked: “ Friend, is it true that when a man smite thee on thy right cheek thou art to turn to him the other also ?”—“ Even so,” answers the Quaker. Barely had he made an¬ swer, when he was smitten on his right cheek; then, true to his teaching, he held out the other also and received the second blow. Thereupon our hero continued: “ Further the Scripture sayeth not!” and so saying, he pounced upon the scoffer and in a manner pommeled him that it must have never occurred to him again to test a Christian’s sincerity of belief. And—quid haec fabula docet? This, that what the law forbids us to do at one time and in one sphere it may allow us to do at another time and in another sphere. Non-interference with itself by no one, and prospect of the future must be as bad as the experience of the past. When things are in that lamentable condition, the nature of the disease is to indicate the remedy to those whom nature has qualified to administer in extremities, this crit¬ ical, ambiguous, bitter potion of a distempered state. Times, and occasions, and provocations, will teach their own lessons. The wise will determine from the gravity of the case; the irritable, from sensibility to oppression; the high-minded, from disdain and indignation at abusive power in unworthy hands; the brave and bold, from the love of honorable dan¬ ger in a generous cause; but, with or without right, a revo¬ lution will be the very last resource of the thinking and the good.”— Burkt’s Works , Vol. V., p, 73. 134 THE CHURCH. II. non-interference by itself with no lawful order of existence, must ever continue to be the policy and practice of the Church if it will be dutiful and prosperous in its work. Its place in the world and its office are definitely fixed, and they are peculiar. As it expects to do its own w r ork and do it without leave or hindrance of each and every body offic¬ ious, it behooves it to remember that there are many things to be done on earth which it has no call and no right to do. Here again it is taught and it teaches that u there are differences of admini¬ strations” and “ diversities of operations.” These are indeed all found in the State or in the Church; but they are not necessarily of the State or of the Church; that is, they are in a measure private, but legitimate all the same. We have in view here those divers branches of industry and of the professions—those manifold vo¬ cations and stations by reason of which citizens and church-members are again and subordinately class¬ ified. There is the business of the farmer and the dealer in produce, of the merchant and the me¬ chanic, of the artisan and the artist, of the broker and banker, of the lawyer and statesman, and of hundreds more. Now some of these pursuits are very attractive, and all may be more or less lucra¬ tive—and churches desire to be attractive, and they need money. Now what if they were to go into business of the same sort, would not that be a powerful auxiliary to its general work in more ways than one? Possibly it might; but most likely it would not prove a help. Be that as it may, we are convinced that any and every such movement § 8 . LIMITS AND POWERS OF ACTION. 135 or enterprise is wrong, decidedly wrong, and, as a policy, most unwise and ruinous. The Church has no need, no call, no business, whatever to turn farmer, tradesman, speculator, politician, distributor of prizes, comedian, cook and caterer, or anything of the kind, no matter how excellent the opportunities and how golden the prospects may appear. But, say you, is not the Church a society? if so, why can it not appropri¬ ately engage in things becoming a society? We answer: true, it is a society; but it is a society of a distinctive character and for a well specified pur¬ pose. It has a God-given purpose and character. Its business is not to entertain and serve people with a view to popularity and money-making. It is a religious society; and in consistency with its name, nature, and calling, it must do the work as¬ signed to it—it must do nothing more than such things as are necessitated by its calling and which at the same time can be attended to in no other than a churchly capacity. Business speculations, fairs, theatricals, lotteries, suppers, dances and en¬ tertainments of such sort—say that they were in¬ nocent in themselves and properly conducted— they are things unbecoming a church because this is more than a mere human institution: it is, if it be a church at all, in its chief and best part, a body spiritual; and to drag whatever belongs to other spheres of being and life into its own, is, to say the least, an incongruity. We read that Jesus “cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money¬ changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 136 THE CHURCH. II. and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves.” Now it would seem to us that whatever things desecrate the place of worship can¬ not possibly be things proper for the worshipping body —the Church as such . Nor is the plea that the Church must have money, an excuse for its stepping out of its sphere of action in order to acquire it. The fact that it needs protection does not authorize it to turn State; and the fact that it needs money no more entitles it to go into business for the purpose of money-making. And there is no real need of this. The members of the Church as members of the general community have their appropriate call¬ ings, and within these it is in their place to ac¬ quire the money needed for their personal uses: for their families, for the State, and for the Church, as well as for themselves. From the funds thus acquired, the Church has the full right of an ade¬ quate support. As a rule, at least, its revenues should consist of moneys personally acquired and freely contributed by its own members. The wisdom of abstaining from all allotria may be made apparent from this, that whatever is gained by doubtful measures is likely to be of a doubtful character and advantage. On the other hand, we are sure that the officious demeanor and meddle¬ some proceedings indulged in by so many churches in our day are exceedingly offensive to a large class of the people ; the consequence is that, on that very account, many are filled with prejudice against re¬ ligion, with dislike of the Church, and quite nat¬ urally they stand aloof. § 8 . LIMITS AND POWERS OF ACTION. 137 To many, no doubt, the grounds here taken smack of ultraism. Be it remembered, however, that we are treating of principles—we are concerned about rules and not exceptions. Moreover, our present question is one of order, and order must always yield more or less to necessity. Then, the disregard of order is considered too much in the nature of a very trifling offense, if as an offense at all—especially in so far as it is not resented by any law of the land. Lastly, we consider the matter of order as too important to be treated with less rigor. Our happiness depends largely on this that men and bodies of men know their proper places in this world, and knowing them, that “each in his station move” and none trespass on forbidden ground. In the application of the principles above ad¬ vocated, it will be found very difficult in some cases to point out the exact line of demarcation existing between the various spheres of human activity—to say what belongs here, what there; who is to do this, who that. Education, as we have seen, is an example of such things. For the present suffice it to say that, as the State has the right and duty to demand the education of the youth of the land, likewise, and for similar reasons, has the Church the right and duty to insist upon the education of the youth within its fold. Who is the party originally called to educate, and then, to whom this may properly assign the work, will be a subject for separate consideration farther on. To resume and to give a resume of what has been said about the boundaries of churchly activity, it will be noticed that also here as elsewhere the 6 * 138 THE CHURCH. II. real question is not what things come within the jurisdiction of the Church and which not, but what action it is to take with regard to them. In one respect its field is very wide, in fact, extends over every body and over all things ; in another, again, it is comparatively narrow and limited. This is explained by the duality of its nature and the corn- sequent duality of its mode of operation. In the first place, it is to evangelize all men and to sanctify all relations of life and the use of all things : in this its aspect, its domain is the world. But to do this it must be socially constituted and active; and in this view of its province, its operations, in the sec¬ ond place, must be confined to those things which belong and pertain to it as a distinctive society. If we agree to distinguish its two modes of actions by calling the one the spiritual and the other the ecclesiastical, we can say that it has a spiritual work to perform with regard to every person and all things—and that only with spiritual forces; ecclesi¬ astical actions only with regard to itself, however, as a society humanly constituted and to be humanly governed. Again, and the same thought, only in other words : with the power of divine truth it is to influence everything and, if possible, bring every¬ thing into its true relation with God; with the powers it has as a society it must do nothing but what is called for by the direct object of its external associate existence. Accordingly, there are many things it is not permitted to do, but it is called to sanctify their doing; and there are many things it must not want to possess and control, but it is true to its calling when it seeks to sanctify their 8 . LIMITS AND POWERS OF ACTION. 139 possession and control by others unto God. There are many evils and improprieties in the world which it must never attempt to-suppress or correct by force as of its own, even if it has all the power to do so; but if it can extirpate them by preaching and teaching the Gospel of Christ, it does its whole duty. For an apposite illustration we refer to the exemplary behavior of Paul in the case of Onesi- mus, the slave of Philemon. Within its own sphere the Church, by right, is free and sovereign in the matter of government. However, it must defer to the State and conform to the laws of the land in which it exists—that is, so long as nothing is demanded of it contrary to the will of its Master; in this event it is to “obey God rather than men,” irrespective of all consequences. Though the Church is complete and completely furnished in itself and for itself, yet is it not wholly independent. Being in the world as yet, it must rely for one thing or the other on one or the other divinely ordered estate : on human government for protection, on human industry for support, on hu¬ man research etc. for assistance. It is the will of God that it should be so; not that the Church make anything human a ground whereon to build and an object wherein to trust, but an instrument in the hands of its only Confidence—the ever pres¬ ent Lord of might and goodness—whereby He is pleased to provide for it as for His Well-beloved among men. 140 THE DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. III. THE DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION OF THE STATE AND THE CHURCH. PRELIMINARY' EXPLANATION. There are relations existing between man and man, whether taken singly or collectively, into which he is created; and there are relations into which he enters of his own accord. The former are inherent in, and inevitably result from, his origin and nature; the latter depend on, and are brought about by, his own free act. For example, whether they will or not, men and men are fellow-creatures; children of the same parent—in the kingdom of grace as well as in the kingdom of nature—are brothers and sisters: relationships such as these God Himself establishes and establishes creatively. But when men sustain other, and at times closer, relations than these, such as that of companions, of associates in business, of fellows to the same society, of husband and wife, etc., these are connections of men’s own making, be it with or without the di¬ rection and approval of God. Ralph and Rachel are fellow-creatures. But there is every indication that they desire to become more to each other — indications foreshowing that they will become husband and wife. Admitting that the consummation of their union is perfectly 8. PRELIMINARY. 141 lawful before both God and man, is it also expedi¬ ent? Will God and men approve ? These are the all-important questions in matters wherein, by law, we have liberty to do or not to do, as will be best for us. In the case before us: if there is anything in names, we would have Rachel fore-warned if not dissuaded; and with Ralph we would expostulate; for we are all aware that lambs never fare well in the company of wolves. However, names alone cannot be allowed to decide here since, like their fair bearers, they are often chosen more for their beauty than for their good sense. But there may be many other and more weighty reasons why Ralph and Rachel should not be made husband and wife; possibly, too, there may be good reasons, and none to the contrary, why they should be wedded. Be this as it may, certain it is that the mere lawfulness of their alliance alone does not fur¬ nish a sufficient argument showing that it ought to be effected. Lawfulness, here, is after all only one hindrance removed and no positive evidence. Mar¬ riage is not an affair wholly to be determined on by law and love; reason and expediency must also be consulted as best they can. We are persuaded that where the law permits and love commands, but reason and expediency plainly and unmistaka¬ bly forbid, there it is an act of wisdom to abstain. Somewhat similar is the question before us now with regard to the relation of the State and the Church. There is one relation between them in virtue of their creation and therefore to be dis¬ cerned from their respective natures; into this God Himself has placed them. Then there are possible 142 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. other relations, such as that of a marriage, and into which they might enter by mutual agreement. About the wisdom of the first, there can be no doubt; but the wisdom of any farther and closer relations is a matter of grave dispute. In the pres¬ ent and the following parts of our treatise we pro¬ pose to discuss, in the present: the nature and the wisdom of their relation as God has ordained it (§ 9- 10) ; and then in the following : the question of any humanly ordered relation , and ivhat may he said in its favor or disfavor. (§ 11-12). * § 9. THE STATE AND THE CHURCH ARE TW r O DIS¬ TINCT, BUT NOT ANTAGONISTIC, BODIES. There are many important features which can be predicated in the same words and at the same time of both, the State and the Church. They are dominions of divine origin, peopled with human beings, and their ultimate objects are the good of mankind to the glory of God. This would seem to indicate identity; but notwithstanding this generic similarity there is a specific difference. A closer view reveals to us the facts that the one is estab¬ lished by God as the Creator and is therefore pre¬ eminently a dominion of His creative power and of providential wisdom and goodness. The other is established by God as the Redeemer, and is there¬ fore a kingdom in which His grace and sanctifying power especially preponderate. Then, the one is peopled with human beings as such, the other with human beings only as Christians. Further¬ more, the true happiness of the entire man—man’s 143 9. DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. everlasting salvation—is the ultimate object of the one, and that only, in the intent of God and by His overruling chiefly ; that is, it is not, and is not to be, the direct and declared object of the State as it is and is to be the immediate and stated object of the Church. Then, too, the kingdoms of this world come and go, one following the other quite often in quick succession, until the end of time when this earth and with it its kingdoms shall pass away as orders for which there can be no farther use; but the kingdom of heaven,’though as to its external vesture and appointments it undergo changes like¬ wise, itself shall abide forever in perfected glory as the kingdom of God and of His people. From considerations such as these it follows conclusively that the State and the Church, by rea¬ son of their created natures, their purposes and their destinies, respectively are two entirely differ¬ ent bodies. Each has an individuality of its own and distinct from that of the other. They are no single entity with perhaps a double mode of exist¬ ence, manner of operation, etc. Now since God Himself has made them what they are in their real natures, they are by divine act two distinct orders of being. Whether it be the divine will that they be merged into one, subsequent to their creation into essentially different and separate beings, re¬ mains to be seen. For the present we hold fast to the all-important fact just established. From this it follows that he who is a citizen of the State is, on that account, not a member of the Church ; on the other hand, he who is a member of the latter is in¬ deed also a citizen of the former, not by virtue of 144 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. his Christianity, however, but in view of his hu¬ manity. In like manner, and by the same reason¬ ing, the State includes the Church and encompasses it, but not as an integral part of itself; that is, the Church is within the State locally but it is not of the State essentially, no more is it than the Chris¬ tian who, though in the world, is of it. As a part of the State, the Church could only be considered with respect to one side of its existence perhaps, i. e. the humanly organized. “Neither does the Church visible desire to be a part of the State, no, not even the determining factor in it; but it desires to be itself constituted a kingdom of a peculiar kind which indeed must be in this world but will not be of it; it can therefore no more dissolve and merge with the State than the State can ever be converted into it, for the object of the State is purely earthly, that of the Church purely spiritual, it—the Church —knows itself simply as an institution (?) called to educate (Erziehungs-Anstaldt) humanity for the supra-mundane kingdom of God into which itself is to be merged at the consummation of all things. The Church has thus restored to the divine its in¬ dependent significance and freedom, but at the same time liberated the State from its subordina¬ tion to the domination of a national cultus.”— (Geffken , Staat und Kirche^p. 49). The human body and the human soul are different substances, but they are creatively and therefore divinely conjoined into one personality. We have just pointed out that the State and the Church are not so conjoined, but rather, that they are created distinctively and separately. Now the 9. DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. 145 idea that God should declare things, to which He has thus given distinct natures and separate exist¬ ences, to be one and the same thing, is preposter¬ ous and unworthy of a moment’s consideration. The next question therefore is, whether there be given any divine order for their commixture or for their union into one body. If there were, it would have to be found in the Scriptures as the only revelation of God’s will; but no such order can there be pointed out. On the contrary, everything there said and having any bearing on this matter only confirms their distinctive characters, and for¬ bids their fusion even in conception. When, for instance, the Lord says of His kingdom that it is not of this world, the whole context goes to show that, among other things, His kingdom is not the State and in no way to be identified with it.—Men who prefer mules to horses and asses may have the liberty to indulge their freakish preferences by mixing these different species in order to secure their favorite mongrel; but men have not the liberty to so mix the spiritual and earthly, the Church and the State, that as a consequence all distinctions existing between citizens of the one and citizens of the other be wiped out or lost to view. Samaritan products, such as must result from a fusion of things civil and religious, are be¬ yond all doubt an abomination to the Lord—and a curse to the race. Seeing that we have to do with two entirely different creations of God, and that they are placed side by side on earth, which is the more important , and which is the higher authority? The Church, as 7 146 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. heretofore shown, has for the object of its existence and activity the whole of man, and of all he is, has and does, but with reference to his highest life- relation—his direct relation to God. The State has to deal with man and the affairs of man only in part, and then only in so far as his earthly in¬ terests are concerned. Now, since man’s relation to his God is of a higher order, and includes even his relation to his fellow-men and to earthly things in general, the Church from this point of view, stands far above the State. The ministry of the one is to sanctify and save man in soul and in body; the ministry of the other is to protect him in his outward relations, actions, possessions—to prosper him in his earthly calling. Harm to the soul invariably involves harm to the body; for a sinful soul is the source of all its sorrows. Injury done the body, however, is not necessarily hurtful to the soul: this may live and be happy even while the other is tortured and destroyed. Every way we compare them, the body bringing to us salvation does us greater and more valuable service than does the body appointed for our protection in things earthly. Nevertheless, to argue from their relative importance to their relative authority is not at all a safe way of reasoning. The conclusion that the Church must have the power and right to control the State, because it is the more important of the two, is a Romish par¬ alogism—a fallacy so glaring, that, though it may do honor to a shrewd pontif, an ordinary freshman would be ashamed to perpeprate it. But the pon¬ tif finds it serviceable, if it is not logical; and that 147 DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. is the main thing. As a smart bridge-builder, what does he care about logic anyway, or truth even : his view serves admirably to bridge the way for “saints” to become the masters of “sinners” and then for the greatest “saint” to be made mas¬ ter in chief. According to this peculiar idiocracy of the papal hierarchy, the worthy president of the United States is not the chief executive, de jure , as we all suppose—no, nothing like it unless he possesses the charisma of Romish sanctity and sanc¬ tion, and that sanctity in a higher degree than any other man; for “the more holy the more im¬ portant, and the more important the more author¬ itative,” and so on until the autocracy of “holi¬ ness,” that is of church-dom, is established. But what saith the Word of truth? When there was a strife among His disciples which of them should be accounted the greatest, the Lord said: “ The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over themj and they that exercise authority over them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so.” Foolish Herod was troubled when he heard of the new-born King of the Jews; but really there w T as not the least cause for fear. He, whose coming awakened such dismay and caused the slaughter of innocent babes throughout Judea, made no pretentions to the throne of Herod or to any other throne of this earth. And in this, as well as in other things, He has left an example to His followers, to His Church. The false notion that the State is to manage also the religious affairs of a commonwealth, is an old pagan leaven; the heresy that the Church 148 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. should dominate over the State is an old Jewish dream; but the sound doctrine that both are dis¬ tinct and independent in their individual exist¬ ences, is decidedly and characteristically Chris¬ tian. The Jews in the time of Christ, and later, judged it as a wrong and a disgrace that they, “the people of God,'’ should be subject to Roman, i. e. to heathen, rule. But Christ taught both Jew and Gentile to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God’s; and thus He closely distinguished between things religious and things political, between the authorities of the Church and of the State. In the same spirit the Apostles continued to teach, as witness, for example, Paul’s letter to the Romans, cap. 13. The fact is that Christianity has first rec¬ ognized the divinely established difference between the afiairs of State and of Church; and, ’tis a pity and disgrace that those who are so loud in its pro¬ fession and even lay claim to its exclusive posses¬ sion, are so forward in the denial of this its char¬ acteristic and all-important principle. But in the papal hierarchy it cannot be other¬ wise so long as it adheres to its false conception of the Church as an essentially visible and legal in¬ stitution. “The hierarchy which claims for the constitutional forms of the Church the same di¬ vine authority which it claims for its doctrine was originally driven to place it over the State” — as a higher authority even in State matters—, “this was considered a purely earthly, unholy power, a thing profane and profaning (das Saeculum), for was not the prince of this world by the Scriptures 149 DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. called a devil? ’Twas only by the consecration of the Church to this, that the power of State first be¬ came sanctified and was made a trustee for higher ends” (Geffken p. 210). Such was and is the dog¬ matic position of Rome.* Accordingly, civil and religious liberties are moral impossibilities. The Apostolic and Christian principle distin¬ guishing between things civil and religious was again restored by the Reformation of the 16th cen¬ tury, and with it, theoretically at least, the dis¬ tinction between the State and the Church. “For¬ ever must it be said in praise of the Reformation that by its principles civil liberty .... was again rendered possible, and that too in an entirely dif¬ ferent manner than was the case in antiquity when the civil greatness of a small minority was * Pope Bonifaeius VIII. in his famous Bull “ unam sanctum” among other things doctrinal, declares: Gladius est sub gladio, that is: the sword of the government must be subject to the sword of the Church. Again: Subesse Romano pontifici, omni humanae creaturae declaramus, di- cimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de neces¬ sitate salutis. Accordingly, subjection to the Romish pontif is indispensable to salvation—no one can be saved unless he obey the pope. But, though Romish in its nativity and strength, this heresy is not confined to the Church of that name. It has time and again found friends and advocates among Protes¬ tants. When, for the first time the full extent and bearing of his royal prerogatives revealed themselves to his protes- tant (?) mind, James II. of England is said to have cried out in his own vernacular language: “ Bo I mak the judges? Do I mak the bishops? Then, God wauns! I mak what likes me, law and gospel ” (Hist. Essays by Jno. Forster , I. 227), —words certainly as wild as ever spake the lips of-popes. 150 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. based upon the dark back-ground of slavery. The principles of freedom of conscience and of the uni¬ versal priesthood, which liberate man inwardly, in¬ evitably lead to outward freedom; a people which no longer feels, itself as a mere obedient and ser¬ vile laity over against the clergy will certainly no longer desire to be an object merely passive and without rights over against the government.” Geffken p. 217). The great Luther, in his plain and fearless way, expresses himself quite often and unmistakably against Rome. Among other things, he says: “The chapter in which the papal authority is exalted above Caesar’s”—above the authority of State—“is not worth a farthing, and henceforth such devilish insolence as requiring the emperor to kiss the pope’s foot or to hold his stirrup must not be again tolerated, much less that he swear allegiance and subordination to any popes: which to do, these have arrogantly re¬ quired as though it were a matter of right” ( Werke, 21, p. 313 Erl. Ed .). The position taken at that time may be expressed in the following words of the Church of the Reformation: “Wherefore, the ecclesiastical and the civil powers are not to be confounded. The ecclesiastical power has its own command to preach the gospel and to administer the sacraments. Let it not by force enter into the office of another; let it not transfer worldly king¬ doms; let it not abrogate the magistrate’s laws; let it not withdraw from them lawful obedience; let it not hinder judgments touching any civil ordinances and contracts; let it not prescribe laws to the magistrate touching the form of the State § 9 . 151 DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. , . . . In this way ours distinguish between the duties of each power, one from the other, and ad¬ monish all men to honor both.” ( Augustana , Art . 28). In truth, the State and the Church are bodies co-ordinate in the matter of authority. Each is sovereign in its own domain. Neither is divinely charged to rule the other. If in any way one have governmental authority at all over the other, it is not the Church but the State of which this might be affirmed with certain modifications. “ In its outward, earthly and civil relations the Church is subject to the State—even to the extent of suffer¬ ing wrongs.” (Dr. Beck , K . u . St. p. 46). As a cor¬ poration and as corporately holding and managing property and being otherwise socially active, it is under the laws of the State as fully as any other body of men and as such it is in duty bound to render obedience. But note well, not as such but only with regard to its outward and humanly established mode of existence is it subject polit¬ ically, and this to a very limited extent. From the differences in their respective founda¬ tions, from all the innate qualities of each, from the distinctive character of their respective mis¬ sions as of the means furnished to each to do its work, from the destiny awaiting the one and the other, and lastly from the written Word, every¬ thing adduced and everything deduced combines itself into one sublime and incontrovertible testi¬ mony showing that their common Creator has made the State and the Church to be two distinct bodies, has Himself not conjoined them nor given com- 152 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION* III mand for their conjunction, and has not subor¬ dinated the one to the other, nor ordered that this be done. Their divinely ordered relation is not like that subsisting between the human body and soul; neither is the attempt to be made to force them into any such connection. “ What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” That implies, in our humble opinion, that what God has put asunder let no man put together. The facts thus obtained lead us to the momentous proposition, and force the far-reaching and all- important inference, that personal prestige , advance- ment , power , office, authority , merit , dignity , etc. ivithin the domain of one body are not necessarily to be accounted such in the other. Among other things this implies that opinions and doctrines strictly and exclusively political can never rightfully exclude a man from church-mem¬ bership; and that purely religious opinions and convictions can never in equity exclude any one from citizenship—never rightfully in the first case, because the true test of church-membership is di¬ vinely revealed and fixed ; not in equity in the sec¬ ond case because, though humanly established, the test of citizenship should not hang on things be¬ longing only to the sphere of religion. Of this more hereafter. Another practical application of the conclusion arrived at may be exhibited as fol¬ lows: You may be a most noble king, or a most illustrious emperor, or even His Excellency the President of our own United States—all this your state-dignity does not in the least as yet make you a Christian and entitle you to the most humble 9 . DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. 153 position of the least church in the world. On the other hand, you may be a most wise counselor in affairs of Church, a most faithful pastor, a most eloquent preacher, a bishop suffragan or metropol¬ itan, or, if you will, the veritable “ papa of all Christendom”—all your churchly prerogatives and honors, be they what they may, cannot of them¬ selves invest you with the least authority of State, cannot even give you a claim of right to a common country squire-ship. Were Church and State one , we could not so reason nor thus amuse ourselves at the expense of either of your State or your Church dignity. Happy the people which can here laugh with us—who know that our subjects are two entirely different bodies, and who are in a position to enjoy this truth realized, who gratefully enjoy the inestimable blessing of both, civil and religious liberty. Since the State and the Church are, by divine appointment, two distinct bodies, having different but co-ordinate jurisdiction, the question arises: Must there he on that account any conflict between them ? In view of the fact that they occupy a common field of operation, this is of the utmost practical im¬ portance. Now when we bear in mind that both organizations are the creations of the same wise, truthful and consistent Being, there can be no an¬ tagonism between them such as were in any way the effect of their respective origins, natures, pur¬ poses of existence, or the manner in which each is called to do its work. The true bodily interests of mankind, which constitute the immediate object of the one, cannot possibly be at variance with the 154 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. true spiritual interests of humanity which are the direct object of the other. Body and soul are not against but for each other; the true care for the one must in the end be the true care for the other. Otherwise, man in his essence, man in himself, would be createdly divided against himself, which is impossible and absurd. If in our estimation temporal interests ever stand in the way of the heavenly, we see not aright and such conflict is imaginary; or, we may rest assured that either the temporal or the heavenly interests, or possibly both, are such in appearance only but in reality false. So between the bodies in charge of these interests; there can be no strife so long as both remain true to their respective natures, strictly abide in their appropriate callings, seek to perform each its own task and that in the way directed and with the means assigned them by their common Founder. “If however a church’s constitution cannot be brought into accord with the constitution of the State, wherever the latter is not incompatible with the essence of the Church , then such a church must have more or less become estranged to the essence of the Church. And such a church has no divine right, under these circumstances, to require the State to conform its law (Recht) to its own false idea of law and right. It has no claim of right in view of which the State were bound to tolerate it as with a constitution in conflict with its own. Such a church interferes with the State in the fulfilment of the duties assigned to it.” (von Hoffmann. Theol. Eth. p. 266). Warfare between them can ensue only when 9 . DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. 155 either or both mistake the proper line of division between their respective domains, or when they fail to observe each its own proper mode of action. The repeated and disastrous conflicts between Church and State noted in history are in reality only so many attempts of the one to do, or to do away with, the business of the other. This at least must hold with respect to the Christian Church. False religions and religious societies there have been, and are at all times, which are in their foundation and doctrine opposed to essential principles, to necessary laws, and to particular forms, of human government. Not so true Chris¬ tianity and the Church consistently holding and practicing its precepts. “ No form of government, unless it be a God-opposing tyranny, stands in its nature opposed to Christianity; every form can, under given conditions, have a full moral right to exist, and therefore the Church is not permitted to enter into solidary relations with any form (of government) in a sense condemnatory of all others. Christianity, from principle, keeps itself aloof from the politically social domain, so much so that in all the New Testament not a word is found directed against an institution of that time which most as¬ suredly stood in direct opposition to its own spirit, to wit: slavery. Before God, and therefore in the Christian communion, there are neither bond nor free, neither servants nor masters, and to this doc¬ trine slavery was diametrically opposed since this denied to man his personality and placed him as so much property into the hands of others. Not¬ withstanding this the Apostles did not demand the 156 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. abolition of slavery, which could have been effected only by main force, nor did they assist slaves to escape by flight. They rather taught it to be the duty of each to abide in his calling and hence ex¬ horted the slaves to obedience and their masters to moderation. The ground for this is found in the fact that (to the Church) not the outer but the inner liberty was the chief thing—the converted slave could be inwardly free and the unconverted master could be a slave to sin. But the truly con¬ verted master could no longer treat his slaves as a mere piece of property; he teas constrained to recognize in him a brother redeemed with himself and a member of the Church having equal rights with his own; the in¬ ternal freedom must be inevitably followed up by the external , and thus has Christianity , ivithout assailing it directly , deprived slavery of its very foundation .” (Gejfken p. 56). Christianity has abolished slavery, in a manner peculiar to itself, wherever it has en¬ joyed free sway. Affairs truly political and affairs truly relig¬ ious being entirely compatible, and there being no antagonism possible between the real missions of the two bodies intrusted with them respectively, a norm of action results for the State which may be invariably followed with perfect safety. Briefly stated it is this : Let the government see to it that in all its acts it be true to itself and its real calling; and once sure of that , let it do its work , no matter whose religion is interfered with or whose conscience is hurt. “ Therefore—says the champion of our best lib¬ erties, Luther —let the lawful powers exercise their office freely, without hindrance, and without re- § 9 . DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. 157 gard to the persons concerned, be they popes, bish¬ ops, or priests: whoever is found guilty, let him suffer. Whatever the canon-law may have pre¬ scribed to the contrary is nothing more than a Romish invention and presumption; for St. Paul says unto all Christians: Let every soul—also the pope’s, I opine—be subject to the higher powers. If a priest be slain the whole land is at once put under an interdict , why not also when an humble peasant is murdered? Whence comes this great discrimination between equal Christians? From no other source than that of human imagination and commandment.” ( Werke , 21 p. 284 Erl. Ed .) He thus insists that before the law all men be treated alike and that there be no respect of persons and estates. To be sure, the government is bound to honor the religious convictions and consciences of men, and it is most unwise not to do this; but it must be done with due regard to the limits within which it can be done. Never must con¬ science and religion be allowed to answer the pur¬ pose of a passport for wrong-doing. On the other hand it must be remembered that a man who smothers the voice of his conscience commits moral suicide. Likewise the government which pays no attention to the consciences of its subjects commits political suicide. Conscience is to the individual his best sense of right and wrong, and hence the supreme subjective authority in all matters of morals and religion. But this his sense of right and wrong constitutes the very foundation and life of the State and therefore it is simply destruction of self for it to disregard that all-important factor in its own existence. (Compare § 4.) 158 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. Just as little as God has appointed the State to be the master of the consciences and religions of its subjects, no more will He have these things to dominate over the State. This is nowhere better understood than in the United States. “ The American people—says J. P. Thompson—honor the sentiment of Peter, that ‘ it is right to obey God rather than man;' and they applaud the heroic protest of Luther at Worms, ‘Hier stehe ich: ich kann nicht anders; Gott helfe mir V But when the god set higher than man is a foreign potentate, who asserts his supremacy over the State; when the conscience that claims to be inviolate is a church embodied as a political infallibility, and enthroned above all civil laws and institutions—then the peo¬ ple say : ‘ Society has rights as sacred as the rights of conscience. Government, no less than religion, is from God. Conscience shall not harbor conspi¬ racy ; religion shall not foster revolution; your pious devotion shall not plot our destruction.’ ” (C. and St. p. 138). And again: “ Though the theory of political society in the United States recognizes and guarantees liberty of conscience as one of the primordial rights of man, yet no one can be permitted to use his religion as a cover for vices and crimes against society, or for treason against the government. Such freedom of religion would place the community at the mercy of fanat¬ icism or superstition; would license Thuggism, and restore the Inquisition. Though no form of religious belief or worship, simply as such , can justly be proscribed in a free state, yet for reasons of pub¬ lic morality, or for the safety and order of the 9 . DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. 159 Commonwealth, the State may forbid and punish acts done in the name of religion; as, for instance, polygamy as practiced by the Mormons, the infan¬ ticide of the Chinese, or the self-immolation of Hindoo devotees. And upon the same grounds, though not as being in any sense the agent of the Church, or as having any religious function, the State may enact laws for the general welfare, which have also, in other relations, the sanction of relig¬ ion.” (Ibid. p. 18). “Were the laws dispensed with—says Thomas Jefferson—whenever they hap¬ pen to come into conflict or into collision with somebody’s conscience or with some supposed re¬ ligious obligations, government would be perpetu¬ ally falling short of the exigency—it would be an utter failure. There are few things, however sim¬ ple, that stand indifferent in the view of all sects into which the world is divided.” The normative principle of State-action which we have thus deduced and here sought to elucidate has been also demonstrated as eminently practical, especially in our own land. The only thing to be regretted is that it has not been more rigidly en¬ forced, more particularly against Mormonism and Jesuitism, wherever found; and also against those of a pious anti-bellum proclivity; for were these to multiply and become more of a controlling power in our land, this certainly would fare badly in case a war were forced upon it. With a slight modifica¬ tion, our rule may also be reversed, thus: Let the Church see to it that in all its acts it remain true to it¬ self and its divine calling , and sure of this , let it do its work and it will not trespass upon any rights of the 160 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. State. Where this rule is not found practically safe, there is not full religious liberty—a blessing to which every one is entitled before God and man. The fact of their diversity without contrariety as divinely ordered, both by the word and the work of their Creator, is directly opposed to the Romish illusion according to which the State is to be looked upon simply as a department of the visible Church —always the Church of Rome, of course—; and all this, mark you, not by any human arrangement, not by any contract, perhaps, freely entered by State and Church, but by divine will and ordina¬ tion ! This invention constitutes a fundamental principle in its doctrinal system as well as in its polity, and Rome will nowhere and never rest un¬ til it sit astride its hobby. In the close of his lec¬ ture, delivered at Munich April 9, 1861, J. J. J. von Doellinger tells his audience what are the hopes of Rome. He says : “ Grecian mythology relates that when a new god, Appollo, was to be born a new island, Delos, arose in the ocean in'order to serve as a birth-place unto the new god. We may con¬ fidently hope, that, whatever may come to pass, the see of Peter shall not want its Delos, and if it were to arise even in mid-ocean.” We add, may the Delos of St. Peter be ever as mythical as was the Delos of an Apollo. But Rome is the declared enemy of religious and civil liberty, and hence among all the earthly foes of man the very worst and most despicable. In this it is, unbeknown we believe to many of its devotees, a monstrous politi¬ cal machine; and such it is much more than any¬ thing deserving the name of ‘church’.* * Comp. Gladstone on Vaticanism. 161 \ 9. DISTINCT, NOT ANTAGONISTIC. In the mean time our eminently Protestant position directs itself with equal force against a certain spirit of the times which quite often makes itself felt in the captivating guise of Protestantism itself. We have in view here that so-called “ re¬ ligion of humanity,” a species of communism, which has sought to establish itself in ever-vary¬ ing forms since 1839. It would, if it only could, sequester both the Church and the State and take them as a new, consolidated something into its own protecting but indifferent hands. All this it would do by so ennobling (?) natural religion and by so reducing the revealed, that between the two there should be no difference and beyond *them there should be no necessity for anything better and higher. The plain and naked intention of the whole movement is, of course, to do away with the Christian religion and to enthrone Reason — to abolish once for all especially “that hateful thing, the Christian Church” and have a “highly cul¬ tured State” take charge of every interest of man. But what signifies it? Only this, it will like many other futile dreams, pass away never realized—yet not pass away until it shall have fully demon¬ strated to the world its utter vanity and frightful destructiveness.* * See Bishop Harris, Christ, and Civ. Soc. p. 117-120. 7* 162 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. § 10. THE STATE AND THE CHURCH ARE IN¬ DEPENDENTLY EXISTENT, BUT MUTUALLY AUXILIARY", BODIES. There are people who do not only deprecate every thought of a church-state but who, with un¬ due zeal, maintain that these two entities should assume and observe an attitude of utter indiffer¬ ence with respect to each other. They hold that the less notice the one takes of the other, the better it will be for both. The one is for the body, the}^ say, and for the things of this life; the other for the soul, and for the things of the life to come. Let the one rule the body, the other rule the soul, and each rule without any regard to the other. That, to them, is the short and simple solution of the Church and State-question; certainly a most super¬ ficial view of the problem before us. Just as though the State had for citizens bodies without souls, so that these it could wholly disregard; and as though the Church had for its members souls without bodies, and had nothing to do with bodily concerns. No, thank you, kind sirs! such sugges¬ tions are not available. Others there are who consider man’s politically social life the highest, if not the only life: they would have religion and religious institutions gen¬ erally dispensed with as bothersome things in more ways than one. They are things, they say, for which there is little, if any, earthly use; and as to 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. . 163 any heavenly use—well, that is a suggestion out of date in an age like ours. The insipid assertion that the Church is of no benefit from a social and civil point of view proceeds either from an unrea¬ sonable bias against religion or from a want of discrimination between it and fanaticism as the cause of much apprehension and many persecu¬ tions. This as it may be. It is to be fervently hoped that extreme and radical ideas such as these will never and nowhere prevail, no, not for the sake of the State and society itself. To all thus inimically disposed to religion we give the assur¬ ance, founded on history for its truthfulness, that for every church-edifice razed you will in the end be forced to erect one asylum and two prisons ten times more costly than the building destroyed; and then these will not be able to undo the harm which the Church — costing you nothing—would most likely have prevented. On the other hand, the Church cannot, and must not for its own good, be indifferent with re¬ gard to State-affairs. A mutual friendly recogni¬ tion is indispensable to the preservation of order and peace, and to the furtherance of the prosperity of both. They have relations of common rights and duties to determine and, once rightly deter¬ mined, faithfully to observe. Nor need any danger be apprehended from any such recognition nor from any inquiry they may make respecting their reciprocal rights and duties so far as these really exist. On the contrary, it stands to reason that the more they understand each other, in a certain sense, the better are they enabled to define the 164 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. actual distinctions separating them and then ac¬ cordingly to establish that relation which must obtain if the peace is to be preserved. True, the one is in no sense the creation and creature of the other: with respect to each other they are self-existent. They are not correlatives. They are fellow-creatures, but of entirely different orders. The former fact is an evidence that both are useful, and that possibly the one may be useful to the other; and the latter fact is, at least, no argument to the contrary. A strange reasoning, that, which would make it appear that these two bodies which, for their establishment, appoint¬ ments, powers, etc., are both indebted to the same wise and beneficent Being, and which have so many interests in common, must, for the safety and prosperity of each, necessarily ignore each other. Because both occupy a common ground, because both have the good of man at heart, though each in a way its own, they do have common interests. For as they are apart in their natures and immediate purposes and interests, they never¬ theless stand in need of each other. Were this not the case—did all the concerns of the one essen¬ tially and absolutely exclude those of the other— could the one take care of itself just as well whether or not the other existed and assisted— then and then only might it be urged with some show of reason that an absolute non-recognition were the best policy. But we cannot so premise and therefore not so conclude. To do this we would have to stop thinking, and deny the plainest and most obvious lessons of history. § 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 165 Over against those who preach the policy of utter indifference we have two propositions to offer and we bespeak for them a candid consideration. The first is: THE STATE HAS NEED OF THE CHURCH. In the minds of the ancient Greeks the State was looked upon as an ordinance of the gods. Social and civil affairs were accordingly most in¬ timately connected with the worship of the dei¬ ties. They held the w r eal or woe of the entire Commonwealth to depend on the pleasure or dis¬ pleasure of the gods. This is evident from the religious devotion they accorded to Hestia , the goddess of State. Aware of the fact that religion and its cultus formed a constituent part of its nationality, it was considered incumbent on the government not only to protect religion but like¬ wise to shape its cultus and itself officially to par¬ ticipate in its observance. No public act of any consequence was undertaken without first seeking the favor of the gods—and because Socrates ques¬ tioned their existence, as they thought, he was made to drink the fatal cup. Draco, the sanguine and severe, punished religious dissent with death; Plato would have it denounced as a crime; and Aristotle advocated the Draconic principle. More deeply rooted even was the religious sentiment in the hearts of the ancient Romans. % Every family had its household gods, and these were recognized as the special family patrons. As to public affairs, the fear of the gods was the strong band which held together as in one all the diverse 166 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. elements of State, This being clearly understood, the cultus was made altogether a matter of State. In short: things religious and affairs civil were considered equally essential to government. The same can be affirmed, in a degree greater or less, of every nation of the past—there never was a people, there never was a government, which discarded re¬ ligion as a thing worthless and hurtful-—except you find it in France at the close of the last cen¬ tury—in the days of the Dantonists, of Reason, and of the guillotine. When here you are pleased to show up an exception to the general rule— you are welcome to it, and to the best use it can be put. “ Experience”—says Dr. Beck—“by which the State is largely governed, teaches that without re¬ ligion there can be no State, nothing but hordes and factions. The foundations of States are laid by the laying of religious foundations: State des- solations and the decay of religion are simulta¬ neous occurrences; such is the teaching of history and such lies also in the nature of things. With the absolute authority also all relative authority in man and exercised by him with respect to man, gradually falls. With the holy fear or awe of God, as the supreme Law and Lawgiver, passes away at the same time all respect for one’s own conscience, for man, and for all human authority. Religion in general is an essential and vital condition of State-existence, and of the fulfilment of its mis¬ sion to be a State of men and not of brutes (Thier- staat).” (K. u. St ., p. 36.) “Religion and virtue” —says John Adams—“are the only foundations, § 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 167 not only of republicanism and of all free govern¬ ments, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society. Science, liberty, and religion are the choicest bless¬ ings of humanity : without their joint influence no society can be great, flourishing, or happy.” By Christianity, “for the first time in long, dreary ages, the masses of mankind were individualized . . . for it was the distinguishing peculiarity of Christianity, that it dealt, not with men in the mass, but with men as individuals. It taught the great truth, that the individual alone is the ethical subject. It denounced its penalties, and promised its gracious rewards to the individual soul; and, in thus resolving humanity into individuals, it set in motion a principle which was sure eventually to work man’s political emancipation. The poor, the outcast, the oppressed, became conscious of a dignity and a self-determining power that made their life, even in this world, altogether different from what it before had been.” (Christ, and Civ. Soc. 55.) However, what pertains to religion, pertains to the Church; for these are things inseparably connected. Forcibly, yet in a way both odd and droll, which characterizes the man—Carlisle puts it thus: “ For if Government is, so to speak, the outward SKIN of the Body Politic, holding the whole together and protecting it; and if all your Craft-Guilds and Associations for Industry, of hand or of head, are the Fleshly Clothes, the muscular and osseous Tissues (lying under such SKIN), whereby Society stands and works;—then is Re- 168 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. ligion the inmost Pericardial and Nervous Tissue which ministers Life and warm Circulation to the whole/’ (Sartor Res . bk. II. cap . 2.) Civil laws, with their rewards to the well-doer and their penalties to the evil-doer, can never long suffice to accomplish the object of the State or even to secure its perpetuity. Resting merely on their own inherent virtue they must, in a great measure if not entirely, fail properly to regulate the actions of men; and this because they cannot possibly furnish the true motive or moral force in the hearts of the subjects, and which is indispens¬ able to secure just and good behavior. That power, therefore, which brings forth and fosters love and respect for the right and good,—sentiments from which both the conception and enactment of all good laws are derived and on which their faithful execution depends,—must be ever welcome to the State as a thing most useful. But that power is none other than religion, and of this the Church is the nursery. The Church—the Christian Church,—has com¬ mitted to it the ministry of God by which alone the morals of the people can be truly corrected, de¬ veloped and strengthened. It is called and equip¬ ped to plant within the human heart and to culti¬ vate such graces as are pleasing to God, because they are of Him, and which are calculated to bless humanity. “ ’Tis in the Church where a people obtains its most noble culture ” says Luthhardt, the apologist. Christianity covers the whole field of religion, it includes all that is true and worthy in the natural. To it the State is indebted for 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 169 ideas of right and for impulses unto good that are of incalculable value to the government of the human race. It has introduced the age of human¬ ity in the best and noblest sense of the word. In consequence of, and by, its appearance in the world, “the human race is considered as one great family . . . What are now called ‘the rights of man’ are the fruit of Christianity ... It has indeed not forc¬ ibly revolutionized the existing eternal relations and laws, customs and orders of nations; but it has infused a new spirit into all these life-rela¬ tions. It has not of a sudden abolished slavery externally, but it has taught man to recognize the slave as a fellow and brother, and thus effectu¬ ally undermined this institution. It has exalted woman from the most unworthy to the most worthy and influential position. It has made love —which, as Montesquieu says, had at the time when Christianity first put in an appearance a form and name which may not be named—to the most noble and tender force of the soul and spirit-life of man. In short, Christianity has become the moving force of a new civil and intellectual as well as of religious life among men.” ( Luthhardt , Apol. Vor- traege J., p. 201.) “A wonderful phenomena—says Montesquieu —the Christian religion which appar¬ ently has for its object the happiness only of a future life, at the same time also lays the founda¬ tion of man’s present happiness.” (L? esprit de Lois . 26, 3.) With reference to the Christian Church, the same author writes: “All great questions of in¬ terest to mankind, it has suggested; it has deeply concerned itself about the nature of humanity and 8 170 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. about all the vicissitudes of its destinies. On this account has its influence been so great on modern civilization, greater than admitted by its most vehement opponents and than presented by its most zealons defenders.” (ib. xx. 3.) “Every epoch in which faith predominates, be it under whatever form, elevates the mind and heart and is produc¬ tive of good for the age present and the age to come. Every epoch, on the contrary, in which in¬ fidelity, be it in whatever form, claims a miserable victory and of which for the moment it may seem to be justly proud, soon passes away into oblivion; for nobody is inclined to trouble himself about an unfruitful age.” Such is the admission of Goethe , the poet laureate of Germany, but as among the champions of religion certainly one of the least. Even the fitful, doubtful, miserable, rational¬ istic and —! Jaques Rousseau must add his testi¬ mony to the common truth : “ Now it is of great importance to a State that every citizen should be of a religion that may inspire him with a regard for his duties . . . The existence of a powerful, in¬ telligent, beneficent, prescient and provident deity; a future state; a reward of the virtuous, and a pun¬ ishment of the wicked; the sacred nature in the social contract and of laws: these should be its positive tenets. As to those of a negative kind, I would confine myself solely to one —the forbidding of persecution.” (Social contract , bk. 4 cap. 8.) The religion which this radical writer has in mind is, to be sure, of a rather poor and imperfect sort: no doubt of that; still he is a witness to the worth of religion and of the Church to the State. All the INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 171 doctrines, which he holds to be of inestimable value to the State, the Christian Church believes and inculcates in their purity, and many more just as important as those specified, even for the affairs of this life. The chief theory in this con¬ nection, and therefore not to be overlooked, is, that the doctrines of the Christian Church are not natural and human but divine truths, that they are a divine power, and the only power given under heaven which can renew the heart and in¬ duce man to lead a life of justice and benevolence among his fellows. The fact of this the written Word does not only claim for itself in expression, but is empirically established in the souls and lives of millions in the history of the world. It must be conceded by all that the real Chris¬ tian is always a faithful citizen. As such he ap¬ proves himself under every form of government. “Whatever makes men good Christians, makes men good citizens, 1 ’ says Daniel Webster in his Plymouth oration. The Master whom the believer serves, and serves before all others, bids him render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and commands him to pray for those who are in authority; and what is thus required of him, He enables him to understand and constrains him to do. Accord¬ ingly, he will always obey the laws even when oppressive and exceedingly irksome—always, ex¬ cept when they are immoral and irreligious. But such laws are, ipse facto , no laws. “And if the misconduct of the powers of State ventures, in arbitrary determination and religious and ecclesi¬ astical conduct, so far as to determine against the 172 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. manifest and ecclesiastically acknowledged will of God in Jesus Christ, then the Christian refuses obedi¬ ence. Acts 5, 29 and 4, 19. The Christian char¬ acter of the refusal will moreover consist in this, that the refusal be kept within the limits of voca¬ tion and right: that petitions, representations, and complaint precede the renunciation of obedience; and that the refusal of obedience is never con¬ verted into an unlawful attack upon divinely ap¬ pointed authority, but rather opposes nothing to the abuse of power but the force of justice and self-denying patience and endurance. The ground for the refusal of obedience and the divine authori¬ zation, however, is this, that the system of the earthly collective vocation ministers in subordina¬ tion to the system of the heavenly collective voca¬ tion ; that each, by virtue of its destination, has a peculiar law for its movement and accomplish¬ ment; that the transferring of the peculiarity of the one sphere to the domain of the other, and the false super-elevation, or indeed interference, with the one order on the ground of the power of the other, is a confusion of the divine order on earth, to prevent which, and in every way to do battle with it, according to the position of his earthly voca¬ tion , every Christian, in his calling as a Christian, has a divine authorization.” ( Harless System , etc., §54.) Look at it as you will, and as you can answer for your judgment of it—as a living, truthful re¬ ality or a delusion—: this you must admit that, so long as Christianity inculcates doctrines of the kind referred to and wields a corresponding influ- § 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 173 ence over the hearts of men, it cannot exert any but a salutary influence also upon the development of political ethics and so purify and strengthen the social and civil bonds of the national body. To say the very least, the Church is of the greatest importance and benefit to the State. To deny these facts is as unreasonable and inexcusable as it were to deny the beneficence of sunshine and rain. In a masterly arraignment and refutation of one by the others of the social philosophers respect¬ ively of Buckle, Draper and Spencer, Prof. Martin most truly and manfully vindicates the social and political worth of Christianity. He says: “It is unquestionable that the great reforms of political life, and the progressive element of public senti¬ ment, have found their support in the profound ideas of man’s spiritual nature and his immortal destiny, and in the deep sense of obligation which grows out of these. Throughout the historic and especially the recent period, the advance has been not natural and evolutional, but characteristically * moral. It has rested upon the great conception of duty” .... “But these elevating influences de¬ rive their effective force from the power of divine Revelation. Observed simply in the structure of the soul itself, they are too dimly discerned to be the guiding star of man’s life. But, spoken in the ears of men by the voice of the Almighty, they are 1 quick and powerful.’ They arouse our moral nature from the sleep and torpor of death. As they pervade society, they impart a higher, holier, and more vigorous moral life. They inspire a lofty enthusiasm in doing good to men. They awaken 174 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. a sentiment of love to the lowly and degraded, which makes it a joy to sacrifice wealth for the relief of poverty and the instruction of ignorance. Especially when presented in the life and death of the Divine Redeemer, do these lofty conceptions become effectual for the renovation and improve¬ ment of society. In that great model and ideal of character to which all the ‘ends of the earth’ are bidden to look ‘and be saved,’ they present them¬ selves as the highest realities of life. They search and quicken the soul to its profoundest depths, they awaken it to aspirations of benevolence and faithfulness that summon all our powers to Chris¬ tian activity .... and when nature proves feeble and helpless to resist the power of decay, society shall find the renovation of its life and the solu¬ tion of all its mysteries, which if unsolved threaten to devour us, in the Supernatural. Cut off from those ideas of God and heaven which alone impart dignity to our nature, man tends irresistibly to in¬ dividual corruption and to social decay.” * On the other hand, and as the second of our propositions, THE CHURCH HAS NEED OF THE STATE. True, in view of its real essence and as a body spiritually organized, appointed to a spiritual mis¬ sion and furnished with spiritual means, the Church is wholly independent of the State. It is created to, and it can, exist, as at times it has existed, inde¬ pendently not only but in spite of the State. It is * Journal of Christ. Philos. II, No. 3. 10 . INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 175 designed to perform, and it has performed, the work of its high and holy calling whether favored or dis¬ favored by the governments and agencies of this world. Its enemies and persecutors have learned time and again—and always at their own cost— that it is irrepressible, indestructible, and in its progress irresistible—they have learned that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” That it be and abide, that it labor and labor not in vain, is the decree of its heavenly Founder and Protector; and in things by Him decreed, no one . is able to cross and frustrate His plans. The notion that the Church’s existence, course and destiny are subject to mere human caprice, to the good or ill will of men, to anything natural and human, is in the highest degree erroneous and preposterous. “When the principle is advanced that Christianity has need of the State that it may constitute itself, and be, a Church, this is done upon two false suppositions. The one is that the Church is falsely preconceived a political Church ” —that is, looked upon as a kind of religio-political institution — “a conception which the Scriptures and writings of all Christendom ignore and which, by their exclusion of all carnal and worldly pow¬ ers from the sphere of faith and its communion, they repudiate. . . . The second false presupposition is, that the State is confounded with the common intellectual and material means of subsistence of which the Christian and the Church of course stand in need inasmuch as they are in this world and a part of its society. But these means the Christian Church has from the very beginning pro- 76 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. vided for itself without the help of the State, yea, even against its will.” (Dr. Beck, K . u. St . p. 47). When the great God in His infinite grace purposes to convert a man unto Himself and make him His own child, nothing on earth is able to resist His w T ill—nothing can prevent Him, except that man’s own will by a determined and persistent obstinacy of which it is capable. Again, when the heavenly Father has begotten a child unto Him¬ self and in His good providence wants him to live and labor for Him on earth, He will support him, notwithstanding all things opposing. Even such is His relation not only to the individual Christian but to Christians collectively. The Church is de¬ pendent on God alone. . But how about the Church as a human system —as humanly constituted ? Even in this its aspect it is perfectly able to take care of itself, or, we bet¬ ter say, it is altogether and well cared for by its Creator. From Him each member receives day by day all that he needs not only as a man spiritual and having spiritual wants, but just as well as a man of this earth and having bodily wants. And from the component you may here again safely reason to the compound, from the member to the body—the Church itself. Nevertheless it is true that the Church has need of the State; nor is this fact in contradiction with anything we may have said thus far, though it so appear. God provides, alone and fully pro¬ vides, for His Church ; but ordinarily not in a mode immediate and miraculous. He employs means and instruments, and among these the State is one. 10 . INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 177 We have seen, when speaking of this in particular, that this is an institution resting on a divine foun¬ dation, that “the powers that be are ordained of God.” But if divinely ordained, certainly it must be with good reason and for good purposes. Thus the State is for good, for the good of the people. The question here, therefore, is: is it for the good of a certain class of people or for all? for certain orders, or for all orders legitimately existing ? is it for the good of the Church also ? Most assuredly ; yea, we are convinced that in the mind and intent of God it is pre-eminently designed for its benefit. Neither the Christian nor the Christian Church can say of anything God has made or ordained that it is of no use, and of no use to them. That were inexcusable blindness and ingratitude oh their part. The State is of great use to the Church; and this the latter has always acknowl¬ edged. Even in the corrupt Church of the middle ages, when the most learned men even were wont to stigmatize human government as a “heathenish, human, godless thing and as an estate most dan¬ gerous to the interests of the soul,” these self-same wiseacres were most covetous of the powers they pretended to disdain. A thing decidedly profane, but most desirable to have and to handle : the one they assiduously taught, the other they just as as¬ siduously practiced, and thus, with the consistenc} r of silly children though it be, they bear witness to the worth and utility of the State. “Rulers,” according to the Scriptures, are for a terror to the workers of evil, and for praise to the doers of good. The former necessitate government 178 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. inasmuch as it is a terror to the wicked; and on account of these the latter have need of it. The former, again, have need of government inasmuch as it is a praise to the good; the latter, in this its phase, demand it. Were all men orderly, peaceable, just and good, its feature for terrorism would be wholly superfluous and thus fall away, while its positive feature, as a principle directing and fur¬ thering the common good, would abide. Now the Church being an orderly, peaceable, just and good body, yea, the very seminary of all good virtues, it would appear that it can have no need of the State as “a terror.” But it only so appears. The fact is that it needs protection , partly and mainly against those icithout ) but partly also against some within its own fold. It is not alone in the world; it does not em¬ body the whole human race, neither is it exter¬ nally separate from those not belonging to it, nor is it permitted to withdraw itself from all contact and intercourse with them. Its labors extend be¬ yond its borders and out among all nations, since it has positive duties towards all men. Then, as a corporation of human beings it has political wants which, even if it were able, it is not permitted to supply. Then, those without, and unto whom it is sent and with whom it must treat to some extent, are not all reasonably and justly disposed: some would defraud, others would hinder, and still others would disturb or even destroy the Church. To deter these and to restrain them from doing injury to itself it needs the formidable arm of the protecting body. The Christian and the Christian § 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 179 Church, indeed, are rather to suffer much and to suffer long, as a rule, before they call on the “ aven¬ ger for wrath” to interfere in their behalf; but there is also a limit to this wrong and long-suffer¬ ing. They as well as others are pointed to “ the minister for good” who is intrusted with power and charged with the duty of enforcing justice among men. Moreover, the prevalence of general peace and prosperity is, in a certain way, a pre¬ requisite to churchly peace and prosperity; for this reason Christians all are exhorted to intercede for those in authority, and to pay tribute, to the end that they may lead a quiet and peaceable life. And thus in a thousand ways human governments can be a blessing to them and the Church—so much so that “the discontinuation of all external authority (of the Sgouffta) would deprive the Gos¬ pel (the Church) of its indispensable foundation in this temporality.” ( Vilmar , Moral , p. 172.) That the State thus prove itself, indirectly, an invalu¬ able servant to the Church, is God’s own will and ordering; for the rulers “are ministers of God’s ser¬ vice, attending continually upon this very thing.” It is through them and by their ministry He would protect His Church; and this, in its use and enjoyment of good government, is sensible of en¬ joying a divine benefaction. Also against some within and, we are sorry to say, against some possibly of its own body, the Church at times has need of the State. To under¬ stand this, two things must be borne in mind. First, there always are those who, having the form of godliness but denying the power thereof, creep into the Church unawares, it being beyond the 180 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. power of man to discern their real nature and de¬ sign. Secondly, the members themselves are saints by declaration rather than by virtue of actual con¬ dition. They are fully justified but by no means perfectly sanctified. They are, in this latter aspect, but too often very frail creatures, given to error and wrong-doing. In addition to this we might here also point to a condition of affairs, found but too real in some cases, such as Carlisle describes when he says: “Meanwhile, in our own era of the World, those same Church Clothes have gone sorrowfully out-at-elbow T s: nay, far w^orse, many of them have become mere hollow Shapes, or Masks, under which no living Figure or Spirit any longer dwells; but only spiders and unclean beetles, in horrid accumulation, drive their trade; and the Mask still glares on you with its glass eyes, in ghostly affection of Life, — some generation and half after Religion has quite withdrawn from it, and in unnoticed nooks is weaving for herself new Vestures, wherewith to reappear and bless us, or our sons and grand-sons.' 7 Enough said, however, to account for strife in the Church—in church- dom. Writing on such matters to his Corinthians, Paul says : “ I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise man among you ? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because you go to law one with another. 77 (I. cap. 6.) Not that there are disagreements and troubles among the brethren but that they go before the law with them is, in 10 . INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 181 the judgment here given, the greater shame. The rule to obtain among Christians is, that they adjust their quarrels among themselves; and that they do not go to law, if before the law they will go at all, until the Church shall have utterly failed to bring the guilty parties to reason and in consequence shall have unchurched them. From this it is evi- • dent that for its government the Church is to be sufficient unto itself, and is not to make direct use of the State, as the avenger for wrath, against any member of its own body. The rule so derived, however, is not always observed; and cases arise in which it is not appli¬ cable. Those Corinthians, whom the Apostle re¬ proved, have at all times up to our own day found followers. These disregard, to their own injury of course, a most wise and holy precept. To avoid the worthy gentlemen of the bench and bar, as much as one can, is good counsel in general. Many differences can be settled, and settled at times more speedily, inexpensively and satisfactorily, by per¬ sonal conference or by the arbitration of mutual friends, than they will ever be by the more formal, cumbersome and harassing process of law. The trouble is to convince people of the excellency of this eminently practical truth. But there are exceptions — even within the Church. There are circumstances under which even this is necessitated to invoke the judgment and decision of the courts for itself and, in a man¬ ner, against itself at the same time. This is the case when factions and divisions arise—when party is arrayed against party, church against church, and when one or the other peremptorily refuses 182 THEIR DIVINELY ORDERED RELATION. III. to treat directly with the other or to abide by any decision save that of the civil law. It is then that “ the rulers” can demonstrate their worth to the Church also as a terror to evil-doers within its own domain, if not of its own body. Meanwhile, ’t is a shame always for the body spiritual to call in the secular body for its own correction, and—woe to those within who bring such reproach upon any people of God. This service of the State to the Church sug¬ gests the query how the former can possibly arbi¬ trate between church and church, since it has neither power of judgment and arbitration nor authority in affairs strictly religious ? In answer it must be observed that also in such cases it is only to act on matters of right and justice as com¬ ing within its own sphere. To the State it is sim¬ ply one corporation versus another, or a part of a corporation versus another; and hence, to it the case is wholly one of common and corporate rights. True, the whole case may ultimately or directly rest entirely on questions of doctrine; but even here the courts have nothing whatever to do with the truth or falsity, merit or demerit, of the doc¬ trines involved. It has no farther business than that it ascertain the facts of the case and decide according to its own standards on the facts obtained —that is, which party in fact adheres to the doc¬ trinal position on which the church was established and incorporated, received its rights and acquired its property, etc., and which not. “ The courts cannot inquire into the doctrines and opinions of any religious society for the purpose of deciding whether these are right or wrong; but it is their § 10. INDEPENDENT, BUT AUXILIARY. 183 duty to do this when civil rights depend thereon, and then it must be done by such evidence as the nature of the case admits of.” ( Legal decision in the State of N. Jersey.) “The court cannot interfere with the determination of the majority in any man¬ ner, except to correct a misappropriation of trust- property or funds.” ( Wilson v. Presb. Church of Ps Island , S. (7.) “ In case of a dispute for the posses¬ sion of church-property, the civil court might in¬ quire into the religious belief and practices of the contestants, simply as a question of fact, to assist in determining the claim, precisely as it would in the case of any club or voluntary association having a declaration of principles, or articles of agreement, upon the due observance of which the possession of a certain property was dependent; but only upon such collateral questions of civil rights does Ameri¬ can law take cognizance of churches.” ( Thompson , p. 67.) To describe the full worth and to speak the praises of the State, where at all it is what it is de¬ signed to be, and where it faithfully executes its high trust, is next to impossible. It is the di¬ vinely appointed guardian of our lives and the lives of all who are dear to us; by the will of, and in subordination to, God it is the protector of our property, the preserver of general order, the keeper of the common peace, the avenger of our wrongs, the promoter of our prosperity—in every way our highest earthly benefactor, so that in the Script¬ ures even our “rulers” are called “gods.” Now what the State is to us and is to us individually, the same it is to the Church—an invaluable and indispensable treasure. 184 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. IV. THE HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION OF THE STATE AND THE CHURCH. PRELIMINARY DEFINITION, AND HISTORICAL STATEMENT. From what has been said about them in the preceding paragraphs, it would appear that our good friends “Ralph and Rachel” ought to be mar¬ ried. Such, at least, is the judgment of many of their friends, wise and foolish, dead and living. These have not the least doubt concerning the utter practicability, the eminent fitness and great utility of such, in their opinion, happy affair; and hence they have advocated its consummation with all possible zeal, and still continue so to do. Be¬ fore we inquire more particularly into the reasons pro and con , and make up our own minds on the matter, it will be necessary to notice what such an estate, as here contemplated, really signifies. A union of the State and the Church consists essen¬ tially in this: that the former adopt the creed of the latter as its own and advance its interests , support its clergy , etc . / then , that, in return , the latter delegate the manage¬ ment of its own affairs to the former . Protection by the State of the Church against disturbance in its gatherings and religious exercises, against the dese¬ cration of its sanctuaries, against criminal insults and injuries, against interference with its func- § 10 . PRELIMINARY. 185 tionaries in the performance of their duties, and things of that kind, do not indicate nor as yet sig¬ nify a union between them. Nor do the so-called Jides publica granted the Church or its officers by a government as yet involve or constitute their alli¬ ance. When, as is the case in the United States, such privileges are conferred upon the clergy—e. g. the authority to solemnize marriages — and such special benefits are granted the several churches— e. g. exemption from taxation—this delegation of civil functions and this bestowal of civil favors do not necessarily imply an official connection of Church and State. Such things are accidents of a State-Church but not peculiar to it and not an essential constituent. What may be said with re¬ gard to their propriety and expediency, is another thing. In an ecclesiastical establishment — as a State-Church is usually called—religion, and re¬ ligion of a distinctive and possibly even of a sec¬ tarian, character is made a specific object of gov¬ ernment ; its doctrines are embodied, so to speak, as a part of the corpus juris civilis , its officials are supported, and these together with the whole church thus adopted submit their affairs to State- control. The pecuniary means required in support of the Church are obtained by general taxation or from investments in the hands of the government. For an illustration of a State and Church union we point to Great Britain. There, “The Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity”—statutes enacted un¬ der Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, and whereby the Anglican Church was officially con¬ nected with the government—establish the sub- 8 * 186 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION IV. ordination of the Church to, and dependency on, the temporal power: the first abrogating all jurisdic¬ tion and legislative pow'er of ecclesiastical rulers, except under authority of the Crown; and the second prohibiting all changes of rites and dis¬ cipline without the approbation of Parliament. See Hallanvs Constitutional History, I., p. 231. We have already noticed in a former § that among the Ancients civil and religious affairs, Church and State, were indiscriminately mixed. And to this day most all countries, wherein heath¬ enism and Mohammedanism are prevalent, have and uphold what may be termed State-Churches; some excluding, others tolerating, dissent. The Christian religion was for the first time govern- mentally established under Constantine the Great. From that time on, throughout the middle ages to the present, the Christian religion—in forms more or less pure and impure, and with fortune varying with misfortune—has been the accepted system of belief in many States of many lands. The grounds on which such establishments are effected in gen¬ eral, are two: the papistic and the protestant. By the former the union is divinely called for; by the latter it is a human arrangement. The indefens¬ ible character, the falsity and vanity of the one we have already exposed; it remains to prove the strength and wisdom, if any it have, of the other —Establishments as based on human grounds. Be¬ fore, however, we inquire into their merits, it will be well to point out several things accidental to them and what are, in some respects, inevitable results. 10 . PRELIMINARY. 187 • The religious system—including doctrine, rites and polity—which a State adopts as its own, calls for a special department of government. Every¬ thing which in any way formidably interferes with the accepted religion, is disparaged by the civil law and may at any time be declared crim¬ inal and culpable. As a consequence, a person, under such a form of government, may be held accountable for things which the State, if separate from the Church, would not at all notice. Like¬ wise, duties are there imposed on citizens without distinction, which in a purely civil form of govern¬ ment are impossible and unknown; for instance, the imposition of taxes for the benefit of the established religion. Then, discriminations are not unfrequently made in favor of the citizen- churchman to the detriment of the non-conform¬ ing inhabitant. Such things take place when a formal connection with the adopted church is de¬ clared a necessary qualification for holding office under the government, or even for common citi¬ zenship. For an example we refer to the old and now abrogated “Test and Corporation Acts’* of England, whereby communion, and communion in the Church of England, was made a sine qua non for holding office and for enjoying many other civil rights, such as should be common. Notwithstanding these things, an official alli¬ ance of State and Church can not be said to be morally wrong in itself and as such. There is no law of natural religion nor any positive divine prohibition revealed to its condemnation. Neither can this be followed from the respective origins, 188 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. natures, and objects of the State and the Church. That their union is wrong in the abstract, and that it must of necessity prove disastrous, it would be difficult to prove from such grounds; rather, the one-time Israelitic form of government, com¬ monly called the theocracy, being sanctioned if not instituted by God Himself, shows conclusively that an alliance of Church and State is, as such , not sinful. The question of church-establishments is thus reduced to one of equity and expediency; but, for all that, it loses none of its importance; and of the highest importance it is to every one, believer and unbeliever, high and low. § 11. THE ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION— REFUTED. The arguments put forth in favor of religious establishments are generally, from the nature of the case in hand, of a moral and religious sort. Some of them are quite plausible and well calcu¬ lated to mislead, especially the unwary friend of the Church, to whom at the same time they are also mostly addressed. The course of reasoning employed may be given in the words of Gladstone —at one time, and perhaps still, a warm friend of these institutions. “ I submit—says he—that the most authentic, the most conclusive, the most philo¬ sophical, and, in the absence of literal and undis¬ puted precept from Scripture, also the most direct method of handling this important investigation, is that which examines the moral character and ca- 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 189 pacities of nations and of rulers, and thus founds the whole idea of their duty upon that will which gave them existence.” (The St. in its Rel. to the Ch. cap. 2). How this method will serve the ad¬ vocates of their union and their cause, we shall see. In the first place it is asserted that religion itself is one of the chief ends of human government. Salus publica suprema lex esto , say they with the wise Romans; whether with better, or as good, understanding, is doubtful. In connection with this it is urged that the duties of governments are pa¬ ternal, It is apparent that the salus publica is here made to include the people’s salus spiritualise and that the duties paternal are intended to embrace also the obligation of the parents to see to the spir¬ itual training of their children. In the second place it would appear from the way this double argument is advanced, that the duty of caring for the spiritual good of the community is an essential feature of governmental functions; is a matter of course, therefore, no less than is its duty to protect and prosper the citizen generally in temporal affairs. If this be intended, then is the argument already met. We have shown conclusively that the State has received neither a divine call to do such work nor the means with which to do it. The object of its existence is the public bodily, not the public spiritual, safety and welfare. Were the latter enjoined upon it by divine will, then would the difference between Church and State be essen¬ tially wiped out; for if the government have a divine call to attend to the religious wants of its subjects, then is it in itself a church. We have 190 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. seen that the ministry, according to the Scriptures, is committed to the Church; that this, and this alone, is to proclaim the word and disciple the na¬ tions. However, it might be asked, are not “rul¬ ers” called “God's ministers”? True, but He has more than one kind of ministers — servants — on earth. The winds and the waves, the fowls of the air and the fish of the sea, the wild beasts and the pestilence that creepeth in darkness, are all the ministers of Him that made them and holds them, as it were, in the hollow of His hand. Need we say that, though they be ministers and are so called, these are not called to minister in spir¬ itual things? No more are “rulers ” as such , ap¬ pointed to do this — their designation as “God’s ministers,” at least, cannot be taken in evidence; they have a ministry of their own, and its functions are clearly specified. And yet again, “ when the sovereign sees his people plunge headlong into an abyss of fire, shall he not stretch out a hand to save them ? Such, for example, seems to have been the train of reason¬ ing, and such the motives (?), which led Lewis XIV. into those coercive measures which he took for the conversion of heretics and the confirmation of true believers. The groundwork, pure sympa¬ thy (?) and loving kindness (?): the super¬ structure, all the misery which the most determined malevolence could have devised.” (Morals and Leg¬ islation by Jeremy Bentham , IL p. 251). Is the “sov¬ ereign” not to stretch forth a helping hand? Yea, and nay,—that is, not the “sovereign” as such; but the “sovereign” as a man and Christian , most 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THBIR UNION. I II If 191 assuredly. Within this latter capacity it is his duty and privilege to do all he can to save souls; but always with those powers, with that authority, and with those means which belong to him as a private individual and as a member of the Church. Far¬ ther he has no divine call—that being the phase in which we now give answer to the arguments pro¬ pounded. The office paternal is thus classically and pleasingly described by Addison: “ Nothing is more gratifying to the mind of man than power or dominion; and this I think myself amply pos¬ sessed of, as I am the father of a family. I am perpetually taken up in giving out orders, in pre¬ scribing duties, in hearing parties, in administering justice, and in distributing rewards and punish¬ ments .... I look upon my family as a patriarchal sovereignty, in which I am myself both king and priest . . . When I see my little troop before me I rejoice in the additions which I have made to my species, to my country, and to my religion, in having produced such a number of reasonable creatures, citizens, and Christians.” (Spectator No. 500). The paternal function with respect to the family is really threefold; the father is its prophet, priest, and king. Then, in each of these, it is again to be considered in a twofold aspect, the bodily and the spiritual. In things earthly and in things heavenly the man must be father to his own household. Now in view of the affairs of this earth it is eminently appropriate to speak of the office of rulers as being paternal; not so with refer¬ ence to the spiritual. We accordingly reject the 192 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. notion that “ Though an establishment is not essential to Christianity itself, it is essential to every Christian government which desires to dis¬ charge its highest obligation toward the people committed to its care. A connection between Christianity and the rulers of a Christian country is imperiously required to fulfill the duty of the parent of the State to his vast family.” (Gladstone.) Wholly different must be our answer to those who admit that the spiritual paternal function is not originally and adherently a part of the office of State, but who claim that for the good of the State and the Church the latter should unite with the former, and thus in concert exercise the paternal office in the fullest sense of the term. “The single view—says Dr. Paley—under which we ought to consider a church-establishment is that of a scheme of instruction—the single end we ought to proprose by it is the preservation and confirmation of relig¬ ious knowledge. Every other idea and every other end that has been mixed with this—as the making of the church an engine, or even an ally, of the state; converting it into the means of strengthen¬ ing or of diffusing influence; or of regarding it as a support of regal, in opposition to popular, forms of government—has served only to debase the institu¬ tion, and to introduce into it numerous corruptions and abuses.” (Moral and Pol. Phil. bk. VI. cap. 10). When a union of Church and State is thus viewed as a human arrangement, as it always should be, and then urged on grounds of expediency and util¬ ity—our answer to it will be found in what fol¬ lows in this and the following sections. 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. ( lit H 193 In the second place , we will notice what is really the same argument as the above, only in another and more general form. Civil liberty, social order, and material aggrandizement—it is said—are not ends but only the means of an end, the end here referred to being the salvation of men; and this is to be the object of government. The principle here enunciated is perfectly correct, but it is grievously misapplied. The train of reasoning is this: the ultimate object of all things, of all orders, and of all activities, is religion, therefore the direct and stated object also of human governments should be relig¬ ion. That religion is not a specific object of State- existence primarily, and properly speaking, has been amply demonstrated; and farther on it will be conclusively shown that religion, as the final and remote end of all being, is best subserved by the State when it rigidly and exclusively keeps in view its own legitimate business. The State when true to itself, in all its departments and transactions, best proves and approves itself a means furthering the highest relation of life; but its direct object and its only business are, Protection—nothing more. The argumentation indulged in in this instance is really inexcusably foolish and highly amusing. Because the last end of all life and living, of mechanism and operation, is religion, therefore, a stocking-factory, say, is an objectless, vain and wicked concern un¬ less it also make religion an object and have a church in formal connection with it. A ludicrous idea, to be sure, but the reasoning leading to it is about as good as that offered for our acceptance. A third argument may be made to read briefly 9 194 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. as follows: A government is a compound of beings moral and responsible and whose actions , to be accepta¬ ble to the Deity , must be sanctified ; therefore the govern¬ ment must have a religion. The truthfulness of the premises we do not question in the least, but all the more doubtful is to us the conclusion, espe¬ cially as understood by those deducing it. We admit that the State is* something more than a mere human arrangement, more than a mere mech¬ anism by men devised and constructed, that in truth it is an organism with regard to its funda¬ mental principle and life. It is a something called into existence and upheld not only by the force of necessity, not only by the fact of its utility, but also by a love of right and justice, of equity and order, in the hearts of the people. For this reason it is an organism, even a moral organism with a moral responsibility and in need of sanctification. However, this moral responsibility and this sancti¬ fication must, in its kind, conform to that moral life which begets and pervades the State and which gives to it its character of an organism. Nor is it logically permitted to substitute for this any other moral principle. Now it is the natural, not the Christian—the divinely revealed and religiously implanted—law and sense of justice, of goodness, etc., which produces and supports the State; there¬ fore its proper creed must be that of natural relig¬ ion—if so you will call it—and its sanctity of action must be derived from this and not from revealed religion. We submit, as a matter of fact, that the term “ natural rights ,” in its purest and holiest sense, comprises the whole of that religion 11. ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 195 which a government as such needs to believe, teach, and practice in order satisfactorily to ac¬ count for itself and its doings. The “ theology ” of the State properly treats of the doctrines of the natural rights of man, and its “ creed ” we find expressed in its laws and statutes. But as God does not judge a church by its creed and theology but rather by the pure light of His own Word, likewise will He ask account of a state not by its own forms and teachings of justice and equity but rather by the pure truth of these principles and virtues themselves. The question put by the great Judge to civil governments is, not: did you teach Christ and thus save souls ? but: did you teach and administer justice, did you uphold and further peace and order to the good of each and all your subjects? Again, not: did you do the work of the Church ? but: did you protect it in its legitimate existence and calling? These questions satisfac¬ torily answered, all will be well. The sanctity to be predicated of the actions of a government (even of any society of men), and whereby they become acceptable before God, is an entirely different thing from that sanctity which renders individual actions acceptable. Such ac¬ tions can only proceed from a heart sanctified in the scriptural sense, that is, from the heart of a Christian believer. If human governments can be said to have a “heart” at all, it must mean that sense of right and love of justice as they are found embodied in its laws. If these virtues are cor¬ rectly defined, clearly expounded and faithfully applied, then may we say that the “heart” and 196 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. the actions of State are “ holy and acceptable.” Nor need anything be added beyond this and of another nature. The embodiment of religious dog¬ mas and precepts, be they never so correct in them¬ selves, will not contribute a scintilla of holiness to the “ soul ” of State. The Lord has ordained the powers that be, not to be a religious institution but to be a body expounding and enforcing man’s relation of right to man; being this and doing accordingly, they are and they do all that is re¬ quired of them; and upon this, and nothing else, are they acceptable before Him. Because God is not recognized as the supreme Being and the Governor of the universe in the Constitution of the United States, an entire de¬ nomination—the Reformed Presbyterians—refuses to incorporate with the State. This silence of our national charter is considered by many a serious defect, if not a positive wrong. They of the u Na¬ tional Reform ” party—conceived in Xenia, 0., Feb. 3, 1863, and born in Allegheny City, Pa., Jan. 27, 1864*—disavow all intentions and desires of any union between Church and State, but—they want God named and acknowledged in the Constitution and, if we mistake not, Christianity generally rec¬ ognized as the religion of the land. And this, they expressly declare, not as a matter of “ compli¬ ment, but as a right, not as a theory, but as a fact and a necessity.” A formal acknowledgment of this kind in the sense of a “compliment” would be a mockery next to blasphemy. Whereon these people base the “right” they here bespeak for themselves and their cause, it is difficult to con- * Whether living or dead, we know not. 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 197 ceive. Upon the truthfulness of the statements to be inserted? If so, we submit: that the statements, true as they are indeed, are in their nature a relig¬ ious confession; then, that the Constitution itself deprecates the very thought of being a religious confession in any of its parts; accordingly, that, though it is the right and duty of every man to confess each and every truth of our holy Christian religion, it is neither his right nor his duty to make the Constitution of the land an instrument for such confession to any extent whatever. The Constitution is the common property of the whole people—it belongs to the atheist as much as to the theist, to the Jew and Gentile as fully as to the Christian; and Christians, say that they had the power, have not the right to use what is common for specific personal purposes without the acquies¬ cence of those holding equal rights. Or, let us look at it in another way. Every citizen of the United States is impliedly a subscriber to the Constitution and is virtually by oath or solemn affirmation bound to acknowledge and support as his own every article thereof; how now in com¬ mon, not to say Christian, equity can any Chris¬ tian body of men want to force a confession of faith and its support on any other body of men who in their hearts are averse to it? No, the in¬ sertion of an article of religious belief is not only not a right but, under the circumstances, an act in¬ compatible with religious liberty and therefore an injustice. Whether it be so acknowledged in the Constitution or not, the facts, that God is and rules over all, that the Christian religion is the only true 198 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. religion and at the same time predominant in the land—are and remain such facts all the same ; and there are a thousand ways open for us Christians to make known this our precious confidence. The silence of the Constitution on this matter does not make it a godless instrument nor our government a godless institution ; it is not at all a denial of God and of godliness but simply signifies that affairs politic and affairs religious shall be kept separate as distinct things, and that it does not consider it the business of the government as such to profess a re¬ ligious belief—a principle as beneficent as was ever enounced by any government in the world. On the other hand, say what you will to the contraiy, an introduction of any article of religious belief into the fundamental law of our land is incipiently an undermining of religious liberty and an estab¬ lishment of religion. Another feature of the case must not be over¬ looked; this namely, that a profession of the exist¬ ence of the Supreme Being and of any one of His attributes as of any one of His works, unless it at the same time implies the entire doctrine of the person, word and work of God, is nothing but a solemn farce. “ Whosoever goeth onward and abid- eth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God;” and “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” From a Christian point of view, a belief in God and a confession thereof, unless it implies “the teaching of Christ,” is wholly worthless, and before God Himself an abomination. Since then a recogni¬ tion of the Deity in the Constitution of our land ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 199 § 11 . or of any land, except it be of the truth and be done in spirit and in truth, is a senseless and vain matter of form, how can intelligent Christians urge it? Or do they mean to tell us that the faith thus confessed in part is not a denial of any of its other parts, is not a denial of Christ and His teach¬ ing? We answer: neither is the absence of all and any such profession in our Constitution in the least a denial of the existence and supremacy of God. Such silence does not make our government a pro¬ fane and heathenish concern. The family and the State are institutions of the same kind. Now when believer and unbe¬ liever are joined in marriage, is the estate on that account an “unclean’ 1 order since the family as such have no religion? Paul, an authority in such matters, says: “the unbelieving husband is sanc¬ tified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” In the same sense and manner do we ascribe “cleanness” and “holiness” to our government and its actions, though as such it have no religion nor it make pro¬ fession of any. The cases are entirely analogous. This we cannot affirm of what follows, but it serves to illustrate. If I, a Christian, am a co-partner in business with others, not Christians, and our firm in consequence have no established religion, must our business on that account be declared heath¬ enish and accursed before God? Is the defense of my country a vain and wicked thing on my part who fight in the fear of God, unless my regiment or company have before agreed on a common form 200 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. of faith? Before taking stock in a corporation of some sort or accepting a position in a counting- room, foundry, factory, or thing of that kind, must you, to preserve your Christian character, first in¬ quire whether the corporate bodies, or the proprie¬ tors offering business-inducements, also believe and profess God and the Christian religion ? No, in each and all these cases the moral worth of your character and of your actions depends solely upon your individual relation to God. When lastly the constitutional amendment, as proposed, is based on the ground of necessity, we are led thereby to a Fourth argument . This sets forth that church- establishments are necessary to‘ secure Christian laws , usages and institutions. The Christian Church has proved itself of incalculable value to the govern¬ ments of this world, not only by the moral recti¬ tude and wholesome influence of its members but also by its promulgation and defense of sound moral principles generally. For the laws governing the marriage relation ; for the doctrine of the com¬ mon brotherhood of man ; for the consequent prin¬ ciple of equal rights and duties; for the founding of divers benevolent institutions; above all, for the sublime and only true aspect of the w T orld now generally prevalent; for the wholesome influence of its doctrine concerning man, his duties, his ac¬ countability—for all these society is largely, if not solely, indebted to Christianity. It is the bearer of great moral principles and has done much towards giving a moral foundation, strength and shape to society and to its various customs and institutions. 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 201 Now that the benefits thus derived from Chris¬ tianity by the State and society at large may be secured, it is thought necessary that Christianity itself should become the adopted religion of the State. But that is a grave mistake. Christianity itself is safest and will yield more and better fruit for the State when left alone and free than it will when bound. Of this, more in another place. The safety and perpetuity of such laws, cus¬ toms and institutions of the State as are commonly called Christian, because derived from and coincid¬ ing with Christian ethics, are not at all dependent on the establishment of that religion. In the eye of the State these laws, customs and institutions rest solely on the intrinsic value they have socially and politically. Such laws, for example, are not enjoined by the body politic because they are spe¬ cifically Christian in their origin, principle and spirit but on account of the fact that they have been serviceable, if not indispensable, to good gov¬ ernment. Partly in support, partly for illustra¬ tion, the following quotation is given from the “ Opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of Bloom vs . Richards. 2 Ohio Stat . Rep. p. 309 : We have no union of Church and State, nor has our government ever been invested with authority to enforce any religious observance simply because it is religious. Of course, it is no objection, but, on the contrary, it is a high recommendation to a legislative enactment based upon jus¬ tice or public policy, that it is found to coincide with the precepts of a pure religion ; but the fact is nevertheless true, that the power to make laws rests in the legislative control over things temporal and not over things spiritual. Thus the statute on which the defendant relies, prohibiting com¬ mon labor on the Sabbath, could not stand for a moment as a law of this State, if its sole foundation was the Christian 202 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. duty of keeping that day holy, and its sole motive, to en¬ force the observance of that day. . . . Acts, evil in their nature, or dangerous to the public welfare, may be forbid¬ den and punished, though sanctioned by one religion and prohibited by another; but this creates no preference what¬ ever, for they would be equally forbidden and punished if all religions permitted them.” Laws, come they whence they may, stand on their own practical worth and sacred authority; and usages depend for their preservation on their own merit and usefulness; and both, laws and customs, rest most of all upon appreciative hearts on the part of the community. But, strange as it may seem, the notion is entertained that the State can¬ not borrow light from the Church except it adopt the Church at the same time. Ralph dare not sing a song which Rachel has composed, unless he marry Rachel; the same he must do would he plot a flower-bed in his own garden after the pattern of Rachel’s, or upon her suggestion. Such ideas are simply absurd. The State has the best right to make any ethical principle its own, wherever found; and the fullest liberty also of following any custom, no matter by whom practiced, if it thinks it service¬ able to its own purposes; and who would even think of upbraiding it for so doing? Christians, at least, will be glad if they can purify the morals of the people and thus secure the enactment and observance of good laws; they will rejoice to be able, in their own peculiar way, to so befriend and serve the State, but without all desire and intention of a union between it and the Church. For this they see no necessity in order to be of service to the body politic or to society generally. A fifth argument addresses itself to us as follows: ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 203 11 . Men will have a religion ; it is of the greatest import¬ ance to organized society that they have the best and most serviceable ; therefore the State should adopt and encour¬ age the best and discourage all others. In connection with this it is maintained that “if we regard the ethical character or personal morality of rulers they are just as fit as are the masses to judge in matters of religion.” And, honorable Sir! if they are, who gives them the right to choose for the masses and to dictate to them what they are to believe to the saving of their souls ? Here, in a manner blunt and brazen, the despot, the king, congress, the popular majority, or who mayhap wield the mighty power of State, are set up as the judges and lords of religions and churches for their subjects. A new sovereign may therefore signify a new faith for his subjects, and the ascendency of another party the dominion of another church, as the case may be. The way itself, in which a high and holy prerog¬ ative is here ascribed to governments, to whom it does not belong nor should be given on any terms al¬ ready indicates what manner of spirits they are who on such sandy soil as this would build up a church- establishment. It is the old-time patrician versus the plebian revived—only that the former is now of deeper guile and the latter a man of better knowledge. “ You and I, of course, are above such things; but the ‘ plebs,’ you know! and then, what a tremendous power this thing of religion is!” Submit to these and kindred spirits, and you close the door on religious liberty, while to intoler¬ ance and persecution it will stand ajar; and that 204 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. the monster, bloated on the blood of millions slain in days gone by, will again enter—to that the re¬ ligious fanatic will see. No, we prefer the senti¬ ment of the sixteenth century to this, still uttered here and there in the enlightened, cultured nine¬ teenth. “ Heretics—says Luther—must be con¬ quered, as did the fathers, by writings and not with fire. If it were an art to conquer a heretic with fire, then were the hangmen the most learned doctors on earth ; then, to this end, what need be there of much study ? he that can overpower an¬ other by brute-force, might then burn him to death. But heresy is a spiritual thing, and can be destroyed neither by iron, nor fire, nor water.” On the other hand, “where the powers of this world presume to legislate in the affairs of the soul, there they interfere with God's own office and can but lead astray and destroy the soul.” Say you that in our day there is little danger of religious persecution ? Perhaps not by fire and water; but there are other forms of this madness, more refined but none the less bitter to the spirit and galling to the soul. Then remember too, that, there is nothing so likely to run wild as is the false religion ; and that if anywhere in the world any be established it will most likely be this. Guided by the lessons of history, the religion most intelli¬ gent and pure will utterly refuse to submit its affairs to any State-control. Give religion into the hands of the State, or the State into the hands of a religion, and the lover of religious and civil liberty will forsake all, if need be, and go in quest of a land such as, by the goodness of God, our own land is now. 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 205 In the sixth place, to win the favor of the clergy and of church-inembers in high position, the ma¬ terial advantages supposed to be offered by an estab¬ lishment are held up, and that, at times, with con¬ siderable effect. In addition to this, the safer support of the Church is strongly urged; it is said to secure congregations and clergies in such locali¬ ties as otherwise would never be reached. The first and the last inducement, however, is the tem¬ poral advantage to the ministry; and, after the manner of man generally, Christian pastors too are but frail human beings; and there is nothing so seductive as the glitter of a dollar and the sport of a little authority. In answer to the claims here put forth, as to all of a similar kind, it may be answered that the Church is perfectly able to provide for itself. In evidence of this we need but point to the free churches of America. The number, size, cost, fin¬ ish and equipments of the edifices for purposes of worship, education and charities, compare favor¬ ably with those of any State-church, especially when we take into consideration their compara¬ tive youthfulness. These free churches do not only amply supply their own wants, they even have men and means to spare for foreign lands. In an establishment money may come more freely and be more plentiful; but over against this, its appropriation, being largely controlled by the State, is in many cases very injudicious* * and in some • * * The ratio of Romanists to Protestants in Prussia, e. g. is 1 to 3, yet the sums paid out to them in 1881 were $539,154 and $543,920 respectively! In France of 53,000,000 francs, 51,500,000 francs go to the Romish church. 206 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. positively unjust. Men doing the work of the Church are dismissed with a beggarly pittance while others, who do little more than externally support the dignity of high position, receive thou¬ sands of pounds, or Reichsthaler, and all the hon¬ ors beside. Such wrongs are, in self-governing churches, almost wholly unknown. Here the com¬ pensation adjusts itself according to the ability, in¬ dustry and merit of the incumbent. “ If the people,' 1 says an advocate of establish¬ ments,—Henry, Lord Brougham—“are to provide for the support of their own pastors, so must they select them also . . . Who can doubt the evils to which this must give rise?" It must give rise to no evils whatever; that here and there it does, we will not deny; there is nothing so good on earth but that it can be and is abused. However, are there no evils connected with the appointment and sup¬ port of pastors for the people as coming “ from above?” and are these evils less and less baneful? Between a disaffected church-member on the one hand and nepotism, simony and defraudation on the other, if choose I must, always give me the former. But what this noble advocate seems to deprecate more than anything else is, that they who support the pastor “must select him also;” and indeed they must. The choice of his own pastor we hold to be a divinely given and inde¬ feasible right of every Christian — the right of every individual congregation. I call my pastor my minister, one who ministers in holy things to me and for me. His official acts are my acts and the acts of the entire congregation of my con- § 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 207 nection; I and the congregation are accountable to God for his ministry, therefore we must have the right to select, to correct, to depose, our own pastor, and do so, of course, according to divine direction; and, as before God the responsibility remains ours, do we what we may, the exercise of the rights given us must remain in our hands likewise. Again, and from the same authority and in the same spirit, “If any one quality is requisite in a pastor it is his authority with the flock.” What authority is here meant, a legal, a police-authority or the spiritual? If the latter: that he has in his capacity as a servant also of God and that he exer¬ cises in the use only of God’s word; as to this the State can not in the least strengthen him. But if the former be meant, as is most likely the case, no intelligent Christian will want him to be vested with it. No Christian congregation, clearly aware of its own rights and duties, will accept of a half¬ pastor and half-policeman as its minister. “ Not that we have lordship over your faith, but are help¬ ers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.” “Neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock.” Thus say Paul and Peter. From this whole argumentation it becomes apparent what is the price paid for any material advantages possibly accruing to the Church from any such compact with the State. When this fur¬ nishes the means for the erection of edifices, for the support of the clergy; then also, without much deference to the wishes of the people, will it build to suit itself, then will it appoint pastors as it 208 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. may deem best and most serviceable to itself. Thus it is a matter of frequent occurrence in the State-Church of the German Empire that appoint¬ ments are made wholly repugnant to the people concerned—men loud in their denial of doctrines most dear to the hearts of the people are sent to serve these as pastors, all protestations to the con¬ trary notwithstanding. The high price paid the State by the Church for its special “protection” and for the dollars,—as unrighteously collected so unrighteously expended—thrown out to it, is the treasure of spiritual and ecclesiastical liberty, yea, in many cases, the very peace of conscience. • A seventh , and the last , argument we desire to notice is that these establishments are necessary for the unity of the Church and for uniformity in its gov¬ ernment and cultus. It must be conceded that when the government itself nationalizes a certain speci¬ fied religion, puts a premium upon membership in the church of its connection, simply tolerates dis¬ sent and forcibly suppresses what it conceives to be heresy—then many a man, either from dread of evil or from desire for gain and ease, will suppress his honest convictions, forego the exercise of sacred rights, shirk his duty, sear his conscience, and con¬ form! That is, he will profess as a churchman and believe as a dissenter. Church-establishments are productive not of unity in the faith as much as of hypocrisy and infidelity. Faith and unity in the faith, from the nature of things, must be spon¬ taneous to be real, and therefore entirely free in their development and expression. When brought about at a sacrifice of religious freedom and by 11 . ARGUMENTS FOR THEIR UNION. 209 other than spiritual means, such as legal coer¬ cion, rewards, punishments, and the like, they are utterly worthless. Forcing silence upon a dissenter may prevent the spread of his convictions; the same may be effected, and perhaps with greater certainty, by other appliances of the inquisition, but the one is as criminally wrong as the other. Uniformity in ecclesiastical government, in usages, in the order of worship, in the use of books, in the observance of days, and in externals of this sort generally, is, for practical reasons, very desirable and important; but it is by no means essential to the Church. In all these things Christians are free to order everything as they may deem best and most edifying to themselves. Matters of mere forms and rites are not divinely prescribed; and uniformity in them at the expense of liberty be¬ stowed by God is too dearly bought. Churches should suffer no undue interference with them¬ selves in the regulation of their own affairs; no, not by the State nor by the denomination of their belonging. In the .abstract, supposing but not granting the correctness of the assertion above put forth in favor of State-churchism, it must be allowed that the argument is as much adverse as it is favorable to an establishment. If the religion adopted be false—as is most likely the case, since to a thousand false beliefs there is but one true faith—the true but not established form will have as little oppor¬ tunity of propagating itself and preserving its in¬ tegrity as would the false systems were the true established. 9* 210 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. While we freely admit that some good can result from a union of Church and State for both, we hold that in no case the possible good can out¬ weigh the evil — in some cases the wrong—neces¬ sarily accompanying it. So we must conclude by reviewing and examining the arguments pro —as far as these can decide, that Ralph and Rachel ought not to be married. § 12. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION—CON¬ FIRMED. In the first place we propose to show that there is no need of such a union . It is to be presupposed that where an alliance of this kind is sought there must be some reason assigned which would seem to demand its consummation or make it appear advisable. Is it the State that woos and sues for the hand of the Church, it must have an object in view. This, unless it be one morally objection¬ able, must be the control of the Church either for the benefit of religion itself or for its importance to the State, or both. Other legitimate purposes besides these are not conceivable. That the State has need of the Church, and in what way, we have shown at great length. But that on this account their union were necessary, or advisable even, would follow only then if the State could not be served by the Church on any other condition or in no other way as practicable. Must Cuba and must the Sunda Group be annexed to these United States simply because so many of our good citizens can¬ not do without their “havana,” and because their 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 211 good wives cannot be happy without an occasional cup of unsophisticated Java? It is very doubtful whether annexation would render these highly prized articles, with which those sunny nooks of the world now favor us, more pure, more plentiful, more delicious, and cheaper than at present we find them. One thing is sure, we can enjoy these lux¬ uries whether Cuba or Java belong to us or not. Likewise can the State enjoy the infinitely more precious fruit produced by the Church without embodying the latter. Called by their Master to be “the salt of the earth ” and “the light of the world,” Christians in¬ dividually and collectively make themselves felt by their intercourse with men and for the common good. The salutary principles which they enter¬ tain with reference to all the relations of life, they also teach and practice; and this results in a reflex influence on all the fundamental forms of organized society and social life generally. In this way they counteract much evil, and preserve and further what is good in the community; and this as effect¬ ively as it could be done were the Church as such formally made a factor in the government of the land. Concerning the significance, the modes, the proprieties, and the true purposes, of informal in¬ tercourse and fellowship; concerning the object and acquisition, the use and abuse of property in all its forms; concerning courtship and betrothal, marriage and divorce; concerning the rights and duties of parents and of children; concerning the rights and privileges, the duties and obligations, of citizenship in both the State and the Church; con- 212 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. cerning everything that can in any way affect the State and affect it either for good or bad—Christians possess a superior wisdom and exert a beneficent influence. And, ’tis not from an establishment of any particular system of religion that a government derives the blessings here indicated, but rather from the fact that it has Christians for its subjects, and that these in their own individual and churchly capacity, and free from the State-control, pervade everything as best they can with the spirit of their holy religion. In this wise can the State reap the fruits of any ethical principle and power within the possession of the Church. By a union with this it can gain nothing whatever of things belong¬ ing to the sphere of civil jurisprudence, and of which it could not possess itself just as well with¬ out such a union. The only gain to a government —if gain it can be called—accruing from an Es¬ tablishment is, that it can in consequence thereon enact and enforce laws, found and control institu¬ tions, and enjoin the observance of days and cus¬ toms, such as have a religious basis and bearing, and for which no sufficient civil or jural founda¬ tion can be found. In other words: when the State desires to go beyond its divinely appointed sphere and trespass on the domain belonging to religion, then must it enter into a formal compact with the Church in order to secure to itself the right—or the appearance of right—to do the Church’s busi¬ ness. But to do its own business, and to do it well, there is not the least need of entangling al¬ liances. Nor is there any need of them for the Church. 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 213 All the latter requires at the hands of the State is protection; to this it is entitled and this it demands as a matter of right under all circumstances. When protected in the free exercise of all its rights and duties, and when separate from the State, it is in the very best condition to attend to its work and to prosper. If not—if it needs more than protec¬ tion as heretofore described—if it needs the co¬ operation and support of human governments to propagate itself, then is it not worthy to be named a church. No fears need be entertained that by their complete separation either will lose anything worth having, that they will on that account be found less efficient, or that either will become de¬ moralized—an old notion w r hich obtains to this very day even in our own country whose history has more than any other disproved its correctness. President Madison , in a letter addressed to Dr. De La Motta , wrote as follows touching this point : “Among the features peculiar to the political sys¬ tem of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect. And it is particularly pleasing to observe in the good citizenship of such as have been distrusted and oppressed elsewhere, a happy illustration of the safety and success of this experiment of a just and benignant policy. Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be pre¬ sumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary 214 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. to social harmony and most favorable to the ad¬ vancement of truth.” (Writings of M. Vol. 3, p. 179). Again, in a letter to F. L. Schaeffer, of Dec. 3, 1821, he says: “The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-mean¬ ing Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incor¬ poration of religion and civil polity, neither could be supported.' 1 (Ib. p. 242). “Now reasoning from analogy” — says another on this subject — “we should say these great corporations would, like all other associations, be likely to obtain their ends most perfectly, if that end ivere kept singly in view” He who would be a first-class pianist will do well not to follow black-smithing; a politician, for some reason or other, never does well as a pastor; then, there would seem to be some incongruity in a shrewd lawyer and sober Christian both in one person. Religion and politics are best kept sep¬ arate ; and Church and State have each enough to do at home, and the work will be best done when each attends to its own business. We hold that in our land where this iiolicy is the predominant principle of action, as observed by both State and Church, churches are in a condition as pure and prosperous as are those of the same name else¬ where, but tied to the skirts of queens or kneeling at the feet of kings—yea, far more pure and pros¬ perous. And if a gain to our churches, is this policy a loss to our government? No, though as such it neither professes nor propagates religion, it is Christian all the more by reason of its free 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 215 Christian subjects, and as strong and thrifty as any on account of their loyal devotion. That the lack of a national Church is a loss and weakness to our nation, perhaps, would indeed be to those concerned a new idea. In the second place we call attention to the con¬ fusion likely to result from a union of Church and State . It is the calling of both bodies in part to educate, but each in its own sphere and in things thereto belonging. Now it is of the utmost im¬ portance to both organizations that in theory and practice there be no confounding of reason with revelation, of political morals with Christian ethics, of common justice and equity with scriptural holi¬ ness and propriety, of judicial clemency with evan¬ gelical mercy, in short, of the principles of govern¬ ment with the doctrines of religion. That such must be the inevitable result of Church-stateism, we do not affirm; but that such has been invari¬ ably the case can not be denied. It stands to rea¬ son that when laws are based in part, and in some cases wholly, on religious grounds in place of strictly rational and political moral principles, the distinction between the two will be more or less lost sight of by both the governing body and the body governed. Dr. Doellinger, the noted leader of the Old Catholic movement, in his work on 11 The Church and the Churches,” etc., gives us many instances of the Babylonian disorders consequent upon an establishment of religion. Speaking of the condi¬ tion of affairs within the papal Dominion, he says: “As the three main grievances the disaffected point 216 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. to the civil jurisdiction of the bishops, the privi¬ leges especially accorded to the clergy before the common law and the immunities they enjoy, and lastly to the tribunal of the inquisition. The bishops, who had prisons of their own, tried and punished in all matters pertaining to persons and property of the Church, also in matters of sexual relations, in cases of blasphemy and the trespass of laws regulating fast and festival-days. The car¬ dinal and bishop of Sinigaglia in the year 1844 ordained that young men and maidens must not make presents to one another, that the parents must not allow this to be done, and that for any transgression of this command they must atone by imprisonment of fifteen days whether the guilty be father, son, or daughter. In 1850 the bishops of the provincial synod of Ferno threatened with punishment every innkeeper who on days of fast¬ ings would give meat to his guests unless the latter brought a permit from a physician and a priest. . . In 1841, Fra Filippo Vertolotti, inquisitor at Pesaro, issued an edict in which, subject to many penal¬ ties including excommunication, everybody is de¬ manded to give information of any churchly tres¬ pass coming to his knowledge .... Still more doubtful is the matter of placing the power of police into the hands of the clergy; here it is diffi¬ cult for them to avoid the application of other than the principles of a Christian judgment. The police is, in a land under an absolute government, in fact omnipotent; and, in its contact and war¬ fare with daily life, in times of political revolt and treason, it makes a tyrannical use of this its un- 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 217 bounded power—things are suffered to pass unpun¬ ished which, evangelically viewed, are grievous sins, and other things are punished in which a Christian can detect no wrong. Is it to be wondered at that the people can not see their way between the priestly character and this antagonistic police activity?” (K. u. K.; P. u. P., p. 575, etc.) Yea, is it surpris¬ ing that the priest himself at times knows not whether he is acting the priest or the policeman? that the poor people know not whether they are obeying religious precepts or civil laws? Nor are these things exceptions, and confined to the papal hierarchy. Such confusion has accompanied re¬ ligious establishments from their beginning and at all times. From the very first, purely civil transgressions were made subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction; while on the other hand, purely re¬ ligious offenses were punished by the State. So many were the privileges accorded the clergy un¬ der Constantine the Great, so great were the ad¬ vantages connected with any churchly office, that special legislation became necessary to restrain the press for holy orders. u And the ecclesiastical sov¬ ereignty of the middle ages shows a theocracy after the Mosaic pattern, in which the Church rules over the State, in which the invisible Christ is regarded as a new Moses, who leads His people through the wilderness to the promised land, is understood rather as a Law-giver and Judge of the universe than as a Savior, but in which, in reality, Christ’s authority must give place to that of the Church and its visible Stadtholder; in which there is fash¬ ioned a comprehensive system of law, not merely 10 218 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. for doctrine but also for the life—a canonical law in which an infinite number of religious and moral commandments appear as external judicial regula¬ tions, in which transgression is punished by the secular arm which lends to the Church its sword. In opposition to this the Reformation protested. . . . Not the less was the Old Testament” — the theocratic mode—“of education continued in the Protestant State-Church . . . Not until our own time was the constraint of the State-Church abol¬ ished by the great principle of religious liberty .” (Martensen, Ch. Ethics, § 144.) ’Tis true, that in our own time the distinction between affairs politic and affairs religious is full well understood hj the more intelligent in all lands, so are also the rights of men by reason of civil and of religious liberty; but that the practice as fully accords with the theory, in coun¬ tries where Church and State are still united, no one will venture to assert. Rather is there still woful confusion and, under the circumstances, nothing better can be expected. Ministers of the Gospel are still ex-officio officers of the State; officers of State are still in the same manner officers of the Church, and to which they are now and then inimically disposed; religious du¬ ties are still enforced by the secular arm, and civil laws, so called, are still based on religious grounds. With all the great lessons of history, and with all the light now shining in dark places, to profit by, Babel is as yet not altogether razed— but what is gone and what remains of it, mightily warns us against a union of Church and State. § 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 219 In the third place , their union necessarily involves an infringement upon civil and religious freedom. Of course, it is maintained that if there be any coer¬ cion of any religionists and oppression of any citi¬ zen, such evils are mere accidental outgrowths, that they are not intended and are in no way an essen¬ tial feature of the compact. That however is a mere evasion ; by pointing to a theory, our attention is to be diverted from the facts in the case. Were there a State all whose subjects are religious, and of the same faith and church besides, then there might be some truth in the assurances given. But that is supposing an ideal never and nowhere real¬ ized. There are no such States as here assumed; all bodies politic include unbelievers and believers, and both of these classes are again divided and subdivided among themselves. These are the facts in the case; and according to the premises so given we must shape our discussion. Now in an Establishment dissent may not be polit¬ ically punished positively, but negatively it always is more or less. He who in the exercise of his God- given right and for conscience’ sake, remains out¬ side of the churchly communion embodied in the State, must suffer; there is no help for it. If non¬ conformity has not been declared culpable directly, as is frequently the case, then recourse is had to apparently milder forms 'of its resentment. Then is this policy substituted, namely: no threats, no reproach, no punishment, no banishment, no rack, no, nothing of the kind, but: promises, rewards of distinction, of privileges, of office and of honor in Church and State, to all who do conform. Now, if 220 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. to deprive, even by implication if not by law, a dissenting but otherwise good and faithful citizen of rights, opportunities and advantages political, for no other reason than that of his non-conform¬ ity, is no oppression, then of course are church- establishments not incompatible with civil liberty. As they detrimentally affect the individual’s political status, so also his moral and religious con¬ dition. No matter what may be said to the con¬ trary, it lies in the spirit and nature of the thing that religion be not left entirely free. “ Humani juris et naturalis protestatis est unicuique quod putave- rit colere , nec alii obest aut prodest alterius religio . Sed nec religionis est cogere religionem ,* writes Tertullian to the pro-consul Scapula (cap. 2). Religion pro¬ duced by force and a religion resorting to force, is simply no religion at all; and there is no church in Christendom but that will subscribe to this eminently truthful and important statement. Not¬ withstanding this there are some religionists who cannot forbear to resort to coercion. They covet the strong arm of the State to lean on, and to be employed for the purpose of church-extension. To accomplish this desire, and to give to the whole the appearance of order and right, their specific creed is made a part of the common law of the land. Then, whoever derides the creed derides the law; and whoever derides the law, must suffer its penalty. On the other hand, the Church-State legislates and operates in favor of this particular * It is a right of mankind and a privilege of nature that everyone worship as he thinks best: the religion of one neither harms nor helps another. It is not the nature of religion to force religion. § 12. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 221 creed and disparages all others. But since “ relig¬ ion can never be safe and sound unless when it is left free to every man’s choice, wholly uninfluenced by the operation either of punishment or reward on the part of the magistrate,” the whole proceed¬ ing is an injury to the Church established, and a wrong to all others, these being entitled to equal rights. - Without the concurrence of the government an established church is unable to add, to abolish or to amend a single article of faith; nor can it ex¬ ecute discipline on offending officials or govern its own affairs to any great extent, as it might be pleased to do were it left free. For a little license it sacrifices the best part of its liberty, and for the sake of a little influence and power in one direction it weakens itself in a hundred others. An estab¬ lished church is really a church in bonds, as thou¬ sands of its members know and have acknowl¬ edged. And whereas freedom of conscience and of self-government is a vital principle of all true religion and an indispensable condition of its real advancement, an Establishment cannot be favora¬ ble to the cause of truth. On the other hand, upon what principle of right, natural or revealed, can any government and any one church combine and cooperate, be it never so little, against any other faith and church within the same nation? Granting even that one church embraces by far the greater part of the in¬ habitants, and by its teachings is much more con¬ ducive than the other to good government, it must be borne in mind that it is not simply a question 222 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. wholly of profit and loss. It will not do to point, by way of precedent and for the purpose of justifi¬ cation, to the Old Testament theocracy. That was an anomaly and brought about by God’s own spe¬ cial ordering. Just as well might a man slay his only son, and then, to justify his crime, point back to the command of God whereby Abraham—and nobody but Abraham—was required to offer Isaac. Just as well, too, might the English cast out and destroy the Chinese —* if not at the point of the bayonet then with the whisk of the somniferous poppy—and having possessed themselves of that sunny land, cry out: “ Did not the children of Israel by divine behest thus deal with the children of Anak ?” Certainly, the analogy is convincing ; for is not John Bull in every way a model Chris¬ tian and John Chinaman an abominable heathen? is not the one as good as Abraham and the other as bad as Anak ? Being a statesman and a church¬ man all in one, we must allow that John Bull has a right to quote the Scriptures; yet not to misinter¬ pret and misapply them. No, from the Holy Book nothing can be adduced to justify an infringement of religious liberty ; and especially not by the State to the injury of its subjects. Among all the rights of an individual there is none so sacred and pre¬ cious as is that of worshiping God according to the dictates of one’s conscience; and if there be one duty greater than all others which the State is called to perform it is that it protect its every citi¬ zen in the full enjoyment of this right. This being the case, that government and that church which coalesce and collude to make the secular power an 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 223 instrument of advancing one form of religious be¬ lief to the detriment of another, are guilty of sub¬ verting the fundamental idea and object of State- existence. Now, do not devise for us an ideal ' church-state whereof this criminal feature is not essential, but point out one instance where it is not the case, and we will amend our proposition and say that by a union of Church and State the liber¬ ties of the subjects are abridged only u by mere accident.” Our fourth argument , and to which we are led by the preceding, is the positive wrong-doing con¬ nected with their union. That is, not only does a church-state fail to do right and hinder a large proportion of its citizens from doing right, but these are coerced to do what is morally wrong. We refer to the compulsory support of religion to which they are subjected. An established church, being in a manner a department of State, invariably looks to this for the supply of its material wants. The funds expended in its behalf are, generally speaking, the revenues arising from the accumu¬ lated property at some time donated and be¬ queathed for churchly uses, but by far the greater amount is taken from the public treasury. In other words, state-churches are supported by way of an indiscriminate taxation; and ’tis in this we see a crying wrong, a violation of the rights of con¬ science, an utter disregard of all justice and of the teachings of the divine word.* Or will any one justify an enforced support of religion? And this *In England compulsory church-rates were abolished in 1868 so far as dissenters were concerned. 224 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. is not, with Christians at least, a question of dol¬ lars and cents, but of conscience and of duty to God. For secular purposes let a government de¬ mand of them their all, if need be, and they will give their all if not freely and cheerfully yet with a good conscience; but let it demand one dollar out of a thousand to uphold and advance a religion which they in their hearts hold to be heretic, and their answer must be, “ No, we will obey God rather than men! ” Since God commands them to reject and avoid a heretic, how can they with a good conscience support heresy ? Say you that they may be mistaken in their judgment of the religion they are required to support, we answer that they must heed the voice of conscience all the same. Say you that they can pay it “under protest”—be it so; but you have acknowledged the wrong of the action. And as far as the government and its churchly ally are involved in the affair, every dollar they force from the pocket of a citizen for religious purposes is a dollar robbed. Nor will precedents b { e of any service in this case. These have the power to establish authority of action at the best only in matters lying beyond the domain of morals; they have not the power to make right what is wrong. None but a prece¬ dent founded on a divine command can decide to be right what to us would seem to be wrong. How now about the tithes collected under the Old Testament dispensation—do they justify a compul¬ sion of payment for the support of religion? In regard to this whole business of tithing the follow¬ ing facts must be taken into consideration. First: 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 225 in the apportionment of the promised land the entire tribe of Levi, to whom the ministry of the church was committed and for whose support the tenth w r as levied, was passed by. This virtually created a church investment corresponding to any property conveyed by private individuals to the church in days past and now held in trust for such church by the government of its connection. To the profits arising from such investments in their behalf the Levites therefore had a right, and the whole arrangement simply amounted to this that the remaining tribes tilled the land, herded the cattle and labored for the tribe of Levi in part while the latter ministered for them in holy things—and that we call an equitable arrangement. Secondly : whether or not the tithe-law extended over the Cuthaens or Samaritans and heathens dwelling among the Is¬ raelites, is a matter of dispute among the Rabbi to this day. Thirdly: “The payment and apprecia¬ tion of the tithe, Moses left to the consciences of the people without subjecting them to judicial or sacerdotal visitations (See Horne's Introduction III. cap. 3, sect. 3). From this it appears that tithing among the Hebrews, originally a spontaneous outgrowth of the religious sentiment and subsequently divinely sanc¬ tioned as a mode of providing for the Church, was in its nature more a rule than a law, and a rule evangelical in its character since its observance was left to the consciences of the people. Of this evan¬ gelical trait not a stroke can be found in the taxa¬ tion whereby State-churches are supported; this is inexorably legal in its conception, form and en- 226 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. forcement; and while it prescribes to the church¬ man, it oppresses and plunders the dissenter. The whole scheme is a disgrace to the State and the Church who join hands to execute it; to the latter, because it is to subsist on the free-will offerings of its own members and friends; to the former, because it is appointed to protect its every citizen in the free exercise of his religious rights and duties. If the State can in justice force its subjects to pay to¬ wards the support of what is to them a false relig¬ ion, then can it with equal justice demand of them to subscribe and confess any creed, to attend any church, to commit any idolatry. Then is religious liberty a meaningless phrase and a mockery. Then did they deservedly suffer who from fear of God would not and could not uncover their heads before the monstrance, nor prostrate themselves before the monstrosity of papal Rome. Then does the harlot glutted with the blood of martyrs stand acquitted. But no, we do not so understand the will of God as made known by the Word or by nature. By every sense of right, that which is held out quite often as the greatest advantage of Church-stateism thus turns out to be the chief objection. But what is wrong cannot but work injuriously, and this leads us to our Fifth argument . The first, direct and unavoid¬ able result of their union is that it produces destruc¬ tive elements in both, the State and the Church. Happily the days of “ blue blood ” and of privileged classes belong to the past. If there are still found those who deem themselves a special order of beings, they are such in their own conceit only. 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 227 The people generally have learned to perceive dig¬ nity in, and to ascribe honor to, none but persons of worth and merit. Consistently with the Christian doctrine of the common brotherhood of man and with the other from this evolved, that of equal rights, men assert their rights and rest not until they see them respected. When therefore govern¬ ments arbitrarily create or uphold existing distinc¬ tions and preferments between the various orders and societies into which the citizens are divided, these naturally become disaffected and, in many cases, not without good reason. If churchmen do not know r or will not acknowledge the fact now w r ell established, that governments have no business with religion farther than to protect it, dissidents do know it the more fully and they will publish it the more loudly and effectually. By favoring one religion, a State necessarily discriminates against all others; by establishing one denomination, all others are aggrieved. Establishments inevitably cause divisions among the citizens; they create factions in the body politic and array one party against the other, the non-conforming religionists stand opposed to the established Church and the State. Considering that - this can gain little or nothing by meddling with the religion of its sub¬ jects; yea, that it has no call whatever to do so, what inexcusable blindness, what folly it is thus to alienate from itself the hearts of its citizens. Take England for an example. To its 20,000,000 church¬ men—many of them such only nominally—there are from 8 to 10,000,000 non-conformists ; and di¬ vided as these last are among themselves, in one 228 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. thing they stand agreed—as one mighty body they insist upon disestablishment. Though of late years nearly all political disabilities as far as religion is concerned have been wisely removed, though a Jew can be, and has been, prime Minister, though every one is left free to exercise his religion as best he can, notwithstanding all this the one cause of dis¬ satisfaction—the established Church, the source or occasion of so many wrongs and evils in days past, but by no means forgotten—still remains. The government, before which all are entitled to the same recognition, still exercises a fostering care over the one Church while the others, as so many unwelcome step-children if not bastards, are left out of doors, there to shift for themselves. Than the child of the house more happy and prosperous perhaps are they who, from love of independence and of what they believe the truth, roam abroad; but this can in no way excuse the unjust and un¬ necessary discrimination made against them. As a rule, party-politics is something foreign to the Gospel ministry; not so however when they in¬ volve moral and religious principles and therefore directly affect the Church. This is the case in the question of establishment or disestablishment. With regard to this the clergy must take sides and do battle either for or against, distasteful as it may be for many to do so. Designing politicians will at once seek to draw profit from this condition of affairs. Doubtful and selfish measures of all sorts are attached to the momentous question, and the success of this is bound up with the success of the former; there is left but the alternative—if you 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 229 pluck the rose you must take the thorn. Thus, whether they will or not, the ministers of the Church are drawn into active politics, and their pulpits are converted into a rostrum in part for un¬ holy purposes. They who feel aggrieved on account of church-preferments on the part of the govern¬ ment are in the right, and the cause they espouse adverse to them is surely a holy one; but that in so doing they will always keep within proper bounds and employ none but legitimate means and meth¬ ods is not at all probable. In the body of non-con- forming churches a government will therefore al¬ ways have an element more or less estranged from the body ruling—a mighty disintegrating element. And while a State thus alienates the hearts of thousands of its citizens whose religion it judges and disapproves, does it thereby render all the more loyal perhaps others whose religion it makes its own ? That might be expected; but it is not always the case. Within established churches them¬ selves there are many who discern the inexpediency of their churchly relation to the government; some perceive the injustice done unto others by their own preferment; and others again feel that in affairs re¬ ligious to be bound by more than the authority of God’s Word, and that in one’s churchly duties to be amenable to a body other than the Church, is a condition abnormal for many reasons and under some circumstances quite oppressive. That estab¬ lished churches, and especially its members, enjoy not that freedom of action which belongs to them of right, became manifest as soon as Christianity was first made a national religion. In proof of this we 230 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. need but refer to the experiences of the Athanasians, the Arians, and the Donatists in the times of Con¬ stantine. So long as the power of State was engaged in his own behalf and against Arius, his opponent, the great Athanasius, could approve the persecution of heretics by the secular arm ; but no sooner was this directed against himself and the faith most dear to his heart, than were his eyes opened to the evil, and he began earnestly to contend for the cause of re¬ ligious liberty. So up to this day, it has been the experience of thousands upon thousands that the little good resulting from an establishment of relig¬ ion is paid for with a great price by the churches of their belonging, and in consequence these feel them¬ selves under no obligation to the government for any control this may have assumed over them and their religious concerns. Look at it as you will, from many within the established Church and from all without it, a government can expect no thanks for meddling with religion. Politically, Establish¬ ments are based on anything but a wise and sound policy; they engender dissatisfaction and strife among the citizens, they foster a revolutionary spirit, and they react injuriously upon the State in many, many ways. Meanwhile, how fares the Church under an establishment? No better, if not by far worse, than the State. “ Governments have it not in their power to do their subjects the least service as to their religious beliefs and mode of worship. On the contrary, whenever the civil magistrate inter¬ poses his authority in matters of religion, otherwise than in keeping the peace amongst all religious § 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 231 parties, you may trace every step he has taken by the mischievous effects his interposition has pro¬ duced.” (j Burgh's Pol . Disquisition III.,p. 202.) And what else can be expected? Unless membership in the established Church be made a condition of holding civil office, the management of religious affairs must inevitably fall into the hands also of such men as are wholly unfit if not positively in¬ disposed to do the Church any service. Wherever the ecclesiastical is mingled, be it more or less, with political authority there the danger is immi¬ nent that the affairs of Church be made subject to the jurisdiction of those who are wholly irreligious, or, if religious yet are inimical to the particular religion established. An old English poet, per¬ haps Chaucer, assures his fellow Christians that “ Christ is our hede that sitteth on hie, Heddis ne ought we have no mo; We ben His membres bothe also, Father He taught us call Him all; Maisters to call forbad He tho: A1 maisters be wickid and fals.” Happily she is not “wickid and fals,” but the queen of England is the “hede” of the Anglican Church. But suppose the present sovereign were wicked and false,—as kings and queens have often been,—by the present relation of the Anglican Church to the throne, he or she would be the head of the Church all the same. Under such circum¬ stances who can tell what incalculable injury might be done to religion? Instructions and restrictions, where the ruling power is bent upon doing harm, are but a poor safe-guard. Much more secure 232 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. against all violence is religion there where the officers of State, from the least to the greatest, are forbidden to interfere with it, and have no other duty than that of protecting its free exercise. Again, if a church is bound to have a ruling head at all, ’tis best to appoint thereto such persons as have no political power; then also, to appoint and depose them, as the case may require, wholly inde¬ pendently of the State. The opinion that a man can not act the part of a loyal citizen unless he be a Christian, and that he cannot be an efficient civil officer except he be a member of Church, is in our day enter¬ tained by very few people. “Test acts” are gener¬ ally abolished. Wherever the irreligious and the dissident citizen are thus no longer excluded from holding office, there, as a matter of course, church¬ men will generally put forth every effort to keep them out. It stands to reason that when the officers of State are ex-officio officers of the Church, the latter body will do all it can to have only such persons elected or appointed as are of its own com¬ munion. The effect of such a condition of things is almost self-evidently pernicious. Many unprin¬ cipled men will enter the Church for no other reason than that of political advantages. Do men maintain membership in churches even when these are separate from the State in order to secure their patronage and support of their political aspirations, how much more must this be the case when the Church is a part of the State and as such takes an active part in politics. And surely such elements cannot possibly exercise any other than a bane- § 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 233 ful influence upon religion and the affairs of the Church generally. Wherever the latter are made to serve the purpose of acquiring and strengthen¬ ing personal influence, of securing positions and honors, etc., what security is there left to sound doctrine, to an upright faith, and to proper dis¬ cipline ? There was a time when it was taken for granted that members of churches and professors of theology w r ere Christians; but hypocrites, para¬ sites, artful politicians, and beings of such sort, have become so manifestly plentiful in churches that to speak of a believing theologian, for example, is considered quite proper despite the fact that, if there be any meaning in words, an “ unbelieving theologian” is a thing that cannot be conceived. But, especially in the established Church of Ger¬ many, a “theologian” to-day is a person who earns (?) his bread and butter by learned disquisitions and treatises on God and godly things, and if he believes in the things he talks about, it must be specially mentioned . “Not the less”—says Geffken, in speaking of the first union of the Christian Church with the State—“all the secular advantages with which the Church, thus far persecuted but now triumphant, was thus suddenly overwhelmed had a very deleteri¬ ous effect. Multitudes joined the Church simply to court the favor of the emperor, and many sought office because the service of the Church was made extraordinarily lucrative. On account of vacant episcopates the most vehement contention would arise among candidates; in order to outstrip their competitors they would resort to flattery, bribery, 10 * 234 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. and even to brutal violence; as a result, these high offices not unfrequently fell into most unworthy hands ; (Ad miseros homines , vernarum vernas , devinit nunc episcopatus nomen —writes Basilius), and these of course would appoint to the more subordinate positions men of their own evil ilk, so that while the Church gained in extent and power externally, it suffered severe loss in the matter of inner worth.” (K. u. St. p. 88). If not in the same measure, such has been the fruit of its union with the State at all times. When favored by this, a church is sure to become more or less a prey to corrupting elements on that very account—secularization is the price it pays for its political advantages. And this, no matter what the form of government may be, whether republican or monarchic. Thus the Ber¬ nese professor of theology, Zyro , openly charges that government that it has secularized and almost destroyed the Church ; that it has made the clergy to be the servile creatures of the rich and power¬ ful. (Comp. Die Ev. Ref. Kirche. — Bern--1837, p. 81). Sixth: the adverse testimony of history. Than the evil of confounding common morality with Chris¬ tian ethics, of mixing politics with religion, of connecting State and Church, there is none which in itself seems more insignificant but which in its workings has proved itself more disastrous to all the interests of mankind. That it is an evil at all, the mass of mankind has been astonishingly slow to learn; and there are not a few even in our time who as yet do not recognize it as such. But now that the mistakes of the past are before us and § 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 235 generally seen in their true light, and looking back upon the long and wearisome days of instruction and discipline, how inexpressibly cruel has been the mode of teaching and how enormously great the price of learning! Clearly distinguishing between the things be¬ longing to Caesar and those belonging to God, the good and wise Master bade all to render to each his due. . And for centuries His own obeyed the precept. Not so the pagans. These, rejecting the knowledge of the true God proclaimed to them and thus refusing to render unto God the things that are God’s, sought to prevent His own people from doing so also and required of them to do homage unto the national gods. And paganism ruled the world. Pontifex maximus of its religions no less than sovereign in affairs of State, emperor followed emperor in directing every power at his command against the Christ of God and all who dared to name Him Lord. Then Christians, more than can be numbered, rather than deny their faith, sealed it with their blood. The honor to die for the Lord and His cause some coveted, others accepted, while suckling babes were not spared. “ One presses on, and welcomes death: One calmly yields his willing breath, Nor slow, nor hurrying, but in faith Content to die or live: And some, the darlings of the Lord, Play smiling with the flame and sword, And, ere they speak, to His sure word Unconscious witness give.” * * Rev. Jno. Keble in u The Ch. Year 236 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. Alas, that the Christian Church of those days, and later, profited not by its own most bitter ex¬ perience—that Christians ever forgot the precept of their Master! There were then, and there have been at all times, those who did not forget, who closely distinguished between the provinces of po¬ litics and religion, who deprecated all interference of the one with the other, and who condemned per¬ secution. But their voices were raised in vain. No sooner did the opportunity offer than, 0 day of evil! the Christian religion itself was made a mat¬ ter of politics, and politics a matter of religion— than the Christian Church gave itself to the State and the State to the Church. Whether for better or worse, history must tell. During the past centuries the power of the State had been employed against the Church ; now with the time of their courtship and marriage came also the day of retaliation. Had the sover¬ eigns of this world thus far repressed the Christian religion in deference to paganism, now began they the work of exterminating the heathen supersti¬ tions in deference to Christianity. But the means and methods adopted for its doing were little better than those before employed against the very religion they now sought to propagate. Following his vic¬ tory over Maxentius, a political rival and a vehe¬ ment defender of official heathenism, and ascribing his success to the God of the Christians, Constantine at once enlarged the Galerian edict of toleration and proclaimed religious liberty throughout his do¬ main. Howbeit, although such great men as Ter - tullian and Origen ardently defended the justice ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 237 and wisdom of the noble principle, the spirit of the time was not prepared to adopt it and grve it course. The all-absorbing question which then agitated the minds of men concerned the power of State, paganism struggling with might and main to retain its hold and Christianity being deter¬ mined to seize it. The latter obtained complete dominion : and thus for the first time in their his¬ tory was the marriage of State and Church effected —a relation which has continued with little inter¬ ruption, but with ever varying phases and for¬ tunes, up to our own time. And what has been the fruit ? Certainly, the little good w T hich has come of it might have been achieved without it, and much more too, and all in a manner legiti¬ mate; but the amount of evils and wrong-doing of which it has been the cause or occasion, direct or indirect, is simply incalculable. The very thought of the deeds perpetrated in the name of justice and holy religion, and committed for their apparent benefit, is sufficient to rend the human heart with feelings of shame and indignation. Much has been said, and something can be said, in palliation of the mistakes then made and of the atrocities com¬ mitted: it has been maintained that the accounts given of them are exaggerating; and that this be so, must be the fond hope of every one humane of heart. But the facts, as far as they are known with certainty, alone are more than enough to show whither men will drift and what men will do as soon as they follow their own counsel rather than the wisdom of God. By its victory over heathenism and its exalta- 238 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION* IV. tion, if such it can be called, to the dignity of a national religion, Christianity had indeed subdued but by no means as yet destroyed its old and bitter foe. The struggle was as yet not ended. Besides, by its very deliverance from this its old thralldom it was imperceptibly subjected to another and new condition of servitude, and it is not difficult to say which of the two in the end proved to be the worse. The Church, like a persecuted slave, first set free and then wedded to a self-willed lord, was delivered from the heavy hands of an imperial pontifex maximus only to be placed into the strong hands of an imperial summus episcopus—there to remain for many long and weary days. Its new lord and lords, while they slowly and surely as¬ sumed control of the Church, first tolerated but soon took it upon themselves wholly to drive out and destroy such of its enemies as were left. By imperial decree the temples of the gods were plun¬ dered and closed, destroyed, or reopened for Chris¬ tian worship, pagan sacrifices were forbidden under penalty of death, the property of the disobedient was confiscated while they themselves were sent into banishment, apostasy and return to the old superstition were branded officially as crimes and high treason, a premium was put upon connection with the Church, and many civil advantages were connected with offices ecclesiastic. Too well did the husband protect the newly acquired wife, lav¬ ishly did he provide for her wants, and zealously did he indulge her reasonable desires and her whims as well—so great was the ardor of first love. Notwithstanding this, their union cannot be 5 12. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 239 pronounced a happy affair. Did the Church enjoy protection and peace, was she enriched unto afflu¬ ence with the things of this world, was she per¬ mitted to bask in favors greater than might be justly expected, let us not for a moment forget the price she paid: that she suffered in purity of char¬ acter and honor, and that she lost her liberty. • Even the otherwise halcyon days of the honey¬ moon passed by not without a storm. The be¬ havior of Julian the Apostate was w r ell calculated to create doubt concerning the wisdom of the choice made and the union entered. But again the lesson w r as not heeded—whether for better or worse, the wife clung to her husband. As already Constan- . tine had considered himself the summus episcopus of the Church, no less did his successors. These exercised the jus circa sacra as their indisputable right. No ecumenical synod could be convened ex¬ cept by imperial decree; and wfflether the Church was pleased to have it so or not, his sovereign ma¬ jesty would take a leading and decisive part in its affairs. Already in A. D. 476 Basiliscus , the Usur¬ per , simply prescribed which religion was to be believed and taught throughout his realm and w T hich not. From the time on when it was coupled with the Church and throughout all the years of their connection was the power of the State employed not only against infidelity and superstition as found without the Church, but likewise against all heterodoxy as arising within it; or we might just as well say, against orthodoxy, for this was not seldom mistaken for its opposite. Thus it came to 240 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. m pass that within the lapse of forty years Athana¬ sius, whom posterity has styled pater orthodoxiae par excellence, was banished no less than four times and as often returned. Twenty years of the forty- . five of his episcopate were spent in exile, and for no other reason than that he contended for the faith of Christendom. Did Church and State thus deal with bishops, their treatment of more ordi¬ nary men, who dared to differ from them in mat¬ ters pertaining to God and the soul, can readily be imagined. Meanwhile, as the wife sometimes obtains the mastery over the husband, so here. At first their relation assumed the character of a Caesario-papia , then followed the Papo-caesaria. First the State presumed to dictate to the Church; but gradually the latter asserted its rights not only but it began to dictate to the State. In the East, to be sure, the sovereign lords of State generally maintained their dignity, that is, they continued to toy with the Church pretty much as they pleased; and a lucra¬ tive employment they found it to be, goodly sums being paid them quite frequently for the office of a bishop, and for like favors. But in the West, af¬ fairs assumed an entirely different phase. Here, slowly and wearily but steadily and surely, the papal hierarchy established itself—that monster prolific of a thousand woes to the States and Churches of the world, even to this day. Alas, how the once pure and lovely bride had degenera¬ ted ! Espoused to one husband after another, and these devoted to politics, to intrigue, and to the waging of wars, why marvel that she herself forgot 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 241 both her station and mission, that her virgin graces and peaceful habits gave place to Amazonian pas¬ sions and outrageous excesses. Then was the Word of God bound, lest the people should be undeceived; and in its stead was set up the ignis fatuus of un¬ certain tradition. The entire fabric of the Church was gradually reconstructed from top to bottom. Even the Old Foundation, elect and precious, was rejected. Yet not altogether rejected. In view of past service and of probable present usefulness, the venerable Corner-stone was not wholly left out of the new structure: fitted and framed anew, it was fixed in a place, high and dry like a trader’s sign, and for no better purpose. Already Tertullian had placed in co-ordination with the Biblical antithesis of Adam and Christ , one of his own imagination, namely that of Eve and Mary . That was in the be¬ ginning of the third century. A century later, Cyrill of Alexandria , in a sermon preached at Ephe¬ sus , exclaims: “All hail, Mary! ... by whom the heavens are triumphant, the devils are cast out, the tempter is conquered, and a fallen race is lifted up to heaven.” Similarly the Presbyter Proclus de¬ clared Mary to be “the only bridge for God unto men.” In consequence of such preaching, which became common and has continued up to our own time, there could be little or no room for Christ in the Church : at least no longer as its foundation nor as its head. As the one He was displaced for Mary, the Theotokos; as the other He was removed by the pope and for himself. We do not claim that this corruption was a direct outgrowth of the Church’s union with the 11 242 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. State; we call attention to it to explain how some of the results of that union were rendered possible in the Church. A church, or ohurchdom rather, next to Christless is capable of anything, of any enormity. Such a departure from the truth ex¬ plains how the churchdom of Rome could resort— and would resort to-day had it the power—to such a device and instrument of hell as was the Inqui¬ sition—Rome’s substitute for the sword of the Spirit. Thanks to the support of vassaled States to the right and to the left of it, the papal hier¬ archy sent its inquisitorial hordes throughout all lands in search of heathens and heretics, and right lustily did these ministers of wickedness discharge their nefarious task. The first to pass the sentence of death upon heretics was the Emperor Theodosius, despite the opposition of Jerome, of Augustine, and others. Leo the Great already approved of such bloody executions, but by the State in order that the Church—0 logic of holy innocence!—might be pre¬ served from blood-guiltiness. But this spark of seeming conscientiousness even was soon extin¬ guished. Then hands “holy ” vied with hands pro¬ fane in prosecuting the bloody work. Suspicion of heresy real and imaginary, and accusation no mat¬ ter by whom made, convicts not excluded, were pronounced equivalent to conviction. A special object were the high and rich, though the low and poor were not spared. Such victims as lost but their position and property, as were deprived of their political rights and sent into exile, had every reason to account themselves fortunate: the greater § 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 243 number by far were subjected to the excruciating tortures of the rack and a slow death. To the sick, when suspected of heresy, was denied the attention of a physician. Even the dead, when denounced, escaped not—their bodies were exhumed and burnt and their ashes were “ Flung to the heedless winds Or on the waters cast . . . • ••«•• Yet vain is Satan’s boast Of victory in their death: Still, still, though dead they speak, And, triumph-tongued, proclaim To many a wak’ning land The one availing Name.”* Informers were highly remunerated, while it was made the business of everv local and civil of- %/ fice-holder to render every possible assistance; and he who was found slow to do this bidding, was forth¬ with deprived of property and position. “Already in the 11. and 12. centuries the 1 Church’ resorted to the dread power of the pyre, (as a kind of prelude to the fires of hell to which heretics are assigned), and to this there was then heard but one opposing voice, that of bishop Wazo, of Leige (f 1040); though in the 12. century there were others protesting against it, such as Peter the Venerable , St. Hildegard , St. Bernhard etc. (Kurtz Kirch. Gesch. § 109). The inquisition, officially es¬ tablished by pope Gregory IX., was by him placed into the hands of the Dominicans or dogs of the Lord, as they delighted to call themselves. From * Luther. 244 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. that time on the work of fire and blood was carried on methodically; “Church” and “State” walking hand in hand to prosecute it. Hardly a country was spared. Through Germany and Austria, Ara¬ gon and Castile, Lombardy and the South of France, through Italy, Venice, Naples, Sicily, Tuscany, Poland, the Netherlands and Portugal, lastly with the Spanish into the newly discovered America— went the bigoted, covetous, grasping and blood¬ thirsty fiends of darkness. And England ? — at¬ tended to the same work, but on her own account; and right thoroughly too w r as it there performed. History records that in Spain alone 32,000 victims were burnt alive and 18,000 in effigy, which latter was accompanied by sequestration of all property and signified the deepest degradation; besides, 300,- 000 were otherwise punished. “ The number of Netherlanders burned, strangled, beheaded, or bur¬ ied alive . . . has been placed as high as 100,000 by distinguished authorities, and has never been put at a lower mark than 50,000.” ( Motley . Rise Dutch Rep. i. 114). How many poor wretches, and among these some of the best minds and most noble souls of their day, really fell a prey to the scourge as it passed to and fro throughout all lands, no tongue can tell—God knows, and he will avenge ! But, in the language of Hr. Krauth , “ The world over, the Inquisition, in both its forms ” (i. e. as an ecclesi¬ astical and an ecclesiastico-political tribunal), “has fallen” .... and “the Jew lives, Protestantism lives, free government lives, but the system center¬ ing in the Spanish Inquisition, robbing of life all to which it clung, lies, a withered parasite, on the tree it exhausted.” ( Johnson’s Cyc . IL p. 1215). 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 245 Now while they thus summarily dealt with their “wayward children” and with troublesome “bastards,” how fared husband and wife with re¬ spect to their own personal relations? From the way they blundered and blustered about among the inmates of the house and of their neigh¬ bors’ houses, it can hardly be expected that between themselves they should fare in a way altogether peaceful and happy. Nor does our conjecture de¬ ceive us on that point. United as they generally were against anything which prejudiced and in¬ jured the interests either of the one or the other— be it in reality or imagination—between themselves they were as often divided; ay! and what would least become a holy loving couple, as they pretended to be, not seldom it came to blows between them; when, at one time the husband would be worsted, at another, the wife. We here bethink us, by way of example, of the Latrocinium Ephesium in A. D 449; then of that unpleasantness between the Em¬ peror Leo III. and the popes Gregory the Second and Third, from A. D. 717 to 741; and, in fact, of the whole iconoclastic conflict; farther, of the long and disgraceful struggle for supremacy between the popes and the Carlovingians, and of many more such family scenes. In truth, they were never wholly content and fully at peace with each other. At one time the Church would rob the State, at another, the State robbed the Church. Popes would enthrone and dethrone kings and emperors as they listed, whenever they had the upper hand; at other times again kings and emperors created or destroyed bishops and popes to suit none but themselves. In 246 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. short, a more unhappy family there never was in all the world, and none perhaps more wicked. No doubt, the objection made to this argument will be that the wrongs and evils pointed out are accidental and not essentially characteristic of a union between the State and the Church; then, too, that these things occurred mostly in the benighted Church of Rome and the dynasties of the dark ages; that therefore the testimony of history is not applicable to Establishments generally, especially not to those of a Protestant character. We answer: true Protestantism is in very principle opposed to every union of Church and State; whatever in our day is pleased to call itself Protestantism may not be a whit better than Romanism itself, for there are very many who mistake a mere blind opposition to the Church of Rome for Protestantism. In the second place, we reply : the history of Protestant Church-States, though not written with blood as that of the papal hierarchy, is by no means pleas¬ ant reading. No, it tells of many things which are better not named; and we venture the assertion that no intelligent friend of religious establish¬ ments will in support of them point to the records of the past. If ever any be held up as a model State and a model church and a model union of such model parties, these are the united State and Church of England : be it so. We here append the testimony of one who seems to have been there and knows whereof he affirms. Though somewhat rhet¬ orical perhaps, His worth a careful inspection. Hon . jB. W. Noel , brother of the first earl of Gainsborough, and at one time a chaplain to 12 . ARGUMENTS AGAINST THEIR UNION. 247 the Queen, in summing up his arguments against the Auglican Establishment, says: “All the main principles upon which it rests, are unsound. Its State-salaries, its supremacy, its patronage, its com¬ pulsion* of payments for the support of religion, are condemned by both the precedents and pre¬ cepts of the Word of God. We have seen that it sheds a blighting influence upon prelates, incum¬ bents, curates, and other members of churches. It adds little to the number of pastors, it distributes them with a wasteful disregard to the wants of the population, and it pays least those whom it ought to pay most liberally. It excludes the Gospel from thousands of parishes; it perpetuates corruptions in doctrine; it hinders all scriptural discipline; it desecrates the ordinances of Christ, confounds the Church and the world, ferments schism among Christians, and tempts the ministers of Christ both in and out of the Establishment to be eager poli¬ ticians. Further, it embarrasses successive govern¬ ments, maintains one chief element of revolution in the country, renders the reformation of the An¬ glican Church hopeless, hinders the progress of the Gospel throughout the kingdom, and strengthens all the corrupt papal Establishments of Europe.” ( Union of Ch. & St. p. 440. See also Bohlen Lect. of 1882, p. 82, etc.) We have thus, as it were, no more than peeped through between the shutter-slats of the domiciles wherein churches and states have housed together, and the scenes beheld are most forbidding. The * This work was written before this wrong was abolished. 248 THEIR HUMANLY ORDERED RELATION. IV. little we have seen is enough to convince us that there are dangers, evils, wrongs and horrors attend¬ ing all these unions such that we have no desire to enter and see more. And whether accidental or essentially characteristic, these deterring results are always there to an extent greater or less. On the other hand, such unions are not divinely required but are morally doubtful even in their very princi¬ ple; every good they can possibly and properly ac¬ complish, can be otherwise achieved and just as well; there is no necessity for them whatever. Common sense, justice, equity, the well-being of Church and State, the testimony of history—all combine in evidence adverse: the verdict is that Ralph and Rachel must not be married under any circumstances and on no conditions whatever. § 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 249 V. THE RELATION OF THE STATE AND THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 13. OFFICIAL UTTERANCES IN THE CON¬ STITUTIONS. On account of the interest of which they may be to some, of the intrinsic value they have, and for convenient reference, we here give the expres¬ sions on the subject as embodied in the Constitu¬ tions respectively of the Nation and its several States. The numbers following the names indi¬ cate the years in which the Constitutions were adopted. United States —1789 — Form of oath prescribed for the inauguration of the chief executive : “ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully exe¬ cute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, pro¬ tect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Art. II. Sec. 1. “ The Senators and Representatives . . . and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Art. VI. (§ 3). “ Congress shall make no law respecting an es- 250 THE UNITED STATES. y. tablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free ex¬ ercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amend. Art. 1. Alabama —1875—declares: “That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship, nor to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate, for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry ; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.” Art I. Sec. 4. Arkansas —1874—“All men have a natural and indefeas¬ ible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to main¬ tain any ministry against his consent. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment, denomina¬ tion, or mode of worship above any other.” Art. II. Sec. 24. “ Religion, morality, and knowledge being essential to good government, the general assembly shall enact suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peace¬ able enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.” ib. sec. 25. “ No religious test shall ever be required of any person as a qualification to vote or hold office; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations.” ib. sec. 26. “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be com¬ petent to testify as a witness in any court.” Art. XIX. sec. 1.* * “Is still in force. No question has been raised in case of holding office, hut in the courts the g is fully enforced against witnesses denying the existence of a God, and witnesses are often challenged for that cause.” Jacob Frolich, Sec. St. 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 251 California —1849—“ The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State; and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on ac¬ count of his opinions on matters of religious belief; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so con¬ strued as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.” Art I. sec. 4. Colorado —1876—declares: “That the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without dis¬ crimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege, or capacity on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace, or safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” Art. II. sec. 4. Connecticut —1818—“ The exercise and enjoyment of re¬ ligious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in this State, provided that the right hereby declared and established shall not be so con¬ strued as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify prac¬ tices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State.” Art. I. sec. 3. “No preference shall be given by law to any Christian sect or mode of worship.” ib. sec 4. “It being the duty of all men to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship in the mode most consist¬ ent with the dictates of their consciences, no person shall by law be compelled to join or support, nor be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious associa¬ tion, shall remain a member thereof until he shall have separated himself therefrom, in the manner hereinafter pro¬ vided. And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this State shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority to support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship by a tax on the members 252 THE UNITED STATES. Y. of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner.” Art. VII. sec. 1. “ If any person shall choose to separate himself from the society or denomination of Christians to which he may belong, and shall leave a written notice thereof with the clerk of such society, he shall thereupon be no longer liable for any future expenses which may be incurred by said society.” ib. sec. 2. Delaware —1831—“Although it is the duty of all men fre¬ quently to assemble together for the public worship of the Author of the universe, and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are thereby pro¬ moted, yet no man shall, or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or sup¬ port of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent; and no power shall or ought to be vested in or assumed by any magistrate that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner control, the rights of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship ; nor shall a preference be given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of wor¬ ship.” Art I. sec. 1. “ No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the State.” ib. sec. 2. “ No ordained clergyman or ordained preacher of the gospel of any denomination shall he capable of holding any civil office in the State, or of being a member of either branch of the legislature while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral or clerical functions.” Art. VII. sec. 8. Florida —1868—See California Art. I. sec. 4. which form is the same as that of this State, as given in Art. I. sec. 5. “No preference can be given by law to any church, sect, or mode of worship. Art I. sec. 23. Georgia —1868—“ Perfect freedom of religious sentiment shall be, and the same is hereby, secured, and no inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property, or prohibited from holding any public office or trust, on ac¬ count of his religious opinion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the people.” Art. 1. sec 6. 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 253 Illinois —1870—“Art. II. sec. 3 of this State reads as Art. I. sec. 4 of Colorado. Indiana —1851—“All men shall be secured in their nat¬ ural right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” Art. I. sec. 2. “ No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.” ib. sec. 3. “ No preference shall be given by law to any creed, re¬ ligious society, or mode of worship; and no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent.” ib. sec. 4. “No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or trust of profit.” ib. sec. 5. “ No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution.” ib. sec. 6. “No person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness in consequence of his opinions on matters of religion.” ib. sec. 7. “The mode of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as may be most consistent with and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath or affirmation may be administered.” ib. sec. 8. Iowa— 1857—“The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the main¬ tenance of any minister or ministry.” Art. I. sec. 3. “ No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, or capacities, or disqualified from the performance of any of his public or private duties, or rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity, in consequence of his opinion on the subject of religion; and any party to any judicial proceeding shall have the right to use as a witness or take testimony of, any other person not disqualified on account of interest, who may be cognizant of any fact material to the case; . . . ib. sec. 4. Kansas —1859—“The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship; nor shall any control of, or interference 254 THE UNITED STATES. y. with, the rights of conscience be permitted; nor any prefer¬ ence be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property qualifica¬ tion shall be required for any office or public trust, nor for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incom¬ petent to testify on account of religious belief.” Bill of Bights, sec. 7. Kentucky —1850—Art VIII. sec. 5 reads as Art. II. sec. 24 of Arkansas St. Const., w T hich see. Besides, this State de¬ clares:— “ That the civil rights, privileges, or capacities of any citizen shall in no wise be diminished or enlarged on ac¬ count of his religion*” ib. sec. 6. “The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed by the general assembly the most solemn appeal to God.” Art. VIII. sec. 7. Louisiana —1868—“ Every person has the natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office.” Art. I. sec. 12. Maine —1820—“All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience, and no one shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, nor for his religious professions or sentiments, provided he does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship; and all per¬ sons demeaning themselves peaceably, as good members of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the laws, and no subordination nor preference of any one sect or de¬ nomination to another shall ever be established bv law, nor shall any religious test be required as a qualification for any office or trust under this State; and all religious societies in the State, whether incorporated or unincorporated, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance.” Art. 1. sec. 3. Maryland —1867—declares: “ That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, all persons are equally entitled to 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 255 protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship, or any min¬ istry ; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief: Provided, He believes in the existence of God, and that, under His dispensation, such person will he held mor¬ ally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come.” Dec. of Rights , Art. 36. “ That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution.” ib. 37. “ That every gift, sale, or devise of land, to any minis¬ ter, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or to any religious sect, order, or denomination, or to, or for the support, use, or benefit of, or in trust for, any minister, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or any re¬ ligious sect, order or denomination ; and every gift or sale of goods, or chattels, to go in succession, or to take place after the death of the seller or donor, to or for such support, use or benefit; and also every devise of goods, or chattels, to or for the support, use, or benefit of any minister, public teacher, or preacher of the gospel, as such, or any religious sect, order, or denomination, without the prior or subse¬ quent sanction of the legislature, shall be void; except always any sale, gift, lease, or devise of any quantity of land, not exceeding five acres, for a church, meeting house, or other house of worship, or parsonage, or for a burying- ground, which shall be improved, enjoyed, or used only for such purposes; or such sale, gift, lease, or devise shall be void.” ib. Art. 38. “ That the manner of administering an oath or affirma¬ tion to any person ought to be such as those of the religious persuasion, profession, or denomination of which he is a member, generally esteem the most effectual confirmation by the attestation of the Divine Being.” ib. 39. Massachusetts —1780—“ It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to wor- 256 THE UNITED STATES. V. ship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or re¬ strained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping * God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sen¬ timents, providod he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship-” Red. of Rights, Art. II. “ As the public worship of God, and the instruction in piety, religion, and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people, and the security of a republican gov¬ ernment ; therefore, the several religious societies of this com¬ monwealth, w T hether corporate or incorporate, at any meet¬ ing legally w T arned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses; and all persons belonging to any relig¬ ious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file wdth the clerk of said society a written notice declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thence¬ forth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made or entered into by such society; and all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good citizens of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subor¬ dination of any one sect or denomination tf> another shall ever be established by law.” Art. III. as amended in 1833. Michigan —1850—“ The legislature shall pass no law to prevent any person from worshipping Almighty God accord¬ ing to the dictates of his own conscience, or to compel any person to attend, erect, or support any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for the sup¬ port of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion.” Art. IV* sec. 39. “ The legislature shall not diminish or enlarge the civil or political rights, privileges, and capacities of any person on account of his opinion or belief concerning matters of relig¬ ion.” ib. sec. 41. Minnesota —1857—“ . . . The right of every man to wor¬ ship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never he infringed, nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to main- 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 257 tain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his con¬ sent, nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify prac¬ tices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies, or religious or theological semina¬ ries.” Art. I. sec. 16. “ No religious test or amount of property shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust un¬ der the State. No religious test or amount of property shall ever be required as a qualification of asny voter at any elec¬ tion in this State; nor shall any person be rendered incom¬ petent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinion on the subject of religion.” ib. sec. 17. Mississippi —1868—“ No religious test as a qualification for office shall ever be required, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect or mode of wor¬ ship, but the free enjoyment of all religious sentiments and the different modes of worship shall ever be held sacred: Provided , The rights hereby secured shall not be construed to justify acts of licentiousness injurious to morals or dan¬ gerous to the peace and safety of the State.” Art. I. sec. 23. “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this State.” Art. XII. sec. 3.* Missouri —1875—declares “ That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no person can, on account of his religious opinions, be rendered ineligible to any office of trust or profit under the State, nor be dis¬ qualified from testifying, or from serving as a juror; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persua¬ sion or profession; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse,” etc. Art. II. sec. 5. “That no person can be compelled to erect, support, or * “Is still in force and is properly enforoed.” Henry C. Meyers, Sec. State. 11* 258 THE UNITED STATES. y. attend any place or system of worship; . . . . but if any per¬ son shall voluntarily make a contract for any such object, he shall be held to the performance of the same,” ib. sec. 6. “That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, . . . . and that no preference shall be given to, nor any dis¬ crimination made against, any church, sect,. . . . ib. sec. 7. Nebraska —1875—“All persons have a natural and inde¬ feasible right to worship Almighty God .... No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of wor¬ ship .... No religious test shall be required as a qualifica¬ tion for office .... Religion, morality, and knowledge, how¬ ever, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the legislature to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction. Art. I. sec. 4. Nevada— 186-1—Art. I. sec. 4 reads the same as Art. I. sec. 4 of Const, of the State of California, which see. New Hampshire —1795—The form of Art. 5 of Bill of Rights declared by this State is the same as Art. I. sec. 3 of the State of Maine, down to the word “worship”—which see. “As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangeli¬ cal principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligation to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the in¬ stitution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote these important purposes, the people of this State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower, the legisla¬ ture to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies within this State, to make adequate provisions, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teach¬ ers of piety, religion, and morality. Provided notwithstanding , That the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or relig¬ ious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And no person, or any one particular religious sect or denomination, shall 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 259 ever be compelled to pay toward the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomination * . . . . ” ib. Art. 5. New Jersey —1844—“No person shall be deprived/)f the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under pretence whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes .... con¬ trary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.” Art. I. Three. “There shall be no establishment .... no religious test. . . . ” ib. Four. New York —1846—Art. I. sec. 3 reads as Art. I. sec. 4 of California, which see. North Carolina —1876—“All men have a natural and in¬ alienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority should, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.” Art. I. sec. 26. “The following classes of persons shall be disqualified for office: First, all persons who shall deny the being of Al¬ mighty God. ...” Art. VI. sec. 5.T “Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Art. IX. sec. I. Ohio —1851—“All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to at¬ tend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent ; and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Re- *It farther secures protection by law to all alike and forbids estab lishment. 11 know of no case where the question has arisen.” M. L. Saunders Sec. of State. 260 THE UNITED STATES. y. ligion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assem¬ bly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomina¬ tion in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruc¬ tion.” Art. I. sec. 7. “ The principal of all funds arising from the sale or other dispositions of lands or other property, granted or intrusted to this State for educational and religious purposes, shall for¬ ever be preserved inviolate and undiminished; and the in¬ come arising therefrom shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the original grants or appropriations.” Art. VI. sec I. Oregon —1857—Form same as that of Indiana, with addi¬ tion to sec. 6 of the words: “nor shall any money be appro¬ priated for the payment of any religious service, in either house of the legislative body”; then to sec. 7 is added: “nor be questioned in any court of justice concerning his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.” Pennsylvania —1873—Art. I. sec. 3 is in form identical with Art. II. sec. 4 of Arkansas, which see. “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth.” Art. I. sec. 4. Rhode Island —1842—“ Whereas Almighty God hath crea¬ ted the mind free, and all attempts to influence it by tem¬ poral punishment, or burdens, or by civil incapaciations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerated ancestors, in their migra¬ tion to this country and their settlement of this State, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing State may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments ; we therefore declare, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any relig¬ ious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfil¬ ment of his own voluntai y contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office ; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to wor¬ ship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess, and by arguments to maintain, his opinions 13 . r»S CONSTITUTIONS. 261 in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity.” Art. I. sec. 3. South Carolina —1868—“No person shall be deprived of the right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience: Provided , That the liberty of con¬ science hereby declared shall not justify practices inconsist¬ ent with the peace and moral safety of society.” Art. I. sec. 9. No form of religion shall be established by law; but it shall be the duty of tbe general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peace¬ able enjoyment of its own mode of worship.” Art. I sec. 10. Tennessee —1870—For Art. 1. sec. 3 of this State see Ar¬ kansas Art. II. sec. 24. “ That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State. Art. 1. sec. 4. “ Whereas ministers of the gospel are, by their profes¬ sion, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; there¬ fore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomina¬ tion whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either house of the legislature.” Art. IX. sec. 1.* “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.” ib. sec. 2. Texas —1876—“ No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on ac¬ count of his religious sentiments; provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. Art. I. sec. 4.t “No person shall be disqualified to give evidence in any * Sec. 2. Art. IX. is in force and would be enforced if occasion should require. The desire to encourage religion ; to cultivate morals; to separate as far as possible the State and Church ; and knowing the advantages in ex¬ clusive devotion of ministers of the Gospel to the care of souls, are the reasons and objects of Sec. l. Art. IX. Any minister may abandon preaching entirely and enter politics, and his disqualification lasts only while a bona fide regularly ordained minister. He cannot do both. Yours truly, D. A. Nunn, Sec. of State. f “ Is now in force. I know of no case in which it has been applied.” H. L. Spain, Sec. State. 262 THE UNITED STATES. V. of the courts of this State on account of his religious opin¬ ions, or for the want of any religious belief . . . ib. sec. 5. “All men have a natural and indefeasible right.... No man shall be compelled to attend, erect, . . . No human au¬ thority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with . . . But it shall he the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally .... ib. sec. 6. “No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any sect...” ib. sec. 7. Vermont —1793—That all men have a natural and un¬ alienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no man ought to, or of right can, be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dic¬ tates of his conscience; nor can any man be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can or ought to be vested in or as¬ sumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case inter¬ fere with or in any manner control the rights of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of relig¬ ious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.” Chap. I. Art. III. Virginia —1870—declares— : “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharg¬ ing it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally en¬ titled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dic¬ tates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” * Art. I. sec. 18. “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever; nor shall any man be forced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to pro¬ fess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and the same shall in no wise affect, diminish, or enlarge their civil capacities. And the general assembly * This form is from the first Decl. of Rights, of May 6. A. D. 1776. 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 263 shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or de¬ nomination, or pass any law requiring or authorizing any religious society, or the people of any district within this commonwealth, to levy on themselves or others any tax for the erection or repair of any house of public worship, or for the support of any church or ministry, but it shall be left free to every person to select his religious instructor, and to make for his support such private contract as he shall please. Art. Y. sec. 14. West Virginia —1872—same as Art. V. sec. 14 of Ya. Wisconsin —1848—see Minnesota; and omit: “or amount of property.” To exhibit the advance of thought with regard to the relation of things civil and things religious, the following two extracts are subjoined. The one is from “ The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina — A . D. 1669” —and framed by the distinguished philosopher John Locke ; the other is taken from the “ Frame of Government of Pennsylvania — 1682 — ”, be¬ ing “laws agreed upon in England by William Penn , Governor and chief proprietor of Pensilvania etc. “ Ninety-five. No man shall be permitted to be a freeman of Carolina, or to have any estate or hab¬ itation within it, that doth not acknowledge a God ; and that God is publicly and solemnly to be wor¬ shipped.” u Ninety-six. * As the country comes to be suffi¬ ciently planted and distributed into fit divisions, it *This Art. was not drawn up by Mr. Locke, but in¬ serted by some of the chiefs of the proprietors, against his judgment; as Mr. Locke himself informed one of his friends, to whom he presented a copy of these institutions.” See Char¬ ters and Constitutions by Ben. Perley Poore , Vol. II. p. 1406. 264 THE UNITED STATES. V. shall belong to the parliament to take care for the building of churches, and the public maintenance of divisions, to be employed in the exercise of re¬ ligion, according to the Church of England; which being the only true and orthodox, and the national religion of all the King’s dominions, is so also of Carolina; und, therefore, it alone shall be allowed to receive public maintenance, by grant of parlia¬ ment.” “ Ninety-seven . But since the natives of that place, who will be concerned in our plantation, are utterly strangers to Christianity, whose idolatry, ignorance, or mistake gives us no right to expel or use them ill; and those who move from other parts to plant there will unavoidaly be of different opin¬ ions concerning matters of religion, the liberty whereof they will expect to have allowed them, and it will not be reasonable for us, on this account, to keep them out, that civil peace may be main¬ tained amidst adversity of opinions, and our agree¬ ment and compact with all men may be duly and faithfully observed; the violation whereof, upon what pretence soever, cannot be without great of¬ fence to Almighty God, and great scandal to the true religion which we profess; and also that Jews, heathens, and other dissenters from the purity of the Christian religion may not be scared and kept at a distance from it, but, by having an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the truth and rea¬ sonableness of its doctrines, and the peaceableness and inoffensiveness of its professors, may, by good usage and persuasion, and all those convincing meth¬ ods of gentleness and meakness, suitable to the rules and design of the gospel, be won over to em- ’ 13 . ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 265 brace and unfeignedly receive the truth ; therefore, any seven or more persons agreeing in any religion, shall constitute a church or profession, to which they shall give some name, to distinguish it from others.” u One hundred . In the terms of communion in every church or profession, these following shall be three; without which no agreement or assembly of men, upon pretence of religion, shall be accounted a church or profession within these rules: I. That there is a God. II. That God is publicly to be worshipped. III. That it is lawful and the duty of every man, being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to truth; and that every church or profession shall, in their terms of communion, set down the external way whereby they witness a truth as in the presence of God, whether it is by laying hands on or kissing the bible, as in the Church of England, or by holding up the hand, or any other sensible way.” “ One hundred and one. No person above seven¬ teen years of age shall have any benefit or protec¬ tion of the law, or be capable of any place or profit of honor, who is not a member of some church or profession, having his name recorded in some one, and but one religious record at once.” “ One hundred and nine. No person whatsoever shall disturb, molest, or persecute another for his speculative opinions in religion, or his way of wor¬ ship.”* * This Constitution was never made fully operative. See “Charters and Const, of U. States,” p. 1397. 12 266 THE UNITED STATES. V. Among the Penn laws we find these: “XXXIV. That all Treasurers, Judges, .... and other officers and persons whatsoever, relating to courts . . . . ; and all members elected to serve in the provincial Council and General Assembly, and all that have right to elect such members, shall be such as profess faith in Jesus Christ.” “ XXXV. That all persons living in this prov¬ ince, who confess and acknowledge the one Al¬ mighty and eternal God, to.be the Creator, Up¬ holder and Ruler of the world ; and that hold them¬ selves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall, in no ways, be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion, or prac¬ tice, in matters of faith and worship, nor shall they be compelled, at any time, to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatever.” “XXXVI. That according to the good ex¬ ample of the primitive Christians.every first day of the week, called the Lord’s day, people shall abstain from their common daily labor, that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their own understandings.” ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE AMER¬ ICAN UNION. This, as given by Judge Cooley, shows that the following things are unlawful throughout the Na¬ tion : “ 1. Any law respecting an establishment of re¬ ligion. ITS CONSTITUTIONS. 267 § 13 . “2. Compulsory support , by taxation or otherwise , o/ religious instruction . “3. Compulsory attendance upon religious wor¬ ship . “4. Restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of the conscience . “5. Restraints upon the expression of religious be¬ lief” (Const. Limitations, p. 469.) By the adoption of the XIV. Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, every relig¬ ious test as a qualification for voting or holding office under the Government is forbidden, so that, as far as the National Government comes into ques¬ tion, every such test, as required by a particular State, is in effect made null and void.* The first section of this Amendment declares that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . Finally, it is worthy of note that by the adop¬ tion of Art. V. sec. 14 in 1785-6 by the State of Virginia (see above), Church-Stateism was com¬ pletely swept from the land. “After almost two centuries of Church Establishment, w T ith the vary¬ ing incidents of toleration and persecution, at last,, through the influence of a civil revolution based upon the natural rights of man, Virginia was brought to declare the inviolability of conscience in religion as fundamental to liberty in the State. Religious freedom was no crude experiment of an abstract theory, but a practical conception devel- * The penalty is a proportionate reduction of represen¬ tation in the National Government. 268 THE UNITED STATES. V. oped by long experience. In this view the testi¬ mony of Virginia has the weight of history, as well as the wisdom of philosophy.” ( Thompson , Ch. & St. p. 37.) § 14. ANNOTATIONS, ESPECIALLY ON THE NA¬ TIONAL CONSTITUTION RESPECTING THE RE¬ LATION OF STATE AND CHURCH. ' George Bancroft , speaking of our subject matter, in his very interesting “ History of the Formation of the Constitution ,” says: “No one thought of vindica¬ ting religion for the conscience of the individual till a voice in Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity—by establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all man¬ kind—enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar’s. The rule was upheld during the in¬ fancy of the Gospel for all men. No sooner was the religion adopted by the chief of the Roman Empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy State; and so it continued till the new nation—the least defiled with the barren scoffings of the eighteenth century, the most general believer in Christianity of any people of that age, the chief heir of the Reformation in its purest form—when it came to establish a government for the United States, refused to treat faith as a matter to be regu¬ lated by a corporate body, or having a headship in a monarch or State.” “Vindicating the right of inviduality even in §14. ANNOTATIONS. 269 religion, and in religion above all, the new nation dared to set the example of accepting in its relation to God the principle first divinely ordained in Judea. It left the management of temporal things to the temporal power; .but the American Consti¬ tution, in harmony with the people of the several States, withheld from the federal government the power to invade the home of reason, the citadel of conscience, the sanctuary of the soul; and not from indifference, but that the infinite Spirit of eternal truth might move in its freedom and purity, and power/’ II. p. 325. It is related that, following the adjournment of the convention which framed the Magna Charta of our country, a certain Dr. Miller, of Princeton Col¬ lege, meeting Alexander Hamilton in the streets of Philadelphia, said: u Mr. Hamilton, we are greatly grieved that the Constitution contains no recogni¬ tion of God or of the Christian religion!” To this Hamilton is to have given the answer: “I declare, we forgot it!” If the story is true, then, we fear, Hamilton slightly pervaricated, perhaps to avoid a discussion. President Washington, certainly, did not look upon the omission as a matter of over¬ sight; for when, in 1787, his attention was called to it by a certain Presbytery (Eastward?) of Massa¬ chusetts, he replied: “ I am persuaded you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to acquire but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the ab¬ sence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country. To the guidance of the ministers of the Gospel this important object 270 THE UNITED STATES. v. is, perhaps, more properly committed.” When in connection with this we take into consideration the character of the men constituting that convention, their experience, their circumspection, their dili¬ gent reference to the constitutions of other lands— all of which expressed themselves on the subject of religion—and, lastly, the grand object they had in view, i. e., to establish full religious as well as civil liberty—we cannot but conclude that “the absence of any regulation respecting religion” was wisely intentional and the result of mature deliberation. It is evident that the Constitutions of the sev¬ eral States,—almost without any exceptions—as well as that of the Nation, purposely refrain from fastening any religious confession, even in its most general form, upon the people of the land. There is in none of them neither a denial nor a confes¬ sion of any particular form of religion; no creed is interfered with, and none is enjoined to be propa¬ gated; but the fact of the Christian character of the people generally and, we may add, of the polit¬ ical worth of religion, is recognized : and protec¬ tion, nothing more, is accorded to every mode of worship, provided it be not found inconsistent with the public peace and safety. This position, assumed by the framers of our National Constitution, has from that time on to this day been misunderstood by many, both among the friends and enemies of religion. While its friends have deeply deplored the fact that the Christian religion has received no formal recogni¬ tion, its enemies have chuckled over it as though it were a triumph of infidelity. But viewed his- 14 . ANNOTATIONS. 271 torically, and properly interpreted, the attitude there assumed is not one of indifference and, least of all, of hostility to the cause of religion. The illustrious authors of our national Magna Charta were themselves professors mostly of the Christian faith. Never would this grand instru¬ ment of State have received the approval and sig¬ nature of such men as Washington, Sherman, King, Gov. Morris, C. C. Pinckney, Madison, Livingston, and others, did it in any way imply a denial of their most holy convictions or contravene their most sacred interests. No, they held that the in¬ terests of both the Church and the State would be best subserved were these kept separate and each left to itself in the management of its own affairs. “ It has been concluded,” says a certain writer, “ that Christianity cannot have any direct connec¬ tion with the Constitution of the United States, on the ground that the instrument contains no express declaration to that effect. But the error of such a conclusion becomes manifest when we reflect that the same is the case with regard to several other truths, which are, notwithstanding, fundamental in our constitutional system. The Declaration of In¬ dependence says that ‘ governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and that, 1 whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government.’ These principles lie at the foundation of the Con¬ stitution of the United States. No principles in the Constitution are more fundamental than these. 272 THE UNITED STATES. V. But the instrument contains no declaration to this effect; these principles are nowhere mentioned in it; and the references to them are equally slight and indirect with those which are made to the Christian religion. The same may be said of the great republican truth that political sovereignty re¬ sides in the people of the United States. If, then, any one may rightfully conclude that Christianity has no connection with the Constitution of the United States because this is nowhere expressly de¬ clared in the instrument, he ought, in reason, to be equally convinced that the same Constitution is not built upon and does not recognize the sovereignty of the people, and the great republican truths above quoted from the Declaration of Independence. This argument receives additional strength when we con¬ sider that the Constitution of the United States was founded directly for political and not for religious objects. The truth is, they are equally fundamen¬ tal, though neither of them is expressly mentioned in the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution con¬ templates, and is fitted for, such a state of society as Christianity alone can form. It contemplates a state of society in which strict integrity, simplicity, and purity of manners, wide diffusion of knowl¬ edge, well-disciplined passions, and w r ise modera¬ tion, are the general characteristics of the people. These virtues, in our nation, are the offspring of Christianity, and without the continued general belief of its doctrines and practice of its precepts they will gradually decline and eventually perish.” Whether now the Christian religion, in its most general principles, is really fundamental to §14. ANNOTATIONS. 273 the Constitution of our country or not, the reader may judge for himself. That it was drawn up by men such as entertained a deep respect for relig¬ ion, and among whom there were many who pro¬ fessed Christianity and were members of church; that it was intended for a people generally devoted to the Christian religion; that it has rendered the greatest service which a national document of its kind can possibly render the Church, by establish¬ ing absolute religious freedom, by closely distin¬ guishing between the provinces of politics and re¬ ligion, by forbidding ecclesiastical establishments as also the requirement of any religious, test as a qualification to any public office—such are indis¬ putable facts and they show beyond a shadow of doubt that the instrument throughout is friendly, yes, highly serviceable, to the cause of religion. A more wise, safe and beneficent political treat¬ ment than that which the matter of religion re¬ ceives at the hands of our government, could not be devised; it is in full accord with the precept of Christ Himself, to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. “ Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendment to it,” says Judge Story in speaking of this matter, “ the gen¬ eral, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encourage¬ ment from the State, so far as such encouragement was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a 274 THE UNITED STATES. V. matter of state policy to hold all in utter indiffer¬ ence, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.” (Com. on the Const. § 1874.) And again: “ The real object of the Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which would give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.” (ib. 1877.) “Whatever, in¬ deed, may have been the desire of many persons of a deep religious feeling to have embodied some provision on this subject in the Constitution, it may be safely affirmed that hitherto the absence has not been felt as an evil; and that while Chris¬ tianity continues to be the belief of the enlight¬ ened and wise and pure among the electors, it is impossible that infidelity can find an easy home in the House of Representatives.” (ib. § 622 on Art. VI., § 3, of the Const.) “The same policy,” says this eminent jurist, “which introduced into the Constitution the prohibition of any religious test, led to this more extended prohibition of the interference of Congress in religious concerns.” (See first Amend.) “We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and espe¬ cially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitu¬ tion), but to a dread by the people of the influence of ecclesiastical power in matters of government, —a dread which their ancestors brought with them from the parent country, and which, unhappily 14. ANNOTATIONS. 275 for human infirmity, their own conduct, after their emigration, had not in any just degree tended to diminish. It was also obvious, from the numerous and powerful sects in the United States, that there would be perpetual temptations to struggles for ascendency in the national councils, if any one might thereby hope to found a permanent and ex¬ clusive national establishment of its own; and re¬ ligious persecutions might thus be introduced, to an extent utterly subversive of the true interests and good order of the republic. The most effectual mode of suppressing the evil, in the view of the people, was to strike down the temptations to its introduction. How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a matter much discussed by writers upon public and political law . . . The right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who be¬ lieve that piety, religion, and morality are inti¬ mately connected with the well-being of the State and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion,—the being and attributes and provi¬ dence of one Almighty God, the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral ac¬ countability, a future state of rewards and punish¬ ments, the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues,—these never can be a mat¬ ter of indifference in a well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civil¬ ized society can exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to 276 THE UNITED STATES. Y. doubt that it is the special duty of Government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits to which Government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. 11 (ib. § 1871.) When the distinguished commentator here speaks of it as a “ special duty of Government to foster and en¬ courage 1 ’ the Christian religion, and that concern¬ ing this Christians themselves can have no doubts, the language, indeed, is very strong. However the context clearly indicates that the fostering of Christianity here spoken of as a duty of State is such as in no way interferes with the enjoyment of full religious liberty by its every subject—a foster¬ ing and encouragement of religion, therefore, of a rather indirect kind is meant, such as it receives, for example, by a zealous vindication of its right to freedom, to protection, and to friendly consider¬ ation, but not by such questionable favors as are test-acts, establishments, taxation, etc. On this fundamental law of our National Con¬ stitution one of the most concise, lucid and cor¬ rect expositions is given in his “ Commentaries ” by James Bayard , of Delaware. He says: “It has been made an objection to the Constitution, by some, that it makes no mention of religion, contains no recognition of the existence and providence of God,—as though His authority were slighted or disregarded. But such is not the reason of the 14. ANNOTATIONS. 277 omission. The convention which framed the Con¬ stitution comprised some of the wisest and best men of the nation,—men who were firmly persuaded not only of the divine origin of the Christian re¬ ligion, but also of its importance to the temporal and eternal welfare of men. The people, too, of this country were generally impressed with relig¬ ious feelings, and felt and acknowledged the super¬ intendence of God, who had protected them through the perils of war and blessed their exertions to obtain civil and religious freedom. But there were reasons why the introduction of religion into the Constitution would have been unreasonable, if not improper.” u In the first place, it was intended exclusively for civil purposes, and religion could not be regu¬ larly mentioned, because it made no part of the agreement between the parties. They were about to surrender a portion of their civil rights for the security of the remainder; but each retained his religious freedom, entire and untouched, as a mat¬ ter between himself and his God, with which gov¬ ernment could not interfere. But, even if this reason had not existed, it would have been diffi¬ cult, if not impossible, to use any expression on the subject which would have given general satis¬ faction. The difference between the various sects of Christians is such, that, while all have much in common, there are many points of variance: so that in an instrument where all are entitled to equal consideration it would be difficult to use terms in which all could cordially join.” “Besides, the whole Constitution was a com- 278 THE UNITED STATES. y. promise, and it was foreseen that it would meet with great opposition before it could be • finally adopted. It was, therefore, important to restrict its provisions to things absolutely necessary, so as to give as little room as possible to cavil. More¬ over, it was impossible to introduce into it even an * expression of gratitude to the Almighty for the formation of the present government; for, when the Constitution was framed and submitted to the people, it was entirely uncertain whether it would ever be ratified, and the government might, there¬ fore, never be established/ 5 “The prohibition of any religious test for of¬ fice was wise, because its admission would lead to hypocrisy and corruption. The purity of religion is best preserved by keeping it separate from gov¬ ernment ; and the surest means of giving to it its proper influence in society is the dissemination of correct principles through education. The ex¬ perience of this country has proved that religion may flourish in all its vigor and purity without the aid of a national establishment; and the re¬ ligious feeling of the community is the best guar¬ antee for the religious administration of the gov¬ ernment. 55 Taking into consideration the history of their conception, the character of the people concerned, the times and circumstances attending their pro¬ mulgation, and the grand results achieved by their application, a careful analysis of the spirit as well as the letter of the fundamental laws of our coun¬ try gives us the following happy results as to the position assumed upon the important subject of re¬ ligion by our Constitution: §14. ANNOTATIONS. 279 1. It takes account of the fact that the people of the United States are a religious people; and, by implication, it has regard to the general char¬ acter of the prevailing religion, as also to the diver¬ sity of its confessional forms. 2. In many of its principles and laws there are unmistakable evidences that the people by whom, and for whom, it is framed, are professors of the Christian religion, if not of the Protestant religion. 3. For itself and for the government as such, it makes no profession of religion, not even the most general; nor does it require any such profes¬ sion of any one of its subjects, be his station private or public. 4. It secures to all alike the full enjoyment of religious freedom: neither itself interferes with the faith of the individual, nor does it allow others to do so where such interference is incompatible with the freedom of conscience it guarantees to all. 5. It forbids the government in any of its functions to be employed as an instrument for the direct propagation of any particular religion. 6. It does neither bid nor forbid the general encouragement of religion by the government in so far as this can be done without a violation of the rights of conscience secured to the individual sub¬ jects. 7. In no respect a hindrance, it proves itself a friend and help to the cause of religion in a thousand ways more or less direct. Our great and good Master tells us that our Father which is in heaven “maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain 280 THE UNITED STATES. y. on the just and on the unjust.” Will any one be so foolish as to maintain that this action of the Father and this teaching of the Son indicate that God cares not whether men be evil or good, just or unjust? that if in this particular He seem to make no distinctions, none are made at all? that the Holy One loves and favors the godly no more than the impious, the child no more than the bastard? No, indeed! Likewise when the people of the United States, taught by a higher than earthly wisdom, and whether all believe this or not, secure to themselves the inestimable treasure of religious freedom, they do not thereby mean to say that they care not whether a man use or abuse the treasure thus secured to him. The Constition is a political document; it secures to the subject politi¬ cal rights; as to religion it can properly do no¬ thing, and nothing more than declare it a matter beyond its jurisdiction and to see to it that every one of its subjects be left free and undisturbed in his relation to his God. This is a sphere wherein God alone will rule and legislate, and wherein He will admit of no coercion by man and the laws of man. In looking at the glorious principles of our Magna Charta, we find that we have many, many things for which we ought to be heartily grateful to Him who fashioneth the hearts of men and who holds in His hands the destinies of nations; but among them all there is none so great and precious as is the liberty of each and all to worship God ac¬ cording to the dictates of conscience. §15. INCONSISTENCIES. 281 §15. INCONSISTENCIES OF PRACTICES WITH PRIN¬ CIPLES, APPARENT AND OTHERWISE. It remains for us to investigate how certain particular features, in part of the National and in part of the several State Constitutions, accord with the general principles of the fundamental law of our Government; then also, in what measure legis¬ lation and practice are in keeping with the spirit of complete religious liberty. There are many things which indicate at least a seeming departure from the basis assumed. Negatively, and especi¬ ally in matters of distinctively Christian morals, we have laws prohibiting polygamy, adultery, im¬ moral exhibitions, blasphemy, disturbances of re¬ ligious exercises, disregard of certain religious days, etc. Positively we have our Sundays, our days of humiliation and of thanksgiving, our chaplains in Congress and in the army, the administration of oaths in the name of the Deity, church-property ex¬ empt from taxation, clergymen from conscription, etc. These are matters .legally ordered, though mostly by State and not by National legislation. The question arises, on what grounds are such enactments or proclamations, as the case may be, based? Possibly, an answer fully satisfactory can be given with regard to each of the things enum¬ erated, but there may be many unable to furnish it. Were we to inquire, for example, why have we 12 * 282 THE UNITED STATES. V. a Sunday by the law of the land in which we live, we venture to say that nine answers out of ten would point us to the Decalogue. In other words : we would be told that, whereas God has instituted the Sabbath, our Government as a matter of course must command its observance. Yet no answer made could be more fallacious, and, in its logical workings, more disastrous to our theory of govern¬ ment. And here we do not refer to the question whether or not the divine law of the Sabbath is of universal application,—a matter on which Chris¬ tians themselves are divided—, but to the utterly false political principle on which the answer is based, to wit: that whatever God has forbidden or bidden must also for that very reason be forbidden or bidden by the law of the land. On such grounds every biblical injunction and precept would have to be embodied, as an integral part thereof, in our legal code; and whither such a pro¬ cedure would lead us, it is not difficult to foresee. The distinction between politics and religion, the State and the Church, would thus be completely wiped out, and there would ensue a condition of affairs more woful than the world has ever known. In our day, and in our land especially, because Church and State are separate, no civil statute can be based directly upon purely religious grounds. The true rationale , therefore, of laws such as have a religious significance, and as we have named above, must be sought elsewhere. It is not proposed here to discuss every law and custom which seem to stand in direct connec¬ tion with Christianity and possibly in conflict 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 283 with our system of government. From among them we select three, each differing more or less from the others; and these will serve the purpose of bringing out all those points which may be necessary to understand such as are here passed by. The law of the observance of Sunday, the law punishing blasphemy, and the law creating and regulating the office of chaplains to the Govern¬ ment—these are the specimen statutes now to be reviewed with a special reference to the question whether they are in full harmony with the prin¬ ciple of a perfect religious freedom and with a complete legal separation of State and Church. Throughout this discussion we hold fast chiefly to two principles, and which we derive from the analysis given towards the close of the preceding section, first: that, according to the spirit of our Constitution and of good government, it is unlaw¬ ful to legislate in positive support of any religion and, on the other hand, in direct opposition to it; secondly: that, according to the letter of our Con¬ stitution, our government may indirectly help or hinder the cause of religion in so far as that can be done without violating the rights of individual consciences and abridging the liberty secured to them. Whatever may be its worth, the fact is that re¬ ligion has a strong hold upon the hearts and affec¬ tions of our people. Equally true is it that the prevailing religion is, fundamentally at least, the Christian. As these are facts which were kept constantly in view when the Constitution was framed, so must they be in order properly to inter- 284 THE UNITED STATES. V. pret it and rightly to build on it in all subsequent legislation. Be the views a legislator personally entertains concerning the religion of the people whatever they may, he must take it into account —not for a moment must he forget, when the sub¬ ject of religion is touched, that dearer to the hearts of the people than their country and their coun¬ try's laws are to them their God and their Master’s Word. This must teach him that to legislate against God and His commands will result in dis¬ order and revolution—the very opposite of the ob¬ ject which a law must accomplish. But more than that: the indissoluble bond between the moral and religious sentiment and of good government must not.be overlooked. Every law promulgated in violation of a people’s religion is a blow directed at the very foundation of gov¬ ernment itself; on the other hand every law which is in accord with the religion of those for whom it is intended and which offers them an opportunity to practice their religion, and yet does not coerce it, is calculated to strengthen the building of State. Insignificant and unimportant as in themselves they may appear, the best and most serviceable laws of a country are those which, though they are not directly based on divine precepts, yet posi¬ tively invite the exercise of the citizen’s moral and religious powers. Then also is it a mistake to suppose that a complete separation between the State and the Church implies an utter disregard of religion by the former. Were such the case, then would their separation be a wrong in itself; and had our Government ever acted on such erroneous 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 285 supposition, then were it long ago a thing of the past. The truths which we have thus briefly re¬ asserted are all in full accord with the American idea, form, law, and practice, of government; and if the institution of Sunday, the resentment of blasphemy and the appointment of chaplains are shown to be in harmony with them, then are they also in full harmony with our most sacred prin¬ ciple of government, i. e., religious liberty, the in¬ alienable right of man. Sunday , according to Art. I. sec. 7 of the Fed¬ eral Constitution, is regarded as a dies non . Offi¬ cially, the day is not reckoned; the departments of State are closed, business is suspended, and pro¬ vision is made for its observance by the army and navy. In most, if not in all, of the several States of the Union, the manner of its observance is to some extent regulated by law. Whether or not to institute Sunday, could not be a question with the authors of our Constitution; they found it already established and observed by the people, and accord¬ ingly they recognized and respected it. For this there must have been good reason, since it must have been foreseen that the fact of one dies non out of every seven would be attended by serious incon¬ veniences and, under certain circumstances, might possibly produce deplorable results. Then, too, the reasons assigned could not have been purely re¬ ligious, as we have already had occasion to point out; they must have been political in their nature. What, in the minds of our fathers when they de¬ vised the Constitution, these were on the point under consideration, we are unable to say; we can 286 THE UNITED STATES. V. only point out such reasons as might have been given had any been asked for. Sunday has a double signification, a religious and a civil; it is a day of worship and a day of rest and recreation. In either of its aspects, however, its legal sanction will stand the test of the strictest civil jurisprudence. We here revert to the princi¬ ple that no laws dare be enacted which stand in opposition to the acknowledged will of God and the faith of the general body of the people, because all such laws are subversive of government. Among these we would have to class any law or legislation whereby the religious observance of Sunday were rendered practically impossible or even were wholly abolished. Were our Government to deprive the people of this day, its days would soon be num¬ bered ; and this for various reasons. Many of our people believe that Sunday is divinely instituted; others require its observance because the interests of religion imperatively demand it; add to these all those who respect it because of its beneficent influ¬ ence upon the moral sentiment, and you have be¬ fore you a community of men so vast in number, formidable in strength and excellent in character^ that not to hear its voice and heed its will were the hight of political folly. Whether the religious be¬ lief which leads the great majority of the people to demand the legal sanction of Sunday be well founded or not, or whether their motives be pure or not—these are points on which it is not the business of the law and the law-makers to decide. The mere fact that the general body of the people wants a day of worship is enough to give a solid 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 287 foundation to the law which respects the will so expressed. Especially must the popular will be heeded in this matter because of its religious na¬ ture, on the ground that religion is the source and strength of all true morality—of that morality with¬ out which all law and order are absolute impossi¬ bilities. This consideration likewise forbids the abolition of the day and the denial of protection to those who desire to keep it holy. The idea that this matter might be wholly passed by in legislation and left to the people for adjustment, is entirely impracticable. Let us point out but one difficulty of the many which would present themselves. On the subject under consid¬ eration the people of the United States may be said to be divided into three classes. The one, compara¬ tively small, wants no rest-day of any kind ; the Jews, as the other, want the seventh day of the week; while the third, the community generally, holds to the first day. In the absence now of all * laws and regulations, a wealthy manufacturer, say, but an enemy to the Christian’s Sunday, would no doubt offer employment only on the alternative either to labor seven days in the week or not at all, and thus induce many men to violate their con¬ sciences and to neglect their most holy interests, or to do without all employment offered on such terms. The dissatisfaction, the disorder and the manifold injuries resulting from such a state of affairs can readily be imagined. And yet this is but one view of the policy of no-action. Besides, the Govern¬ ment itself employs thousands of men, and among these all classes are represented; and it must an- 288 THE UNITED STATES. y. swer the question whether these shall work without regard to a day of rest or not, and whether their desire to sanctify a stated day unto the Lord shall be granted or not. Its decision is well known—the Christian Sunday has been declared a dies non. When now we regard Sunday merely as a day of rest and recreation, entirely different reasons for its appointment can be set forth. These are quite numerous and can no more than be mentioned here. To discuss the various advantages of a regularly recurring day of rest, many pages would be neces¬ sary. Physically, man stands in need of the repose which such a day offers him; it promotes cleanli¬ ness in the home, and of person as well; it offers opportunities for innocent enjoyments and whole¬ some exercise, and in many other ways proves itself conducive to good health. Intellectually, man may be improved by it in consequence of its inducements to private study and attendance on public instruction. Socially, think of the oppor¬ tunities it offers for domestic fellowship and friendly intercourse. We are here reminded of the thou¬ sands of husbands and fathers who, compelled to toil from early morning till late at night, were it not for Sunday, would rarely enjoy the keen pleas¬ ure of converse with those to whom their hearts and lives are most dearly devoted. Lastly also we would here name its business advantages: a cheer¬ ful spirit, a well-rested body, improved health—all blessings acquired on Sunday by many workmen— are followed by diligent application, skillful execu¬ tion and hence by increased production and greater prosperity generally. Indeed, that government 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 289 which cannot see the great and varied advantages derived from a weekly holiday of the people, must be stone-blind. No, we cannot afford to do without it: both our personal and public welfare demand its observance. How the day is to be kept and best enjoyed, each one is left free to decide for himself, subject however to some legal restrictions determined by the States. No law can compel any one to observe it as a day of worship; on the other hand, every one who desires to keep it holy, is entitled to pro¬ tection in its sanctification. Hence our laws gener¬ ally forbid all entertainments, exhibitions, reviews, and other things calculated to interfere with and disturb the religious observance of our Sunday. 66 As a civil and political institution,” says Jus¬ tice Allen, “the establishment and regulation of a Sabbath is within the just power of the civil Gov¬ ernment. Older than our Government, the framers of the Constitution did not abolish, alter, or weaken its sanction, but recognized it, as they might other¬ wise have established it. It is a law of our nature that one day in seven should be observed as a time of relaxation, and experience proves a day of weekly rest to be ‘of admirable service to a State, consid¬ ered merely as a civil institution.’ (4 Bl. Com. 63). Physical laws accord with the Decalogue. All in¬ terests require national uniformity in the day ob¬ served, and that its observance should be so far compulsory as to protect those who desire and are entitled to the day. . . . Nor is it a violation of the rights of conscience of any that the Sabbath of the people, immemorially enjoyed, sanctioned by IB 290 THE UNITED STATES. V. common law, and recognized in the Constitution, should be respected and protected by the law-making power. Offenses against it” (i. e. an act to regulate the observance of Sunday) “ are punish¬ able not as sins against God, but as injurious to society. . . .” Lindenmuller vs. the People. Sup. Court, N. York/ 1861.) Common law, the Federal and the State Con¬ stitutions, State and municipal legislation through¬ out the Union, all respect the day ; and, as we are as¬ sured by the eminent authority just quoted, all the courts of the land—California excepted—have ren¬ dered their decisions accordingly. Certain it is that, while a disregard of Sunday as a day of wor¬ ship and its abolition by law would be in flat con¬ tradiction to the principles of religious liberty ; the sanction of it, without prescribing its religious ob¬ servance, is not only in full accord with the idea of liberty, and the rights of conscience in particular, but is even demanded by them. Not because God has so commanded it have we a legal holy-day, but because it is our right and reasonable w T ill to have it; and this its true civil foundation is strength¬ ened by the great civil worth of its proper observ¬ ance. Blasphemy , according to Blackstone, is denying the being and providence of God, contumelious re¬ proaches of our Savior Christ, and profane scoffing at the Holy Scripture, or exposing it to contempt and ridicule. This definition* scripturally and the¬ ologically correct as it may be, is too comprehen¬ sive and in part too indefinite to be applicable in civil jurisprudence. Within the sphere of jurispru- 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 291 dence the definition must evidently exclude much which in theology would be termed blasphemy. Much more serviceable is the definition which de¬ clares it to be the act of wantonly uttering or pub¬ lishing words which cast contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon any person of the Holy Trin¬ ity, or upon the Deity of Christianity. Thus de¬ fined, blasphemy is an offence punishable at com¬ mon law, and by statute in many of the States of the Union. Infidelity, atheism, and religious beliefs op¬ posed to Christianity, are not punishable; neither is their temperate profession and defense. This it will be well to note. The law forbids no one the right of forming an opinion wholly adverse even to the Christian’s belief in God, nor of frankly ex¬ pressing his objections to Christianity; but it will not allow him openly and maliciously to ridicule and revile the Christian’s God, his faith and his Bible. Such being the case, are the laws directed against blasphemy, within these limits, compatible with the freedom of conscience and with the enjoy¬ ment of religious liberty accorded to every indi¬ vidual by the Constitution as a matter of natural right ? Beyond all doubt there are good grounds for legislating against blasphemy, as defined. Nega¬ tively, we take it as a matter of course that no one is constrained by conscience either to deride or to curse a Being in whose very existence he professes not to believe. True, the conscience of some people must be a queer thing, if there be any sincerity in their appeal to it; but a “conscience ” which urges a man to blaspheme, is a thing thus far wholly un¬ known to our jurisprudence; it can therefore not 292 THE UNITED STATES. V. expect that any attention be paid to it. We con¬ clude, that the possibility even of detracting from the rights of conscience by a law prohibiting blas¬ phemy is wholly out of the question. Rather do the rights of conscience demand the enactment of such laws and their rigid enforcement. We 'take it as a matter of course, also, that, in society with his fellows, a man has not the liberty to say what he pleases and to speak as he pleases. In other words: no appeal can be here taken to freedom of speech also in matters pertaining to religion. Even were an absolute freedom of speech a personal right, it is not a right without restrictions within that sphere of law which regulates man’s relation to man. In this, in order to secure and preserve the true virtue and good of our common rights and liberties, we must deny and restrain the pleasure of our will in many things; here it is entirely useless, in excuse of our extravagance, wantonness, licentiousness, etc., to appeal to our personal rights, real or imaginary. But blasphemy, in the light of liberty, is an extrav¬ agance and an abuse, and can therefore be declared criminal without the least infringement of human rights and of true liberty. But there are positive reasons for the law under consideration. Our laws declare blasphemy a cul¬ pable offence, not because it is a sin against God, nor because it is an act wholly useless and vain every way you look at it, but because it is a direct injury to society. It is a malicious and violent at¬ tack upon things most sacred and dear to the hearts of the great mass of our people; as it is an expres¬ sion, so is it creative, of ill will, and hence it is calcu- §15. INCONSISTENCIES. 293 lated to disturb the public tranquility; it is de¬ structive of the moral sentiment, and therefore tends to undermine the foundations of good govern¬ ment. If you, my neighbor, do not like the style of my house, you are fully entitled to your distaste; you are free to express your dislike; you may rea¬ son with me about it and try to get me to look at it and judge of it as you do; if you can, you may in¬ duce me to remodel or wholly to rebuild it, agreea¬ bly to your taste; or, failing in this, in order to rid yourself of the eye-sore, you may, as a last resort, buy it and then demolish it or do w T ith it what you please. Thus far, all your efforts to accomplish a certain end, even though they may annoy me very much, are perfectly lawful; but should you begin to throw mud or stones at my house, or set fire to it, or make it worthless by means of some nuisance, or otherwise injure it, then would I expect the law to protect me against all such criminal violence. But now, more highly than all his earthly treasures does the Christian esteem his God and prize his Bible and his faith ; and precious as these things are to me, to you they may be more obnoxious than we have supposed my house to be distasteful. If such be the case, within the sphere of the law you are at liberty to do many things indeed to deprive me of my treasures, free and decent discussion of religion being fully in order; but against the use of all abusive and scurrilous language respecting my God, my Bible and my faith, I am entitled to pro¬ tection. Such is my right; and when blasphemy is declared by law T an offense and punishable as a 294 THE UNITED STATES. V. misdemeanor, its prime object is to protect me in my right and to preserve the peace. “ It has long been firmly settled that blas¬ phemy against the Deity generally, or an attack on the Christian religion indirectly, for the purpose of exposing its doctrines to ridicule and contempt, is indictable and punishable as a temporal offence. The principles and actual decisions are that the publications, whether written or oral, must be ma¬ licious, and designed for that end and purpose. . . . A malicious and mischievous intention is, in such a case, the broad boundary between right and wrong, and that it is to be collected from the offen¬ sive levity, scurrilous and opprobrious language, and other circumstances, whether the act of' the party was malicious. No society can tolerate a wilful and despiteful attempt to subvert its re¬ ligion any more than it would to break down its laws. Without these restraints no govern¬ ment could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that their punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our Government. They are far from being the friends to liberty who support this doctrine; and the promulgation of such opinions, and the general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunner of anarchy, and, finally, of despotism. While our own free Constitution secures liberty of conscience and free¬ dom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country. These two privileges are directly 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 295 opposed. It is an open, public vilification of the religion of the country that is punished, not to force conscience by punishment but to preserve the peace of the country by an outward respect to the religion of the country, and not as a restraint upon the liberty of the conscience; but licentiousness, endangering the public peace, when tending to corrupt society, is considered as a breach of the peace, and punishable by indictment. Every im¬ moral act is not indictable; but when it is de¬ structive of morality generally it is, because it weakens the bonds by which society is held to¬ gether, and government is nothing more than pub¬ lic order. ... If, from a regard to decency and the good order of society, profane swearing, breach of the Sabbath, and blasphemy, are punishable by civil magistrates, these are not punished as sins or offences against God, but as crimes injurious to, and having a malignant influence on, society ; for it is certain that by these practices no one pretends to prove any supposed truths, detect any supposed error, or advance any sentiment whatever.” (De¬ cision of S. Court of Penn, in 1824.) We close with an extract from an opinion given on this subject by Chief Justice Kent in 1811: “ The authorities show that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches and profane rid¬ icule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, which are equally treated as blasphemy, are offences punish¬ able at common law .... because they tend to corrupt the morals of the people and to destroy good order. Such offences have always been con¬ sidered independent of any religious establishment 296 THE UNITED STATES. y. or the right of the Church. There is nothing in our manners and institutions which has prevented the application or the necessity of the common law. We stand equally in need now as formerly of all that moral discipline and of those principles of virtue which help to bind society together. The people .... profess the general doctrines of Chris¬ tianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the Author of these doctrines is not only in a religious point of view extremely im¬ pious, but even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the vir¬ tuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful. It would go to confound all distinction between things sacred and profane. . . . . The very idea of jurisprudence, with the ancient lawgivers and philosophers, embraced the religion of the country.” (Supreme Court of New York, etc.) The Appointment of Chaplains. At the meeting of the first Congress following the adoption of the Constitution in 1789, a committee was appointed to confer with a committee of the House u on rules and the appointment of chaplains.” This resulted in the engagement of two chaplains, one by each House; hence the custom, continued till now, of chaplains to our national legislature. Likewise, chaplains to our navy and army have been ap¬ pointed from the date of their organizations, as also to West Point, the military school of our nation. 15. INCONSISTENCIES. 297 Later in the history of our Government, Con¬ gress has been petitioned at different times to abolish the office of chaplain on the grounds, as asserted by the petitioners, of its unconstitution¬ ality. What the motives of the petitioners were, whether friendly or inimical to religion, we are not able to say, not knowing the character of the par¬ ties nor being acquainted with the text of their memorial. In answer to one of these papers, Mr. Meacham from the Committee on the Judiciary made a very lengthy report to the House in March, 1854. To the Senate, Mr. Badger reported on the same subject in January, 1853. From these re¬ ports, respectively adopted by both branches of the National Legislature, it is evident that there can be little doubt about the constitutionality of the office, as far as the letter of our great instru¬ ment of State is concerned. In the light of its spirit, however, the point to be made is not so clear and satisfactory. For ourselves we frankly confess our inability to reconcile the office in question with the principles of the rights of conscience and of religious freedom, which we claim in their fulness and perfection to be fundamental in our system of law. Our difficulty here arises not from any objec¬ tions which might be urged against it even from a strictly religious point of view, such as the partial suppression of the truth on the part of the minister officiating, and syncretism on the part of the per¬ sons hearing. These, of course, are matters en¬ tirely foreign to civil jurisprudence. But there are two elements in the appointment of chaplains, and in the instructions attending it, which are wholly extraneous to and contradict our funda- 298 THE UNITED STATES. V. mental idea of government on the subject which they affect. The one is, religious coercion; the other, the use of public funds for religious pur¬ poses. Unless the law has been changed, “ the commanders of all ships and vessels in the navy,” for example, are enjoined to “cause all, or as many of the ship's company as can be spared from duty, to attend every performance of the worship of Almighty God.” Possibly, now, no compulsion is intended nor practiced wherever such chaplains may have been stationed by the Government: if so, the first objection would fall away. Though on this point we are unable to give certain informa¬ tion, on the second we labor under no such disad¬ vantage. Both of the committees referred to above have grappled with this objection; but, in our humble opinion, they have failed to conquer though they were declared the victors by the bodies which had commissioned them. “It is objected,” says Mr. Meacham,” that we pay money from the treasury for this office. That is certainly true; and equally true in regard to the sergeant-at-arms and door-keeper, who, with the chaplain, are appointed under the general au¬ thority to organize the house. Judge Thompson, chairman of this committee in the Thirty-First Congress, in a very able report on this subject, said, that if the cost of chaplains to Congress were equally divided among the people, it would not be annually more than the two hundreth part of one cent to each person. That being true, a man who lives under the protection of this Government and pays taxes for fifty years will have to lay aside INCONSISTENCIES. 299 from his hard earnings two and a half mills during his half-century for the purpose of supporting chap¬ lains to Congress! This is the weight of pecuniary burden which the committee are called to lift from off the neck of the people.” This is all the gentle¬ man has to say in explanation and justification of the point at issue; in reality he says nothing at all, but wholly evades the gist of the matter before him. Evidently the complaint is not that the tax levied is a pecuniary burden, but that the funds are in part misappropriated, and that too in a mat¬ ter affecting the consciences of men. The question to be decided is, whether the Government, in har¬ mony with fundamental law, has a right to em¬ ploy men to minister in affairs religious and to use the money of the people for that purpose. On this point the gentleman utterly fails to throw any light. It can be readily seen that if Congress has the right to expend one dollar from the public treasury for religious purposes, it has the right to so appropriate millions—the principle being the same in all cases. Surrender this, and the rights of conscience are no longer secure and may at any time be trampled upon with impunity. Mr. Badger would meet the objection as fol¬ lows: “Let it be seen, then, to what this objection leads. If carried out to its fair results, it will equally apply to many other accommodations fur¬ nished to members of Congress at the public ex¬ pense. We have messengers who attend to our private business, take checks to the bank for us, receive the money, or procure bank drafts, and dis¬ charge various other offices for our personal ease 300 THE UNITED STATES. v. and benefit, unconnected with the despatch of any public function. Why might it not be said that members, if they wish to have these services per¬ formed in their behalf, should employ and pay their own agents? Members of Congress come here to attend upon the business of the public. Many of them are professed members of religious socie¬ ties; more are men of religious sentiment; and these desire not only to have the blessing of God invoked upon them in their legislative capacities, but to attend the public worship of God. But how are all to be accommodated in the churches of the city? And of those who belong to either House of Congress some have not the means to procure such accommodations for themselves. Where, then, is the impropriety of having an officer to discharge these duties ? And how is it more a subject of just complaint than to have officers who attend to the private secular business of the members? ” Such is, in full, Mr. Badger’s answer, or rather counter-question, to the point of complaint. It will be noticed that, what is incidentally referred to by Mr. Meacham, is here made to serve as an argument; namely, that the office of a chaplain is to be viewed as a mere accommodation like that of a page, a sergeant-at-arms, a doorkeeper, etc. But the analogy is anything but complete; and the matter of grievance is found in the difference. Whereas conscience and religion need have noth¬ ing to do with the appointment of a doorkeeper and of a page to members of Congress and with their support from the treasury, conscience and religion do have a great deal to do with the employment INCONSISTENCIES. 301 and support of an officer ministering in religion. Then, we believe the churches of Washington city are both able and willing to attend to all the re¬ ligious wants of our Congressmen; but supposing such not to be the case, it is not the business of our Government to “accommodate” its officers with religious ministrations any more than it is thus to accommodate any of its private citizens. As these must provide their own churches and clergy, so let Congressmen do, if they choose: a point against them, and the custom they would uphold, surely well taken. Nor will the plea of poverty be of any avail here; the proper way to meet that is, not to buy the bread of body and of soul for them but, so to remunerate them for their services as to enable each to supply his every want as he may deem best. Lastly, we are pointed to the fact that many of its members desire the blessing of God to be invoked upon the labors of the day. All honor to such men; and may there be none other! But this is done by the devout and patriotic citizens of our land; then this can be, and we hope is, done also by the members individually. And whereas more cannot be done without the sacrifice of most holy and precious principles, that is sufficient to render the work of legislation ac¬ ceptable in the sight of God as far as it is within the power of prayer to do so. One of the chief objections to an ecclesiastical establishment—a thing wholly repugnant to the letter and spirit of our Constitution—is the sup¬ port of religion by enforced taxation. This same evil we have, though it be but in a measure small, 302 THE UNITED STATES. V. in the appointment of chaplains at the public ex¬ pense, and in the people’s name and behalf. A little reflection will show that in this particular feature there is virtually no difference between the clergy of an Establishment and a chaplain to our Congress, Army or Navy. § 16. GENERAL REVIEW OF PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES, AND THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZ¬ ING THEM. That God and the fear, love and trust of God are ultimately the only real and safe foundation of all good law and order, there can be no doubt. It is a fact divinely revealed and taught, logically reasonable and creditable, historically confirmed and demonstrated, and religiously believed and con¬ fessed by humanity without any exceptions worth the notice. Now whether a system of law and or¬ der make express mention of this grand and incon¬ trovertible fact or do not, in either case the fact is thereby neither established nor overthrown. We have seen that the Federal Constitution contains no such recognition in the words of its text, while in the preambles to the constitutions of some of the States or in their declarations of rights it does occur. Now it is claimed that the National Consti¬ tution, though it do not say it in so many words, does acknowledge general Christianity as the relig¬ ion not only of our people but also of our Govern¬ ment. “The Government of the United States,” says a certain writer, “has always acknowledged 16. THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZING, ETC. 303 the authority of religion in all ways that could not trench upon the boundary lines of ecclesi¬ astical and sectarian influence. It is neither ec¬ clesiastical, nor sectarian, nor atheistic, but it is religious.” Our Government is religious! What does this assertion signify, and, when properly in¬ terpreted, is it true ? From any negations and restrictions concern¬ ing religious affairs, as found in the Constitution, nothing can be advanced in support of the state¬ ment. Now suppose our Government were form¬ ally to declare by its Constitution, simply as mat¬ ters of fact, that the people of the country are gen erally religious and that the prevailing religion is the Christian; that religion, and especially Chris¬ tianity, has great political worth; that in the free enjoyment and exercise of their religious convic¬ tions the people shall be protected; and finally, that some of the precepts and principles of religion, such namely as are found political in their nature and are highly conducive to good government, may at any time be made law or a principle of legisla¬ tion—would these and similar declarations render our Government religious? Surely, he who would so affirm must entertain a very superficial view of religion as a quality and a predicate. Any nullifidian might subscribe to such declarations as the above, and not in the least commit himself; yea, an atheist even cannot but acknowledge the facts thus set forth, as he might admit the fairness of the protection guaranteed to Christianity and the utility of applying some of its precepts. This, atheists have done again and again; but they re- 304 THE UNITED STATES. V. mained atheists all the same. No, our Government is “ neither ecclesiastical, nor sectarian, nor atheis¬ tic it is simply non-religious. To be religious it would have to believe and adopt some sort of creed and mode of worship, though these were of the most general character imaginable. To know and acknowledge the existence of a thing, to perceive its excellence and usefulness, to esteem it and to treat it with becoming respect, to learn from it and be profited by it in general, to engage in its behalf against all undue aggressions —such actions as these do not as yet make that thing our own. But such is the attitude of our Government respecting religion and the Church. It is the good friend and faithful protector of the religious rights of the people; but it is not the pos¬ sessor and dispenser of any religion, properly speak¬ ing. This fact, however, that the Government has no religion of its own and professes none, in no way contradicts the other, to wit: that it is upheld not only but also largely influenced by religion in all its departments. Since his impious denial of it cannot possibly undo the fact that a man’s life and its perservation are both of God, how could the mere omission—for reasons good and wise—to adopt as its own a certain religion, set aside the fact that government is of God and by Him upheld, or that its main strength is derived from religion, and that its best friend is the Church ? And if our Government is religious—as so many claim—what is its faith, and where is it written? To be a faithful citizen a knowledge of this matter would be absolutely necessary, and this 16. THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZING, ETC. 306 should be readily ascertainable upon the above as- * sumption. We are told that its religion is not ecclesiastical nor sectarian, but a broad and liberal Christianity. Whatever may be meant by this kind of Christianity, have we not churches which in distinction from, and in opposition to, other churches of our land have made this broad and lib¬ eral Christianity their creed? If so, is the sup¬ posed religion of our Government not ecclesias¬ tical?—have we not in effect an Establishment? Again, is not Christianity of every kind—if there be any meaning in the word—concretely sectarian ? Ask the Jew and the Unitarian, and they will tell you. From the answer these will give, you will be driven to the conclusion that the Government of the United States has created a preferment of relig¬ ion by discriminating against the Jew, the deist, the Unitarian, and against others of the same kith—on your assertion, of course, that general Christianity is the recognized religion of the Nation. But, as an escape from the dilemma in which you find yourself involved, suppose you embrace these par¬ ties in “the religion of the Government” and call it Unitarian. According to this there is a future state of rewards and of punishments—now where will you find a place for the Universalists in the relig¬ ion of your Government ? That the laws and the courts, the Constitution and the Government, favor anybody’s religion in disparagement to the Univer- salist is a dilemma no less distressing than the one we have tried to escape. The truth is: our Amer¬ ican system of law and government is neither re¬ ligious nor irreligious—it is simply non-religious ; IB* 306 THE UNITED STATES. V. and in this its necessary character of neutrality it accords a just and impartial protection to all its citizens also in the exercise of their religion, so long as this is found compatible with the public peace. Our wise and beneficent policy is: a friendly and faithful protection to all forms of religious belief, but an adoption of none. The trouble is that, in this whole matter, protection is too often mistaken for adoption, a confusion of terms greatly to be de¬ plored. It is extremely difficult to convince some good people that, as things are in this world, it is best for civil governments as such to make no profession of religion and never to make its propagation an object. The mere suggestion of a nomreligious gov¬ ernment fills many devout souls with holy horror. The thoughts first and uppermost in their minds are, that such a thing must necessarily be some¬ thing heathenish and impious. Yet it would seem that a little sober reflection were enough to remove all such misapprehensions. Is a literary or scien¬ tific society, when organized upon a non-religious basis, for that reason alone already anti-religious and therefore godless? No more is a government making no religious profession on that ground alone to be pronounced a thing godless in its nature and in its operations inimical to godliness. Though it is, organically, positively non-religious—since it does not even express a belief in God—yet let us entertain no such unfavorable opinion of our own Government which is, constitutionally at least, the best under heaven. The good it might accomplish were it to es- 16. THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZING, ETC. 307 pouse if not more than the fundamental doctrines of Christianity—is the next alluring thought with which these people have to contend. And what doubt can there be as to the probability? Just think of Uncle Sam’s influence, and of the gold and silver in his pockets—what a power for good ! What churches he could build, what seminaries he could endow, the missionaries he could send out, and the thousand other things he could do in the service of religion, were he only a believer! But does not the mere naming of these things awaken some uneasiness, and suggest the idea that he might perish in the very attempt to do them ? If you are an intelligent and true American citizen, surely they must; and you will know the reason w T hy. After the manner of a paradox, Uncle Sam is not to do all the good he can; if he does, then will he certainly do wrong. Able as he may be, he must not do other people’s business. We expect him to be mindful of his own calling, which is, to govern the land and to govern it as best he can. That is a work great and good enough even for him, and it will require all his time and talents to do it and to do it well. Every step beyond his sphere and en¬ trenchment upon the ground of others—say, of the Church—is a misdemeanor; and whatever he does in the field of another, be his work never so great and good in form and effect, is not a good deed but is a misapplication of his energies and of the funds intrusted to him. Good results, though they may somewhat palliate, can never fully excuse a trans¬ gression. The end cannot justify the means. So the Protestant teaches in opposition to the Roman¬ ist. Alas, that at times the Protestant's practice 308 THE UNITED STATES. V. yields to the Romanist’s precept. Thus the Church- man, to defend the theory of ecclesiastical establish¬ ments, constantly points us to the good they may accomplish, never to the wrongs and evils neces¬ sarily attending them. In like manner, our advo¬ cates of recognizing God and Christ in the Consti¬ tution and of making Christianity, broad and lib¬ eral, the religion of our Government, always look at the grand results which, in their opinion, might be achieved upon such a national platform; but that by the execution of this their cherished scheme thousands of our citizens would be wronged, most precious principles of civil government surrendered, the Magna Charta of our best liberties impaired, and the very existence of our present form of gov¬ ernment destroyed—these are considerations the) 7 pass by as of little moment. But why contend we, and should every citizen earnestly contend, against the reading of any re¬ ligious creed into the Constitution, wherein such creed is neither mentioned nor implied; and why contend against the introduction of any? Certainly not from any hostility to religion but from a sin¬ cere love of it; for dearer to us than our country even and the matchless framework of its rule is our Christian, our Protestant Christian, faith. By this our faith, and in its behalf, do we insist upon the doctrine that the rights of conscience are personal and inalienable, and that the civil government should so regard them and accordingly secure to every citizen the blessing of religious freedom in the greatest measure possible and consistent with the end of its own existence. This very thing, we § 16. THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZING, ETC. 309 claim, our Government does in principle, if not ab¬ solutely in practice; and this is its chief glory. Let every friend of religious liberty jealously guard the rule; human frailty and emergent necessity will be sure to provide for the exceptions . And necessity has already been at work and wrought out such exceptions—for example, by cre¬ ating the office of chaplains. We have denied and combatted the assumption that such and similar offices are in full accord with the fundamental idea of the rights of conscience and of religious liberty which underlies and pervades our whole theory of government. We hold all such practices to be ex¬ ceptions to the rule ; and, so treating them, proceed to show what can be said in their justification, and thus ascertain how far they can be brought into harmony with the principles from which they are departures. While we seriously question the necessity of chaplains to our National and State legislatures, we have little doubt as to certain post and regi¬ mental chaplains in our army and as to chaplains attached to our vessels of war and to some of our penal institutions—these, and especially the last named, every religious mind must consider as mat¬ ters imperatively demanded by the needs of the individuals therein immediately concerned, as also by the interests of both the State and the Church. The entire question here simply resolves itself into this: “ Shall the souls of men so placed by the Government that they must either forego the bless¬ ings of religious ministrations or have them pro¬ vided for by the Government itself—be thus pro- 310 THE UNITED STATES. V. vided? What answer does conscience make, and what says Liberty in this case ? And again : if both were to say “Nay!” what shall the Govern¬ ment do—heed the crying needs of its subjects, or the dictates of Conscience and Liberty? We an¬ swer, for once let it hearken to the voice of stern Necessity, heed the appeal of Distress and bid Con¬ science and Liberty be still and—a little generous! In the sense in which we here speak of it, it has been pertinently remarked that “ The con¬ science is the most elastic material in the world. To-day you cannot stretch it over a mole-hill, to¬ morrow it hides a mountain.” And yet we cannot believe that really a person's conscience can be so erroneous and erratic as to be violated by the ap¬ pointment of a chaplain, say, to a house of correc¬ tion for boys and girls, even were the appointee a Luther and the conscience under consideration that of a Leo who by his bull branded him as a heretic. But assume that there is in the L T nited States a class of people whose consciences are wounded when the Government uses their money in sup¬ port of a Gospel minister in the few cases of neces¬ sity presenting themselves, are there not many people also whose consciences demand the Govern¬ ment to act just as it does? About this there can be no doubt. Were our Government for many long years to station our soldiers in the Western wilds, send out our navy to heathen shores, confine our orphaned or abandoned youth to protective or cor¬ rective asylums, and cast our criminals into work- houses and prisons, and yet make no provisions whatever for their moral and spiritual needs, then 16. THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZING, ETC. 311 would it outrage every conscience worthy of the name. As there is a conflict of personal liberty with personal liberty as soon as men come to live in society, and as each must renounce his personal liberty and be governed by civil liberty in his in¬ tercourse with others, so in matters of conscience and religion—since conflicts do arise, one must at times yield somewhat to the other also in these things. In other words: just as we deduce and determine our civil rights and liberties from our personal rights and liberties in matters generally, by the same method must we arrive at the true and practical idea of rights and liberties in matters of conscience and religion. Widely as the dictates of the consciences of men differ, often as they do con¬ flict, the cases in which one must yield to the other are very few; and if the Government is involved in the difficulty and forced to a decision one way or the other, it must do what to it seems best. In this way and in no other are we enabled satisfac¬ torily to solve the problem of harmonizing prac¬ tices with principles in affairs public and religious. Respect to the consciences of all, even to the most froward and wayward—such is our rule; and every disregard of them an unavoidable exception. “I am not to be understood to infer”—said Dr. Franklin, a member of the Constitutional con¬ vention—“ that our General Convention was di¬ vinely inspired when it formed the new Federal Constitution; yet I must own that I have so much faith in the general government of the world by 312 THE UNITED STATES. V. Providence, that I can hardly conceive of a trans¬ action of so much importance to the welfare of millions now in existence, and to exist in the pos¬ terity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live, move, and have their being.” Similarly Washington ex¬ presses his grateful joy. In a letter to Lafeyette, he says : “It appears to me little short of a miracle that the delegates from so many States, differing from each other, as you know, in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices, should unite in forming a system of national government so little liable to well-founded objections. It will at least be a recommendation to the proposed Constitution that it is provided with more checks and barriers against the introduction of tyranny, and those of a nature less liable to be surmounted, than any government hitherto instituted among mortals. We are not to expect perfection in this world; but mankind in modern times have apparently made some progress in the science of government.” To Gov. Trumbull he wrote: “We may with a kind of pious and grateful exultation trace the finger of Providence through those dark and mysterious events which first induced the States to appoint a general convention and then led them, one after another, by such steps as were best calculated to effect the object, into an adoption of the system recommended by the general convention, thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting founda¬ tion for tranquillity and happiness, when we had too much reason to fear that confusion and misery 16. THE PROBLEM OF HARMONIZING, ETC. 313 were coming upon us.” And at another time he said: “ When I contemplate the interposition of Providence, as it has been visibly manifested in guiding us through the Revolution, in preparing us for the General Government, and in conciliat¬ ing the good will of the people in America towards one another in its adoption, I feel myself oppressed and overwhelmed with a sense of the Divine mu¬ nificence ! ” Such words as these were uttered nearly a cen¬ tury ago. They express profound gratitude for the happy conception of our glorious system of govern¬ ment and its successful establishment; the fond hope for a bright future and a prosperous people pervades them. How much greater reason have we to-day, now that our fathers’ hopes have been more than realized, to move our hearts unto thanks and our lips unto praise to the Lord of Hosts; for it is of His goodness and of His glory that our land is full. Then also, every favor received imposes a duty upon the recipient; of this the truly grateful heart is sensible, too. Thus the best and greatest among our country’s ancestry were men w T ho knew and did their duty. Their heritage having been transmitted to us, it being ours to enjoy, it is for us to guard and preserve it, and in an inviolate if not improved condition to hand it down to our children. Hence, in the language of the illust¬ rious Webster, “If we and our posterity shall be true to the Christian religion,—if we and they shall live always in the fear of God and shall re¬ spect His commandment,—if we and they shall maintain just moral sentiments and such conscien- 14 314 THE UNITED STATES. y. tious convictions of duty as shall control the heart and life,—we may have the highest hopes of the future fortunes of our country; and if we maintain those institutions of government, and that political union exceeding all praise as much as it exceeds all former examples of political association, we may be sure of one thing, that, while our country furnishes material for a thousand masters of the historic art, it will be no topic for a Gibbon—it will have no decline and fall. It will go on pros¬ pering and to prosper. But if we and our posterity neglect religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunc¬ tions of morality, and recklessly destroy the politi¬ cal constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound ob¬ scurity—If that castastrophe shall happen, let it have no history! Let the horrible narrative never be written! Let its fate be like that of the lost books of Livy, which no human eye shall ever read, or the missing Pleiad, of which no man can know more than that it is lost, and lost forever.” (Address before the New York Hist. Society). Indeed, our country is a good land and large, our system of government as perfect as men can make it, and our Constitution a noble document— may it now have and always a people to fill its every word with spirit and with love: with the spirit of that good will which alone can make us strong, with the life of that righteousness which alone can exalt a nation. §17. .PARENTAL DUTIES. 315 VI. THE SCHOOL. PARENTAL DUTIES AS LEADING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SCHOOL. t Weary from our journey through the vast and busy domains of the Stace, overwhelmed by the glo¬ rious things of Zion, the city of our Lord, we enter awhile the more quiet sanctuary of Home—our own, the Christian Home. This too is a building which God has made. Founded upon the hallowed union of man and woman unto husband and wife; cemented by a love sanctified and stronger than death; children and children’s children entered as living stones—its jewels; embellished here and there with the bright faces of good uncles and aunts, or of orphaned nephews and nieces; strengthened with the supports of faithful domestics; encompassed by the guardian angels of heaven; secured by the com¬ mands of the Most High, and by the promises of His goodness made happy—surely the home so made must be accounted precious before God and a joy unto man. If in its ideal there be seen a want of harmony and beauty, of strength and worth—an imperfection of any kind—the fault is all in the % beholder. If in its reality there be found anything unclean and corrupt, the hand of sin has defiled it —as designed by God and by Him made, it is holy. 316 THE SCHOOL. VI. “ And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him an help meet for him . . . And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man . . . And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth . . . And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and v^ith all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them dili¬ gently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest in the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up”. . . And to the children He says: “Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Such is the material for our present theme; and who could question the truth and wisdom, the binding force and supreme worth of these momentous words? As in that first so in every marriage, it is the all-wise and benign Creator who brings the wife unto the man and the husband unto the woman, if in His name they enter this good estate. As then He blessed them, even so now; and the commands then given, the same are given now to husband and wife, to father and mother, to son and daugh¬ ter. Throughout all the kingdom of His power there is no treasure so rich, and in all the kingdom §17. PARENTAL DUTIES. 317 of His grace no joy so great, which God were not willing to bestow to honor this holy estate of His appointment. “ And has the earth lost its so spacious round, The sky its blue circumference above, That in this little chamber here are found Both earth and heaven, my universe of love, All that my God can give me . . . . ? Almost I wish that with one common sigh, We might resign all mundane cares and strife; And seek together that transcendent sky Where father, mother, children, husband, wife, Together pant in everlasting life! ” * In the one — the kingdom of power — what greater treasure can be found than are children of sound body and sane mind; and in the other—the kingdom of grace—what greatear joy is there than are children who fear and trust the Lord? “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: the fruit of the womb is His reward.” “ Tell me not,” say we with Mary Howitt, “of the trim, precisely-ar¬ ranged home where there are no children; where, as the good Germans have it, the fly-traps always hang straight on the wall; tell me not of the never- disturbed nights and days, of the tranquil, un- anxious hearts where children are not! I care not for these things. God sends children for another purpose than merely to keep up the race—to enlarge our hearts, to make us unselfish, and full of kindly sympathies and affections; to give our souls higher aims, and to call out all our faculties to extended * Hood. 318 THE SCHOOL. VI. enterprise and exertion; to bring round our fireside bright faces and happy smiles, and loving, tender hearts. My soul blesses the great Father every day, that He has gladdened the earth with little children.” Yea, thank God for the gift of children,—least known in the epics of the world, yet among its heroes so great. The sweetest herb in the Father’s husbandry and of all its flowers the most beautiful, yet, save in a mother's madrigal, their praise is seldom sung; they would seem to grow too low and too near to be seen'by a lofty, hasty world. Yet of them is the kingdom of heaven, where their angels do alwavs behold the Father’s face; and, if not here, there their worth is known and their service is noted. When the old foe of all that is of God and for man good, would estrange the hearts of those who have plighted their faith and love and service “so long as both shall live,” then how T often has a little child foiled the wicked work intended. By Him whom he serves in his weakness made stronger than the destroyer, he has taken in his right hand, as it were, the father’s and in his left the mother's heart and so effectually bound them together that ever after they were “as of one heart, and of one soul.” Then think of his service to them in the days of their adversity: how he comforts, gladdens, strengthens and exhilarates a parent sick or weary, forsaken and lonely, care- wounded and perplexed, and when poor and dis- pised by those without! Follow the husband of a wife and the father of a child homeward, when his work is done: there 17. PARENTAL DUTIES. 319 “ His wee bit ingle, blinkin bonnily, His clean hearth-stane, his thriftin wifie’s smile, The lisping infant prattling on his knee, Does a’ his weary carking cares beguile, And makes him quite forget his labor and his toil.”* * “ Are you not surprised to find how independent of money peace of conscience is, and how much happiness can be condensed in the humblest home? A cottage will not hold the bulky furniture and sumptuous accommodations of a mansion; but if God be there, a cottage will hold as much happiness as might stock a palace.” j To be happy, our home need not be a palace, or a mansion, or a cottage even—any abode is large and good enough, if only there is room for God, for love and for children— where these are found, there is a home, a Christian home; and there is all of heaven, and of earth enough abundantly to satisfy a godly heart. Now where there are so many favors enjoyed, there also must be gratitude; and where, as in the Christian home, there are such rich treasures held in trust, there must be duties. ‘ T is the gratitude of parents for the gift of children and its intelligent and dutiful exercise for the children’s good which now claims our special attention. Than these there are no higher earthly gifts in the esteem of a fath¬ er’s and mother’s heart; certainly this should know no higher care and no duty more sacred than the study of their children’s nature and destiny, their capabilities and needs, and than the bestowal upon them of all those things which their proper devel- % * Burns. t Rev. C. Hamilton. 320 THE SCHOOL. VI. opment and true well-being demand. Upon the manner in which this work is performed, ultimately depend the weal and the woe of affairs in both Church and State. Such being the case, we can hardly overrate its importance. “The tendency of our age is manifestly to withdraw attention from duties which are retired and unobserved, to works which court public observation; to overlook what is secret and noiseless, and to delight in what can be seen of men. Yet among the former lie many of the well-springs of human society, and from them issue forth streams, that are diffused through innu¬ merable channels, to purify or pollute the commu¬ nity.”* More than three and a half centuries ago, Raphael painted the Sistine Madonna, the most fa¬ mous of all his wonderful achievements; and to this day the world has not grown weary in speaking this master’s praise. ’Tis well and proper for it so to do. Again, seven cities and this number nearly doubled, we are told, have contended for the honor of giving birth to the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey—a poet’s story of battles lost and battles won; and to-day a civilized world, as by common consent, places Homer upon a pinnacle of fame un¬ approached and unapproachable. Say that this, too, is well done. If now such admiration and praise be bestowed upon a Raphael whose pallet and pencil have given to the world but the image of whatever is noble and beautiful in the human form—and upon a Homer who, with all the rare qualities of a great poet, has so graphically de- * Parental Duties, by Houston. Introd.- 17. PARENTAL DUTIES. 321 scribed, and still no more than described, the pas¬ sions, the follies, and the deeds of great men and brave—how much greater praise must belong to those among us who, by a life of labor and of love, produce the reality of all those graces which the brush can but paint, and who inspire the deeds which the pen can but picture! No, we cannot too greatly magnify the office of a father, a mother, of the educator of our children and youth. It has a glory surpassing many and surpassed by none. Great as is the power it unconsciously wields for good even from the first day of its earthly exist¬ ence on, effectual as are its speeches even when not a word it can speak, serviceable as are its deeds when not a hand it can lift, an infant is helpless all the same; and great and manifold are its needs. The entire new-born man groans for redemption. He is naked and hungry and thirsty in body, in mind and in spirit. He is rich; but only in his titles, in his rights, and in his claims. Who can be the trustee of his possessions and the guardian of his interests, who but the parents into whose arms God Himself has placed him ? The Spartan notion that children belong not to their parents, is un¬ worthy of all notice—by their own testimony; for* the Spartans themselves have said that their laws were brought by Lycurgus from Crete, and there, we know, men “are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.’’ Emphatically, if to any body on earth, chil¬ dren belong to their parents. But not absolutely. Like everything else men have, they are a gift of God, a property conveyed to them with well-defined 322 THE SCHOOL. VI. conditions. While He holds the children to obedi¬ ence, He commands the parents not to provoke them to wrath, but to bring them up in His own nurture and admonition. Strictly speaking, par¬ ents are not the free and independent owners of this living treasure but its trusted and responsible stewards. The Christian family is, in a small compass, the State and Church combined. Within this his little domain the parent is the legislator, the judge and the executive, all in one; then also is he the prophet, priest and king of this community. In the affairs of body and of soul, he is, under God, the supreme authority. ’Tis his business to pro¬ vide for food and raiment, for protection and com¬ fort; to instruct and guide into truth and wisdom; by commands and promises to direct and incite unto good, and to correct the wrong; to be an ex¬ ample of godliness in every word and act; and, above all, to plead the cause of his charge before men, and with God who has committed it to his care. Besides, throughout all his endeavors to dis¬ charge the duties of his high office, he must steadily keep in view its true object: to bring up living, active, and useful members of society, of the Church and the State; for such is the will of the Master whom he serves, and to whom both he and the children given him belong. In speaking of this domestic ministry, we have purposely devolved its disposition on the parents without distinction; but, contrary to the views of many, we have had in mind the father rather than the mother. He is, pre-eminently, the head of the 17. PARENTAL DUTIES. 323 family and accountable for its government. Even in the work of early education we see no reason why the mother should always be pushed forward and so to create the impression, either that the work is exclusively hers or that she must have been widowed. “I am well aware how fashionable it has become to eulogize a mother’s importance and influence in family education; and this, too, not seldom at the expense of the father’s. Far be it from me to undervalue the maternal office. Its value in this department is above all price, and however commended, its worth has not been too highly praised. I appreciate and honor that in¬ fluence; and therefore I ask for it something better, more substantial, than the cheaply furnished ma¬ terial of eulogy. I ask for paternal sympathy and help in her countless, arduous, and momentous duties; and I respectfully enter my protest against the current practice of rolling this tremendous re¬ sponsibility upon the maternal charge, upon the plea that the avocation of public life allow no time for the indispensable aid which a father is bound to furnish in this important work. I will here quote, as entirely suitable to my purpose, the views of an experienced teacher on this point: ‘Duty would seem to demand that every parent should make it a serious inquiry how far he is authorized, by the law of love for his off-spring and his family, to engage in such an amount of business, of what kind soever, as to banish him from the bosom of a family of which he has voluntarily made himself the head —to say nothing of that relation, as constituted by heaven—as to keep him ignorant of concerns which no one else should know so well; and as to abandon 324 THE SCHOOL. VI. to the care of others, those whom nature and affec¬ tion have taught to seek in him a guardian and guide. Would it not be well for parents sometimes to reflect whether it would not be better for their families to be a little less wealthy, if, in conse¬ quence of it, their children might be rendered more capable of using what they did possess to better advantage? Suppose that a legal practitioner should have some fewer cases on his docket—a physician should attend to somewhat fewer patients — a place-man should not continue quite so long in office, or be content to hold somewhat fewer posts —a merchant should be content with a sphere of business somewhat more contracted—the manufac¬ turer should put somewhat fewer hundred spindles into operation—and the speculator should lose, now and then, a bargain : might not each case, in many instances, be compensated an hundred fold in the benefit done to his children by his own personal superintendence of their early education—by form¬ ing in them a love and practice of order, obedience, morality, temperance, and economy ? ’ These remarks, so plain and palpably true and convincing, are made on the basis of temporal and moral advantages accruing from a father’s per¬ sonal devotion to the education of his children; apply the same reasoning to the immortal interests of their souls, as placed in his hands, and we are startled by the additional force with which the words address themselves to us. And here we re¬ mind us of many fathers and mothers who are ever * From an address by Dr. T. J. Biggs on Domestic Edu¬ cation. 17. PARENTAL DUTIES. 325 fighting the foe for others, and abroad, while at home among their own he is allowed full sway. Behold the zeal and activity of a pastor in feeding the lambs of his flock! and his own? He forgets that they too are of his fold and need his care. Proverbially: preacher’s children are the most re¬ creant to all that’s good. Likewise, those lady- presidents, or secretaries, members of committees, and members of our missionary societies, temper¬ ance unions, etc.—while they are so busy in res¬ cuing heathens from darkness and the sons of others from a drunkard’s grave—where, meanwhile, are their sons, their daughters, and their hus¬ bands? what are these doing, and whither are they drifting? Ah, how many a mother, absorbed in the work of saving others, suffers her own flesh and blood to become castaways! But He who is the children’s best Friend, and who is ordained to judge the world in righteousness, says: “Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But, whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matth. 18, 5-6. Betimes, “kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way.” Ps. 2, 12. Than the parent’s, not one within the whole range of human duties is more sacred and of greater responsibility. There is none so delight¬ ful, and yet so difficult of discharge. By Him created, indeed, but not in Plis own image, as was the first man, God places the child into the arms 326 THE SCHOOL. VI. of the father and mother, by their service to be made His own child. To this end has He created and redeemed it, and will He have it sanctified. It is to live and labor upon earth awhile, acceptably to H is will; but its true home and heritage are to be in heaven. The way in which all men are called to walk, the way in which parents are to walk with their children, leads heaven-ward. And the old are charged to lead the young, the parent to lead the child. He who has made them all and pur¬ chased them with His blood, He who has prepared the way and built the mansions, and who bids them upward come, has provided all the necessary means, given full directions, and is willing to add the needed strength. There can be no excuse for not going, or for going astray. But these means must be used, the directions followed, and the strength accepted, if parents would in God’s own good time stand before Him and say, in the lan¬ guage of their Lord: “Behold, we, and the child¬ ren whom Thou hast given us!” Thoroughly furnished as parents are, objec¬ tively and theoretically, for the great work of domestic education, subjectively and practically many hindrances present themselves; and hence the difficulty of the task. Too often there is a lack of the requisite perspicacity and knowledge, of the talent and inclination, of the care and cir¬ cumspection, of the confidence and devotion, and —worse than all—of a due sense of its paramount importance and high responsibility. Add to these deficiencies the demands otherwise made upon parents and the consequent want of time and con- 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 327 venience, also the innumerable obstacles arising in a thousand other ways, and it may be readily per¬ ceived not only how arduous becomes the work but that in most cases it will be imperfectly at¬ tended to. As a rule, parents alone and personally can give their children but an incomplete educa¬ tion. Let all be done that can and should be done in the household, even then the work is done only in part. Not as a substitute for it but as supple¬ mental to the domestic, children are entitled to a scholastic and pastoral education. Parents can not be said to do their whole duty unless they call to their assistance—wherever these are found, and are at all what they should be —the School and the Church . §18. THE SCHOOL—WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT SHOULD BE. In our discussion of this momentous and com¬ prehensive theme, not much more than the most important principles can be pointed out; and this again chiefly with a view of finding the proper place for the School in the social system, includ¬ ing politics and religion. In the outset we would enter our earnest pro¬ test against one or two criminal abuses; and of these against the more abhorrent and abominable first. We refer to the outrageous imposition of those who would avail themselves of the school¬ room as of a house of correction or as of a hos¬ pital established, as they seem to think, for their morally diseased and mortally infectious brood. 328 THE SCHOOL* VI. It is true, no children are angels—far from it— and they cannot be expected to conduct themselves as so many models of moral excellence. However faithful the parents may have been in the matter of their early training, all children will have some faults, and not a few will be criminally inclined, when first they enter the school-room—yea, and ever after that. Hence, an essential element of education, and therefore an indispensable feature of the school, is the moral discipline of its subjects. Nevertheless, the introduction of children whose speech, manners, habits and influence are posi¬ tively corrupt and unavoidably contaminating, is an insufferable wrong. “ But these are our sons (and daughters), and we are anxious to reclaim them. Very well. And so are all our friends, and the public. But this gives us no right to jeopard the morals of others, from the slight prospect of good to our own unfortunate children. The risk of increasing, or at least spreading, the moral con¬ tagion, is much too great to warrant any judicious, much less conscientious man so to offend against the morals of his country, as to cast poison into the fountains of science. The whole community would unite in reprobating the man who should introduce the cholera into an institution of learn¬ ing, induced by the hope of recovering the patient infected, even though that patient were an only son. But to introduce a moral pestilence is still worse than this.” * It is a crime more heinous than murder; and a more outrageous abuse of the School could not be conceived. * From an address by W. H. M’Guffy, L.L.D. 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 329 Not so bad, still very reprehensible, do we consider the conversion of the school-room into a nursery. Schools can be made to serve many pur¬ poses, lawful and unlawful. This the most stupid and unprincipled are very often most quick to per¬ ceive and most ready to put to use—and, whether right or wrong, good or bad, they seem not to care; only let it serve their selfish purpose. It is found to be a very pleasant thing to shun work and shift responsibilities, and thus in a manner to save one’s strength and to ease one’s conscience by lean¬ ing on others and profiting by their indulgence. To be rid of their troublesome supervision and “just to keep them out of mischief, you know!’ the toddling young are sent to school. And thus, in the eyes of not a few fond mothers, with the dawn of every new-born school-day the good school-master (or mistress) looms forth as a nurse no less serviceable than he is cheap. Sorry as we are to destroy the pleasurable visions of any body and to deprive any one, especially a mother, of any conveniences—and that, too, in a world where pleasures are so rare and conveniences so few—not the less must we declare against the practice of sending to school children who as yet have scarcely outgrown their first short dress, or breeches, as the case may be. Vv r hile the presence, in the school, of infants may divert the children it certainly dis¬ tracts the scholars; the teacher has no call, nor the time, to give them any attention; hence these little folks themselves are left unemployed, and, as the Germans have it: Muessiggang ist aller Laster Anfang.* * Idleness is the beginning of all vice. 14 * 330 THE SCHOOL. VI. All around, then, the practice is an evil and should be discountenanced. The object of the school, the office of its mas¬ ter, is to educate—from educo -are, not from educo -ere. Yet he who would derive his idea of educa¬ tion from the etymology of the word only, will in¬ deed arrive at a very imperfect conception of what its work implies. The one would base his “ theory and practice” on -are, and another on -ere; but he is the wisest and the one most likely to succeed who plants himself on these and on many an -are and -ere besides; above and before all, upon that -are which the greatest of all educators laid down when He said: “Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?” then “ Feed my sheep—feed my lambs.” Truly to educate, one must begin with, continue with, and end with the love of God and in that love embrace the pupil. Of course, we are speaking of the education of the whole man. Its classification into the physi¬ cal, the mental, and the moral and religious, is eminently proper and serviceable in many ways; but we must never forget that either kind denotes only a part and that, strictly speaking, no part can constitute for itself a perfect whole. No, not even a physical education is possible unless it be at¬ tended by the mental and religious. We may be unable to explain it, and many may disbelieve it: it is true any way, that “the wages of sin is death.” From this we conclude that whenever sin is allowed to thrive in the heart, the body must surely perish. “The true hygiene of the body is mental and moral hygiene. Grief wastes, care dead¬ ens, and anxiety corrodes all the inward subtle vi- 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 381 talities of our being. Hence the physiological, as well as spiritual, beauty of the rule appointed for us by our great Maker: rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice! . . . Hence the wicked, who are like the troubled sea casting up mire and dirt, are not to live out half their days; while the righteous shall flourish like the green bay-tree; and hence also the command to children to obey their parents, that they may live long in the land. — The great determining laws, therefore, of our compound nature are the laws of the mind.”* The physical, the mental and the moral na¬ tures of man are createdly connected, and — pre¬ supposing that the child, when it enters the school, has already been born again—a true education sig¬ nifies their harmonious development and nurture unto a fine and healthy bodily stature and a grace¬ ful deportment, unto mental acumen, correct rea¬ soning, knowledge and wisdom, and unto a fear, love and trust of God with all the heart. Such, in a few words, is the education to which every human being is entitled. Than this we know of none other whereby his individual temporal well¬ being and eternal happiness could be better secured, and whereby the true interests of communities, states and nations could be more full} 7 subserved. Such, then, must be the object, end and aim of our schools; and this we should require to be clearly understood and constantly kept in view by those who would train and teach our youth. With re¬ gard to those schools even which professedly offer but a partial education,—for example, in language * Dwight, Higher Christian Education, p. 27. 332 THE SCHOOL* VI. and literature, in the arts and sciences—we should at the very least demand that they in no way antagonize the grounds taken above, before we afford them any patronage. “ He that increaseth knowledge increaseth strength/’ says Solomon; or, as we generally say with Lord Bacon: “ knowledge is power.” Tis folly to doubt the truism; ’tis something more and worse than folly to fancy that to know is to achieve, and that knowledge is greatness. Be it never so great and good, as yet no one has been made great and good by power unapplied, or by power abused. Little good can it do a man to know the way to usefulness and honor if he has not the means to follow it; but having these, yet not the will to use them, is a curse; while to know the good only to despise, to hinder and to destroy it, is wickedness thoroughly devilish. Yes, knowledge is power; but whether for good or for evil depends upon other contingencies. To fill the mind, and be it with useful knowledge, and at the same time neglect both body and soul, is a most dangerous experiment. It is related of a certain Englishman that, on the suggestion of a French infidel, he purposely experimented with his own son to see what an education of the intel¬ lect, to the utter exclusion of every other, would lead to. At the end of its perpetration the wretch of a father reported that his son “had all the vir¬ tues of a child bred in the hut of a savage; and all the knowledge of things which could well be ac¬ quired at an early age by a boy bred in civilized society.” Not much better is the “education” now 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 383 given by many schools. A secular education it is called; and very secular it is, too. Were it not, in many cases at least, attended or followed up by something better, and were its influence not other¬ wise counteracted, long ago would it have pro¬ duced results as destructive as they are worldly in their origin and wicked in their nature. Some one, in speaking of education, has said that it is “Old Experience pointing out the road to young Nature — a mental rail-way, beginning at birth, and running into eternity.” Running into eter¬ nity, how very true! But how, into an eternity of light and life, or of darkness and death? Whereas both are issues possible and the latter is the more probable—since “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: and Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth to life, and few there be that find it”—is it not of the utmost importance to “young Nature” that “old Experience” point out to it the right w r ay and enable and urge it to pursue that and no other? That the teachers and schools having charge of their children so direct and influence these that they may enter the gate and walk the way which lead to life—certainly, with less than that the con¬ sciences of such parents, as at all believe a judg¬ ment of the righteous unto life and of the un¬ righteous unto death eternal, can not be satisfied. Are we correct in this, or not? Living in the Christian era, and in the midst of a Christian com¬ munity, it might be reasonably expected that in this we do but utter the prevailing sentiment of the 334 THE SCHOOL. VI. people of the day, and that our schools are found in full accord with that sentiment. But what are the facts in the case ? May others—better informed and more competent than we are—answer for us. S. S. Randall, engaged in the schools of New York City for thirty years, if not longer, says: “ That culture which regards exclusively or primarily the mere attainment of knowledge, to whatsoever ex¬ tent it may be carried, or to whatsoever degree of advancement it may be enabled to arrive, can not be otherwise than essentially and fatally defective. And yet it is not to be denied that hitherto the course of instruction in all our systems of Popular Education, public and private, has far too generally assumed this direction. Hence, while the bounda¬ ries of science have been almost indefinitely ex¬ tended in every direction, and while knowledge has been almost universally diffused throughout every civilized community, no corresponding advance¬ ment has been made in public and private mor¬ ality and virtue. On the other hand, we are as¬ sured, upon the most unquestionable authority, and there is unfortunately but little room to doubt the fact, that the increase of vice and crime, and the prevalence of dishonesty and of open and secret fraud and corruption, have been more than propor¬ tionate to the increase of population and the ad¬ vancement of our modern civilization .... That ignorance and immorality, vice and crime, destitu¬ tion and misery still so extensively prevail, keep¬ ing pace with the advancement of our population and the progress of knowledge, and that education does not fully realize all the beneficial results which 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 335 may reasonably be expected from its general diffu¬ sion, may, it is believed, satisfactorily be accounted for .... Fourth :—By the fact that this education and discipline, even under the most favorable au¬ spices, and when it embraces the whole period of youth, is frequently and to a great extent defective. 1. In not being sufficiently comprehensive , failing to embrace in its culture the whole nature of the child, physical, intellectual, moral and religious, and omit¬ ting or neglecting that assiduous, careful and con¬ scientious training and discipline of the affections and passions upon which so essential a part of the future character is destined inevitably to de¬ pend . . In an article from the Proceedings of “ The Col¬ lege of Professional Teachersf organized in Cincinnati in 1833 and continued till 1841—Benjamin Hun- toon describes the general state of affairs as follows —which reading, all will acknowledge that since then there has been no improvement, to say the least. “It is one of the glorious prerogatives of rea¬ son that it controls blind force, and renders the most powerful agencies of nature subservient to the comfort and use of man. It is not this practical skill, in the adaptation of the physical sciences to the arts of life, that is to be deprecated as danger¬ ous to the best hopes of man. But a tendency to direct the attention almost exclusively to the opera¬ tion of mechanical laws, to seek chiefly an outward tangible prosperity, to regard the conquests which mind achieves over matter, as its best and noblest * Popular Education, p. p. 226 and 239. 336 THE SCHOOL. VI. triumphs, while the moral and religious element of our nature, its undying energies and affections, are in comparison overlooked—a tendency nourished by the growth of wealth, and a state of society in a high degree artificial—may well be viewed with ap¬ prehension and alarm. This is a danger to which I apprehend we are peculiarly exposed. It is a lamentable fact that moral education has not kept pace with the cultivation of the physical sciences. Much more has been achieved for man’s outward convenience than for the development and strength of his moral affections and principles. The signal success which has followed the enterprises in the mechanic arts, and the ample rewards, both of for¬ tune and fame, attendant upon that success, have had a powerful influence upon all classes of the community. It is felt in every department of so¬ ciety ; it pervades all ranks and conditions. In the ceaseless struggle and absorbing thirst for wealth, which is thus generated by success, the mind, except as to the particular objects and interests under consideration, is left unemployed. Many of the powers of the human soul, many of its grand and noble faculties become altogether inert. The moral nature is suffered to lie waste when it most deserves, for its own sake and for the results it would produce, to be cultivated and cherished un¬ til it should exhibit that sublime excellence for which it was originally designed by its Creator. I am aware it may be contended that, by this very constant struggle and ceaseless competition, many of the intellectual faculties are aroused, stimulated, and quickened, which it is one end of education to accomplish .... And this with many is regarded 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 337 as the great object of education—not merely in our common schools, but in our colleges and higher seminaries of learning. The value of every acqui¬ sition is estimated by the account to which it may be turned for the accumulation of wealth. Learn¬ ing is sought as an instrument of worldly gain. A public education is coveted as conferring upon its possessor the power of converting all the elements of nature and society to his own selfish ends, to gratify the desire of gain, or pamper the pride of opulence .... But who . . . shall regard the minds and characters of men, as of chief concern, and there¬ fore strive anxiously, and vigorously, to enlarge the means of education and virtue, watch over the schools, encourage the institution of philanthropy, and labor for whatever advances society by advanc¬ ing the greatest good of its individual members^ viewed in their whole natures—intellectual, moral, and religious, as well as physical and temporal—in their relation to God and their fellow-creatures, to time and to eternity ? These great objects of edu¬ cation seem to me to be dimly apprehended by the vast majority of parents and teachers.” Even so! But again, whence is the evil and what is its remedy? It is wholly moral in its nature; and it being chiefly the result of some de¬ fect in our educational system, there can be no trouble about finding the proper corrective and de¬ termining where this is to be applied. For all dis¬ eases of this kind there is a well-known specific: one which never fails to cure, wherever given and taken according to prescription. It will as effect¬ ively subdue the troubles of Caesar as it heals “ the 15 338 THE SCHOOL. VI. affliction of Joseph.” Plainly, the only thing which can deliver us from the evils whereof we complain and avert the calamities whose coming we dread, is the introduction into our schools of Christianity— of the Bible and of Christian teachers. During his last illness, General Jackson, pointing to the family Bible, cried out to a friend: “That book, sir, is the rock on which our republic rests! It is the bul- work of our free institutions!” Words more true were never spoken by man, and few of such supreme importance. When we here commend the Bible as a school¬ book, we do not mean its use merely as a reader or as a book of devotion but as a daily book of in¬ struction. By its own merits it deserves the first place and the highest in every system of educa¬ tion. What substitute can the world offer us 'for its history, profane and sacred, that could in any way fill its place and claim its authority ? Than the thetical, dogmatic genesis of the Mosaic hex- a-hemeron, w r hose theory of the origin and species of things this day stands more thoroughly attested and generally approved? In the department of biography, where is there anything so preventive of evil, so productive of good, and withal so de¬ lightfully interesting, as are the lives of Bible characters? In anthropology, what human erudi¬ tion could ever have laid open to our view, as does the Bible, and explained to us our intellectual and moral natures, our real condition, our capabilities, our needs, and our destiny? To our mental and moral philosophy its contributions are simply be¬ yond all price. With its matchless poetry, poets 18. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE. 839 themselves are delighted—all reading it, speak of it with admiration; and not a few have drawn from it their best material and the highest inspiration. Then, without it, what can man know about his Maker, the sinner about his Redeemer, and the spiritually dead about Him who would quicken them unto life and joy unspeakable and full of glory? “ We speak of our civilization, 75 —says Sir William Jones, an eminent English jurist—, “our arts, our freedom, our laws, and forget entirely how large a share is due to Christianity. Blot out Christianity out of the pages of man’s history, and what would his laws have been? what his civili¬ zation ? Christianity is mixed up with our very being and our daily life; there is not a familiar object around us which does not wear a different aspect because the life of Christian love is on it,— not a law which does not owe its gentleness to Christianity, not a custom which can not be traced, in all its holy, healthful parts, to the gospel.” However, the greatest merit of the Bible is that it is the Word of God—infallible in authority, the hightest wisdom, the only true regenerating power. In very truth, God is the only Educater of our race, and the Bible is His manual—with this He begins, with this He continues, with this He ends. He will use none other. Nor will He have any one, who would serve Him as an assistant in the moral education of His children, use any other. For any Christian people to want to educate them¬ selves and their children without the use of the Bible, is simply preposterous—nay, it is impious in the extreme. “ Why, then, should not the Bible regain the 340 THE SCHOOL. VI. place it once held as a school-book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for a sacred book, that is thus early im¬ pressed, lasts long, and probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind. One consideration more is important. In no book is there so good English, so pure, and so ele¬ gant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.” * “ Before I state my arguments in favor of teaching children to read by means of the Bible, says Ben¬ jamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Inde¬ pendence—I shall assume the five following propo¬ sitions : 1) . That Christianity is the only true and perfect religion, and that in proportion as man¬ kind adopt its principles and obey its precepts, they will be wise and happy. 2) . That a better knowledge of this religion is to be acquired by reading the Bible than in any other way. 3) . That the Bible contains more knowledge necessary to man in his present state than any other book in the world. 4) . That knowledge is most durable, and re¬ ligious instruction most useful, when imparted in early life. 5) . That the Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life.” We can not forbear to give the following ap¬ posite remark found in his elucidation of the above * From an Art. by Fisher Ames, written in 1881. WHAT IT IS AND SHOULD BE* 341 propositions. He says:—“I have heard it proposed that a portion of the Bible should be read every day by the master, as a means of instructing the children in it. But this is a poor substitute for obliging children to read it as a school-book; for by this means we insensibly engrave, as it were, its contents upon their minds; and it has been remarked that children instructed in this way in the Scriptures seldom forget any part of them. They have the same advantage over those persons who have only heard the Scriptures read by a mas¬ ter, that a man who has worked with the tools of a mechanical employment for several years has over the man who has only stood a few hours in the workshops and seen the same business carried on by other people.” Patrick Henry, once so great in pleading the cause of liberty and who loved his country only next to heaven, says in his last will and testa¬ ment: “I have now disposed of all my worldly property to my family: there is one thing more I wish I could give to them, and that is the Chris¬ tian religion. If they had this, and I had not given them one shilling, they would be rich; and if they had it not, and I had given them all the world, they would be poor.” In the language of another, changing a word or two, u we maintain the right lodged in every man’s nature, as divine: the patent royal of his birthright” as a creature of God and designed to be made both His child and His heir: “ to the benefits of the highest possible education of all his faculties.” The good will of his Creator and 342 THE SCHOOL. VI. Redeemer; his personal happiness in time and in eternity; parental love and duty; the peace, safety and prosperity of his country; the highest inter¬ ests of earth and heaven—all demand, loudly de¬ mand, that this divine right of every human in¬ dividual be heeded and its claims be satisfied. The education — the nurture, the learning and training — which a people owe to their youth should be comprehensive, embracing all the needs and capabilities of man; then, throughout its w T hole scope, eminently practical, preponderately national, and decidedly religious—purely and thor¬ oughly Christian. To secure it, is the divinely imposed duty of the parents, and the humanly im¬ posed, but divinely sanctioned, duty of the teacher. In the prosecution of the work the school must be considered rather the servant of, than the substi¬ tute for, the family. These must co-operate, har¬ moniously and prayerfully—constantly looking up to Him who giveth the increase to their planting. § 19. THE RELATION OF THE SCHOOOL TO THE STATE AND TO THE CHURCH. Comparatively easy as we may find it theoret¬ ically to draw the line of demarcation where the jurisdiction of the State should end and that of the Church begin, when we come to apply the theory so established we are sure to meet with some seri¬ ous difficulties. One reason of this is that, different and distinct as things civil are from the religious, there is, at the same time, a very close relation and inter-dependency between them. Another is, that $ 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 343 the subjects affected by them are largely the same, since both, the State and the Church, have to do with men and things, though each in a way and for purposes its own. Add to these the vagaries of the human mind, the obstinacy of the will, the selfishness of the heart, and other weaknessness of mankind, and it would indeed be surprising if com¬ plications and conflicts did not ensue. And they do in not a few cases. That practi¬ cally the State cannot well be so separated from the Church as to be absolutely excluded from its juris¬ diction, we have seen heretofore while discussing the Sunday question, Governmental chaplaincies, etc. Besides these, there are other matters which lie so closely upon the border-line that repeatedly they have been made a bone of contention between them. Such are, for example, the solemnization of marriages — a question for many years past troubling the society of Germany—and the laws of divorcement; then also the rights of the clergy and of congregations in their contract relations; lastly and chiefly, the education of the youth—the ques¬ tion now to engage us. At this stage of our investigation we assume it as an established fact that the existence and perpetuation of both, the State and the Church, imperatively demand the education of the rising generation: the one, its political education, not ex¬ cluding the religious: the other, its religious educa¬ tion, not excluding the secular. To the one, if any, very little less than to the other a full educa¬ tion of the young is a matter of vital importance, yea, an absolute necessity. From the inherent 344 THE SCHOOL. VI. right and duty which each, as a divine institution, has of preserving and perpetuating itself, it follows that the State must have the right and duty to re¬ quire that the children of the land receive such an education as its own essential interests demand; likewise, that the Church must have the right and duty to require that the children of its fold receive such an education as their spiritual interests demand. But now, the right and duty to require that a thing be done, is one thing; the duty of doing it is another and quite a different thing. The former may, but it need not, involve the latter. To illustrate: by the law of God and of man it is the duty of parents to provide food and raiment for their helpless offspring; it is the duty of the State and of the Church to see to it that all parents within their jurisdiction attend to this their busi¬ ness; but only then does it become the duty of the State and the Church personally and directly to so provide for the offspring of parents when these cannot or do not do it themselves. In a manner analogous to the above, it is one thing to give a good secular and religious education to children, and to do this is the duty of their own parents; it is another thing to require the parents to attend to this matter, and this is the duty of the State and the. Church, and of each compatibly with its peculiar office. It is to be much regretted that these are not more generally and profoundly sensible of this their great obligation; in other words, that education is not made universally com¬ pulsory, especially by the State. If our social statistics teach anything that is reliably correct, it 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 345 is, that ignorance and the lack of moral training in the young constitute the chief source of crime. “Is it not notorious that the millions and hundreds of millions lavished with such profuse and boun¬ teous liberality for the education of the people during the past half century have been rendered almost nugatory, so far as the criminal expenses of governments are concerned, by the continued pre¬ valence of those large masses of ignorance, combined with destitution and vagabondism, which are found in all great cities and towns, and infest to an alarmingly increasing extent, even the quietude and seclusion of our rural villages and hamlets? Would it not be wise to arrest this fearfully down¬ ward tendency by the efficient exertion of that un¬ questionable power which every commonwealth possesses, not only to furnish abundant facilities for the education of all its future citizens, but to insist that each and every one of those citizens shall, in some way and to such an extent at least as may afford reasonable assurance of upright and vir¬ tuous conduct, participate in these advantages?* Say, not only that every commonwealth rightfully can but really should so insist. This it is morally bound to do—no less than an individual is bound, if he can, to arrest and to eradicate any disorder in his system which may threaten to disable him or lead to his destruction. Then too, the community is entitled to protection not merely by the punish¬ ment of crime but, in part at last, by its prevention also. And when a government recognizes its duty here, in the doing of it let it bear in mind that * Pop. Education, Randall, p. 177. 346 THE SCHOOL. VI. “ Intelligence without virtue increases the amount of evil; and that virtue without intelligence can op¬ pose no effectual resistance to political corruption.”* Essentially the same in this matter is the obli¬ gation of the Church. Only there is this difference to be noted that, while the State is to look after the education of the child unto good citizenship, the Church is to see to its education chiefly unto good church-membership; moreover that, while the State proceeds legally, the Church can have recourse only to evangelical methods in the discharge of its duty. Now could parents generally, thus constrained from without and from within moved by the fear of God and the love of their children, personally attend to the education required — and if they could, were all to do so and do it satisfactorily— then might we be discharged from saying anything more on the subject. In fact, however, the real problem to be solved is yet before us. We know, and we have noticed, that parental duties invariably lead to the establishment of schools, domestic edu¬ cation being found quite inadequate to fit the youth for the work and warfare of life. In this connec¬ tion the all-important and intricate question de¬ mands a solution:—In the establishment of schools shall the people proceed as citizens of the State and by the State, or as members of the Church and by the Church, or privately, that is, independently of both ? That, in itself, either one of the modes sug¬ gested is lawful, we assume as self-evident. The burden of our inquiry is to ascertain the compara- Hon. John M’Lean. on the Formation of Society. J 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 347 tive feasibility and merit especially of State and of Church schools, under given circumstances. In countries where the State and the Church are united, there, as a matter of course, the two will together control and superintend the whole work of education, leaving dissenters free to avail themselves of the schools thus provided, or to shift for themselves as best they can. But we have de¬ clared that the State and Church, all things duly considered, do best by far when they observe the relations of a neighborly friendship, and do not surrender their independence by forming between them any closer ties. Upon so decreeing, and as¬ signing Caesar and the Daughter of Zion to a state of perpetual divorcement, as it were, to whom shall we give the child—the School? To continue the figure—were there two children—a secular and re¬ ligious School—we might give one to each, in the hope thus to satisfy the parties. However, we have admitted the existence of but one in the premises, and accordingly we propose to dispose of the case. Solomon, in a similar strait, by his wis¬ dom and justice made happy at least one party; we do not expect to be so fortunate in our finding, but we do desire to be no less just to all concerned. “And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give “ half to the one, and half to the other.’’ 1 Kings 3, 24. Why not, it might be inquired, divide the labor and commit the secular branch of education to the State and the religious to the Church? The suggestion is quite plausible and points to a way out of the difficulty which would seem to be as fair 348 THE SCHOOL* VI. and satisfactory as it is plain. A closer survey, however, reveals the fact that it is not nearly as practicable as it appears to be when first observed; and then, that not a few people find it decidedly objectionable. The plan under consideration is, that the school proper be non-religious and wholly under the super¬ vision of the State; meanwhile, that the religious wants of the children be attended to in the family and the Church. This, it is claimed, is creating an unjust preference of the secular over the religious and greatly to the prejudice of the latter. With the exception, perhaps, of one hour in the Sunday- school, for the supply of its spiritual needs the child is referred back to the resources only of domestic instruction. Be it freely admitted that in a few exceptional cases a good education may thus be secured; still it is only an exception. It is the unavoidable inadequacy of domestic efforts which leads to the establishment of schools; and it is an unwarrantable presumption to suppose that this inadequacy pertains only and chiefly to the secu¬ lar feature of education. Moreover, to the Chris¬ tian the right spiritual training of his child is by far the more important; and, if he be ordinarily intelligent, he will know that a thorough religious education requires as much time and care and well- directed labor as any other. So viewing the mat¬ ter—and there are thousands who do so look at it —it is not at all surprising to find him dissatisfied with any and every educational system which, throughout the week, devotes thirty full hours of organized work to things earthly and temporal, 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 349 and whereby the heavenly and eternal are put aside as things inferior and of a secondary consid¬ eration. Well-founded or not, and be the motives of some among those who advance them pure or im¬ pure, the views here expressed are worthy of re¬ spectful notice, and equity demands that they be taken account of. Be it true, as it is often charged, that pastors and churches rather than the Chris¬ tian community — that sectarianism rather than religion, and ecclesiasticism more than Christian¬ ity—are at the bottom of the whole movement which would disparage the separation of secular from religious education—what of it? In the first place, are pastors and churches not the divinely appointed guardians specifically of the religious interests of all intrusted to their care, of both young and old? In the second place, suppose it to be sectarianism and ecclesiasticism whereby one or the other is constrained to act as he does, on the grounds of common equity and on principles of civil jurisprudence, what can that have to do with the decision of the matter before us? As a citizen, law-maker, judge and juror, what will you have to say in answer to the position assumed, for example, in the following : “In reply to the first objection—sectarianism —, we wish it to be distinctly recollected, that the Presbyterian* Church is, among her sister churches in this country, distinguished by the Creed and Form of Government which she has adopted, and published for the information of the world. Now, if she believes these doctrines, and form of govern- 350 THE SCHOOL. VI. ment, to be scriptural, she is unquestionably bound to endeavor to propagate the one, and to establish the other, as extensively as she may be able; and especially to teach them to her children and youth. It is certainly the duty of a parent to instruct his children in the doctrines and forms of church-gov¬ ernment, which he believes to be in accordance with the sacred Scriptures. While he is diligently engaged in discharging this duty, he cannot be justly reproached as acting inconsistently with what he owes to others. The church sustains the relation of a parent to her members; the duties of a parent are binding on her; and she, while acting like a parent, is as free from blame as a parent who performs the duties he owes to his children . . . . The Presbyterian Church, as already said, differs in her creed and form of church government, from her sister churches in this country, and in com¬ municating instruction to her children, (no one will affirm she is bound to withhold instruction from them,) she must either teach what she be¬ lieves, or-teach nothing more than what all sects believe. But who has a right to prescribe the lat¬ ter as her rule? Who can free her from the obliga¬ tion to teach whatever God teaches in his word? Are not the sacred Scriptures the standard of faith, and is she not bound to fashion her own faith, as well as the faith of her members, by this infallible standard? To this divine standard slie must con¬ form; and as she may not add to it, so she may not take from it . Had she done her duty more faithfully, and instructed her children and youth more diligently, so rich and blessed a harvest would she have reaped from the seed sown and 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 351 labor bestowed, that she would regard the charge of sectarianism as idle wind. Coming from her own members, she would consider it either as a mark of ignorance, or as an indication of unsoundness in the faith; and coming from others she would despise it as a senseless accusation.” These remarks we take from a Report to the General Assembly on Parochial Schools , by Dr. J. J. Janeway, submitted in 1840. You may consider Presbyterianism only another word for sectarian¬ ism, to the mind and conscience of its advocate it is not, it is the true and pure religion; and upon it as such he bases his preference for parochial schools over the secular—to him therefore it is a matter of conscience. Surely, the argument that a sense of religious duty demands the education of the youth in religious schools, can not be met by a charge upon him who advances it of sectarian bias and bigotry. Least of all can a citizen—and it is as such we are endeavoring “to hear the case”—be allowed to offer in replication anything so im¬ pertinent. In the above, the plaintiff is a Presbyterian. For Presbyterian, substitute the name of any other denominational designation—Episcopalian, Luther¬ an, Methodist, Baptist, even Roman Catholic, etc., —and you have their common formal declaration against the secular, and their demand for parochial schools. For in all churches of a decided char¬ acter there are—though in some more by far than in others—those who cannot do otherwise than look upon the common secular school rather as a make-shift than as the normal condition of affairs 352 THE SCHOOL. VI. educational. They hold that the S 3 r stem, without being intended to do so, nevertheless crowds re¬ ligion into the background; and that for this rea¬ son, as one, it cannot serve, as they should be served, the best interests of the individual, of society, of the Church and of the State; and that these convictions move them to desire and to con¬ tend for something better and more efficient. We cannot but honor the sentiment. Besides all this, “Many devout parents are by no means content to pay to the tax collector the salaries of infidel pro¬ fessors and principals, whose influence upon the country they believe to be altogether pernicious. Indeed, many are not content to pay for the sup¬ port of teachers whose lips are padlocked as to every Gospel truth, even though they may be mor¬ ally and professedly Christians.” (Dr. Kimball in the Congregationalist of 1883..) The force of the argument, as thus presented, is felt by many; and to meet it they propose among other expedients the introduction of some religion—-just enough to remove the stigma of god¬ lessness which, in the minds of some, is attached to non-religious schools. In this way they hope to re¬ move the compunctious objection of some and to comply with the demands of others, and thus satis¬ factorily to compromise the w T hole matter in dis¬ pute. Without at all entering upon a discussion of its legalty under a government w T hich disavows having anything to do with religion as such, and w^hich is founded upon the principle of equal rights and liberties to all in all things and in religion especially—without here engaging fully to show up 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 353 its utter impracticability and which we mean to do in the following section—suffice it to say that the proposition, if carried out, will only make matters worse. The introduction of a little religion even, considering the social, the legal, the religious and churchly embarrassments under which, if not in despite of them, it would needs have to be done, would be but a miserable pretext—and a pretext of religion is really worse than none at all. And sup¬ pose that a few of the so-called fundamental doc¬ trines, and such as it is supposed all religionists hold in common, were taught; this might gratify, as no doubt it would more than satisfy, the deist, the Socinian, the rationalist, the Unitarian and oth¬ ers, but it would not satisfy the Christian. To him, Socinianism, rationalism, and all isms of a similar import, are of all forms of sectarianism the very worst. And not without good reason. For if there be any doctrine unscriptural, and therefore unchris¬ tian and sectarian, it is that which teaches men to be virtuous and to do good as best they can, thereby to secure success in life and an entrance to the kingdom of heaven. Yet this is “ the broad Christianity ” and “ the common religion 55 which some would have taught in the secular schools in order to make these acceptable to the consciences of Christians! Than the absence of religion and their indirect hindering of its propagation, there are objections to secular schools of a more positive and serious na¬ ture. These are not inherent in the system, but from outside causes attach themselves to its opera¬ tion. While the schools in themselves are not god¬ less, godless teachers and superintendents — and 15* 354 THE SCHOOL. VI. that in not a few instances—will possess them¬ selves of their management. Under the laws of the land in general and of the schools in particu¬ lar, how, for example, can an avowed atheist be de¬ barred from a seat in the school-board, or from any office in the school, if otherwise qualified? You answer that you know of none, but at the same time inquire: what of that, since no one is permitted to teach otherwise—that if any one holds to atheistic views, in the school-room he is bound to keep them to himself. True, and yet not altogether true. He may say nothing against our holy religion, and yet again in a thousand subtle ways disparage it in the hearts of our children. “ What is education? It is that which is imbibed from the moral atmosphere which a child breathes. It is the involuntary and unconscious language of its parents and of all those by whom it is surrounded, and not their set speeches and set lectures.”* Now with many, as it should be with all, fathers and mothers, the education of their children is very much a matter of conscience, and of an enlightened conscience, too. This being the case, suppose the other, that if parents would at all send their children to school it must be to an atheist—what are they to do? And yet it is a lamentable fact that where the system of education itself is based upon strictly secular grounds, there not a few of the schools fall into the hands of athe¬ ists or of men whose moral influence is not a whit less corrupting. Under such circumstances, una¬ voidable as they are, is it to.be wondered at that there are many found who look with disfavor upon * Drummond’s Speeches in Parliament. 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 355 the whole system and refuse it their hearty support? Besides, the same objection holds in a greater or less degree with regard to the books in use now and then. In an address on the duties of teachers and parents, Dr. M’Guffy very wisely exhorts : “ Let us be careful never to inculcate any doubtful principle of morality or religion ”—we add, on any subject whatever—; “or to recommend, by precept or ex¬ ample, any wrong, or even equivocal sentiment of feeling. We may—nay, we must—have our own speculative opinions .... But in this state, fellow teachers, let them never be named in our schools, nor let them begin to influence our conduct as prac¬ tical teachers. The intellectual and moral char¬ acters of our pupils is too valuable to be made the subject of rash and hazardous experiment.” The giving out of doubts as facts, certainly in itself already a wrong, acts most ruinously upon the moral powers of the credulous and confiding youth. Its inevitable result is skepticism in every domain of thought, and hence distrust of men and dis¬ belief of God. Notwithstanding this, in our schools and in the books there in use, the wildest specula¬ tions are made to pass for the most creditable theo¬ ries, while theories are palmed off as demonstrated facts. That is, to-day; on the morrow the whole or¬ der may be reversed : the fact becomes a theory, this same theory a hypothesis, and this same hypothesis an—exploded idea! This whole miserable way of things may astound the school, exalt the teacher, enrich the book-maker, please the world and “meet the times,” but it is an abomination irreparably in¬ jurious to the mind and soul of the rising generation. 356 THE SCHOOL. VI. While such grievous things are said in dispar¬ agement to the secular -school, it must not be in¬ ferred that there is no good in it, or that nothing can be said in its favor. By no means! “Destroy it not, for there is a blessing in it.” The mental discipline, the useful knowledge, the artistic skill, the elegance of manners, the habits of orderliness and neatness, of observation and industrious appli¬ cation, which it may, and in so great a measure does, secure to those attending it—all these things are invaluable treasures to the individual, and of great worth to the Church as well as to the State. Its systematically non-religious character and mode and method of operation do, in themselves, not condemn it. These its features are a defect rather, and a necessary evil; but they do not render it a thing unholy and hateful in the sight of God—no more than is a system of civil government partak¬ ing of the same nature thereby rendered unholy. To stigmatize secular schools as godless for no other reason than that they teach no religion, is a sense¬ less and wrongful denunciation. Then, too, when the secular school is at the same time public, that is, the property of the gov¬ ernment, it must be said in its favor that the diffusion of knowledge—such as it provides—will be more general, school-houses will be more numerous and better adapted to the purpose, and the school¬ room better furnished, than when the matter of education is wholly left to the care of society, in¬ cluding the churches. It is to be feared that, were a government to provide no school-facilities, schools as a rule would only be found where there are § 19. ITS RELATION TO STATE AND CHURCH. 357 churches, and even not always there. The result would be that, in place of the school-master, ignor¬ ance would be abroad and together with vice bear impious sway in many a nook and corner of the land. We repeat it; “Destroy it not, for there is a blessing in it”—even in the secular school. On the other hand, even when we must admit that in some respects the State can outdo the Church, it can do so only in things of a secondary importance, only in externals, while in things most vital to education it can do nothing at all. Place your child into the hands of the State and the very best that can be done for it—not to say what really will be done—is: mental training, the infusion of knowledge respecting earthly things, and the formation of good external habits—its heart it can not regenerate nor sanctify, its char¬ acter it can not really mold unto goodness, because to do this it would have to teach the word of God, which it dare not do. In a few words: it can give to your child a good secular education—no more; and it may do much less. The parochial school, the churchly school, fully educates. Its object and office are to furnish simultaneously a secular and religious education combined, so that the latter part may sanctify the former—that with the power of knowledge the will rightly to use it may grow up together. In this it may, in this it does, not always succeed; but with the means and with the charge to do this, the Church and the Church ex¬ pressly is commissioned. “ Then the king answered and said, Giye her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.” 358 THE SCHOOL. VI* § 20. THE PROBLEM BROUGHT HOME, OR, THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. “ In the United States, the several States in¬ dividually arrange the school-system and designate the various schools to be supported and managed by the public authorities, and sometimes prescribe more or less of the branches of knowledge to be taught; provide how districts may be created, di¬ vided, or consolidated with others and how moneys may be raised by or for them; prescribe their or¬ ganization, officers and the powers, and their time and manner of their filling and vacating offices and the functions of each office; prescribe the school-age and conditions of attendance; and pro¬ vide in some cases for the investment and applica¬ tion of the school-funds derived from the General Government. The local municipalities organize school-districts under State-laws, elect school-offi¬ cers, and levy and collect taxes for school-purposes. The local school-officers examine, appoint, and fix the salaries of teachers, when not otherwise done, build school-houses, procure school supplies, ar¬ range courses of study, prescribe the rules and regulations for the government of the schools and administer the schools.” See U A Statement of the % Theory of Education in the United States of Amer¬ ica, As approved by many leading Educators. Gov. Printing Office, 1874.” In the same document we find the following statement, p. 18: Sectarian instruction is not 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 359 given in the public schools. Religious, particu¬ larly sectarian, training is accomplished mainly in families and by the several denominations in their Sunday-schools or in special classes that recite their catechisms at stated intervals during the week. It is quite a common practice to open or close the public schools with Bible-reading and prayer. Singing of religious hymns by the entire school is more common.” Though in some of the State-Constitutions there is found a more or less direct recognition of the Deity, yet, upon the whole, the attitude as¬ sumed by them with regard to religion is the same as that of the National Government. Hence the secularity of our common schools. To these, as above mentioned, in places a religious coloring is given, notably by a devotional use of portions of Scripture, and incidentally by the use of music of which the text is religious. While for some this is not enough of religion, for others it is too much. In the first place, the dangerously secularizing tend¬ ency and effects of the whole system are much more strongly and generally felt than many seem willing to admit. Many are conscious of the fact that there is something wrong, though they may not be able to say just what it is. Not a few, however, among the more observing understand the evil, and as frankly point it out as they are correct in fixing it. Here a noteworthy, yes, and a praiseworthy example:— “The schoolmaster who is abroad in our land, is not the people’s schoolmaster in spirit and in truth, unless he teach them what is indispensable 360 THE SCHOOL* VI. to their prosperity, happiness and true glory. He must be the Christian, the American school-master: he must give them a truly Christian and American educa¬ tion, to make them what they should be, peculiarly a Christian and American people. Are these the great end and practical operation of the scheme of Edu¬ cation now established in our country? ... Is this important end obtained? I shall endeavor to show that it is not, and why it is not: and likewise in what manner only, in my judgment at least, it can be attained. “May I be pardoned, If I turn aside for a few moments, to disburden myself of a thought, which finds here its appropriate place. I condemn to a vast extent, all our existing schemes. I think them radically defective in elements and modes. In one who has spent the last twenty-five years at the bar, and has never had any practical knowledge as a teacher, except in the instruction of his chil¬ dren, it may be deemed presumptuous to set up his speculations, against the experience which founded and administers a practical system. I am willing to bear the reproach of presumption, if it only be admitted that I have no selfish purpose to answer, no false pride to gratify; that I honestly believe I am engaged in the discharge of an unwelcome but important duty, and that the progress and honor of religion, the happiness and improvement of our country, are my objects . . . “The spirit of the Revolution gave to the government of the old confederacy a life and spirit, which were not its own: and the immediate influ¬ ence of English institutions, habits, sentiments, 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 361 and instructors, gave to our system of education an efficacy which did not belong to it. The country needed a political reformation: and the people de¬ manded a new constitution. It is just the same now; I believe the country requires a reform in the scheme of instruction; and if the people have not yet demanded a new constitution in education , it is because they are not yet aware of the deficiencies in their old articles of confederacy , in the educational department .... “I proceed to designate what I regard as the prominent objectionable features of our existing systems of instruction. They are not as they should be, decidedly religious . It will be granted, for no one can doubt, much less deny, that religion is no part of our plans of daily education. The Scriptures, as a branch of education, are no where uniformly and steadily taught, as languages and mathematics are. If the Bible be used as a school¬ reading book, or a few verses be committed to mem¬ ory, still it is not made the subject of daily instruc¬ tion. I speak of the fact, that the religion of the Bible is not a permanent, substantial part of edu¬ cation among us. I am aware that the Bible has in some few instances forced its way into a school or college; but to so limited an extent, as to make no change in the general character of the system. That system is then undoubtedly an unchristian, even if it be not an aniichristian scheme .... “ Things as they should be, demand then, im¬ peratively, that education should be decidedly re¬ ligious. It is granted on all hands, that religion is the highest interest of man; that it is the cement 16 362 THE SCHOOL. VI. of society and the foundation of government; that it is the best safeguard of duty, and a fountain of the purest happiness. It is also granted that noth¬ ing can supply its place, that arts and sciences, learning and eloquence, genius and taste are of lit¬ tle value without it. Equally is it granted, that the great majority who come out of our schools, and colleges, learn nothing in them of this momen¬ tous concern. Can this be right any where? How much more is it wrong then in a country where the people, being and doing every thing, are uncon¬ trolled, but by the voluntary restraints they lay upon themselves ... It is granted by every intel¬ ligent man, that religion is the chief safeguard of American institutions; that none but a religious people can remain free; . . . and yet, though all this be granted, the Christian religion, emphatic¬ ally the religion of the people, is not made a part of the scheme of general education. I can not but regard this as a great calamity to the country; and it becomes well the people of the United States, to consider w T hether they are not guilty of a striking dereliction of duty to their posterity, by thus ex¬ cluding religion from their daily course of instruc¬ tion. Let the school-master who is abroad in our land, answer then the question, is he a Christian school-master?” Such was the view of “one of the best classical scholars in the country,” a graduate of Yale, an eminent lawyer, a warm friend of the school, and of one great in the love of his country and in the fear of God: Thomas Smith Grimke —died in 1834. We have quoted at great length, still not enough to re- 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 363 tain fully unimpaired the force of his plea for christianizing the public school. Most truly does he point out to us the one thing needful, most fer¬ vently does he urge its election, but the manner of its obtaining he does not show. Being a lawyer, it is all the more surprising that he makes no men¬ tion of the insurmountable difficulties in the way —or does the force of habit, perhaps, account for that? He argues, and most truly again, “that none but a religious people can remain free.” Does he propose by legislation to christianize the public school? If not in that way, how otherwise? And if, were not that robbing the people of the very thing he proposes to secure to them—freedom? The fact is, the measure proposed and so warmly urged, is discussed on the supposition that all the people of the land, individually and collectively, are Christians and that as such they are all of the same way of thinking and believing. That the premises thus assumed are notoriously fallacious: that those who profess Christianity are among themselves divided and subdivided into innumer¬ able factions, that there are thousands who deny the Christian faith in its first and best elements, that there are thousands of others who renounce religion ^in all its forms, then, that the law of the land takes cognizance of this lamentable state of things and on account of it all the more effectually insists upon toleration—these are facts which re¬ ceive no consideration. We say that Christianity is the religion of our country, rather, of the people inhabiting the land. This is a fact both pleasing and significant. But 364 THE SCHOOL. VI. the statement will not bear a literal interpretation; for that it is too general. All we mean to convey by its use is, that.upon the whole our people are a religious people; and then, that they derive their religious convictions not from the Mishna nor the Koran, not from the Veda nor from the Lun-Yu of Confucius, but from the Bible and, above all, from the Gospel of Christ. Nevertheless, the Christian¬ ity thus derived is not so universal and to such an extent common as to warrant its introduction into the common schools, and thus to give to our present system of education a positive Christian character. “The most perplexing question respecting common schools' 1 —says John G. Baird of the Conn. Board of Education—“relates to moral and religious train¬ ing, and results from diversities of religious opin¬ ions. As the schools are supported chiefly by taxes levied upon all classes indiscriminately, no one sect can be favored without injustice to all others. But the right moral training of a child is even more important than the culture of its intellect, and common schools cannot safely omit all such train¬ ing. Nor can it be wisely remitted to other times and places, for the principles of honesty, virtue, truthfulness, and morality are for constant daily use. The problem is to give such instruction as shall be efficient for its purpose, but shall not vio¬ late the rights or excite the just apprehensions of any sect. If this can be accomplished, the amount of such training may be too small to give general satisfaction .... The difficulty that is experienced in common schools of the lower rank becomes more urgent when higher studies are to be pursued. 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 365 Both teachers and text-books in such studies as history and philosophy must advance positive opin¬ ions, some of which will inevitably conflict with those of a part of the people. There is obvious in¬ justice in compelling people to pay taxes for sup¬ porting the teachers of doctrines which they abhor, and in thus depriving them, wholly or in part, of the means for establishing such schools as teach the views which they approve. The religious question is arising in all countries where diverse religions are found, and it is sure to claim increased atten¬ tion in the future. It does not admit of a ready solution, and perhaps no single solution will ever be discovered. It may assume such proportions as to limit free popular education to a lower range of studies than its most ardent friends have hoped. Surely, the earnestly religious part of the people, who are the firmest friends of schools for all, can¬ not consent to the total banishment of moral train¬ ing from the common schools. A severe struggle upon this point is one of the possibilities of the near future.” In these words we have a precise and fair statement of the problem in its special reference to our own land. We proceed to consider the gen¬ eral situation and condition of things, and then to discusss the methods proposed for its solution. Diversities and conflicts in matters of religion, no less than infidelity, are the work of sin; and wherever they occur they are felt to be a great curse in all departments of life. We here see how they affect the all-important affair of education— how, in our own land as in many others, they ren- 366 THE SCHOOL. VI. der the Common Christian School a thing utterly impossible. This, many of our people as yet do not believe; or, if they perceive it, they at least are not willing to acknowledge it. As in many other instances, so in this case: the truth is too bitter for utterance. What is practically impos¬ sible, some are nevertheless bound to realize, at least to some extent. They persistently demand, some: that our public schools shall be religious; others, that they be made decidedly Christian— the former want portions of the Bible read, the latter insist that it shall be taught. Note well the distinction between “religious” and “decidedly Christian.” Foremost in the defense of the Public School as a religious but not as a Christian institution, there is a class of men which deserves to be char¬ acterized somewhat. To them all “sectarianism” is an abomination as great as is atheism itself and, than this, entitled to no more consideration, if to as much. “For religion”—they say—“is no sect, no book, no interloper in human affairs. Religion is older than Protestant or Catholic, than Christian or Hebrew, than Mohammedan or Pagan faith. The Bible and all special forms and creeds are but its children.” With this conception of religion they would bid you “Go about your own busi¬ ness; the common schools are neither sectarian nor atheistic, but they are, and shall be relig¬ ious.” God preserve our schools against the intro¬ duction of that “religion” which is here set forth as the meretricious dame of “the Bible and all special forms and creeds” as her children! In the §20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. . 367 entire domain of religious thought, can there be found anything so pointedly and narrowly sec¬ tarian as the “religion” here advocated and, at the same time, predicated of our common schools as a matter of right ? The sophistic and specious asser¬ tion that within this creed is embodied only what of truth is common to all the creeds of the world, can not save it from condemnation for the double reason that it admits no distinctive truth into its own shallow system and that it is set up against every other form of faith. Of all sectarianism this is,, perhaps, the most exclusive and repugnant; but, as in every other case, to its advocates it is “the only true and rightful religion.” It might seem unfair to specify in these pages any one class of religionists and to expose to view its creed—“that weak decoction of religion called Unitarianism”—; and unfair it would be, had we no good reason for so doing. Many of our citizens have demanded that the public school be made non-religious; not one, to our knowledge, has ever put forth the claim that it be made atheistic, that is, that atheism be taught. Never have we heard a Methodist say that Methodism should there be inculcated; never has the Presbyterian, the Bap¬ tist, the Episcopalian, the Lutheran, put forth such arrogant claims upon the schools of the people, each in behalf of his own particular creed. No, even the Romish Church, inimically and bit¬ terly disposed toward them as she is, grievously as she has abused and, in places, defrauded them—as yet she has not had the insolence to say that the public schools are her schools and that her dogmas 3S8 THE SCHOOL. VI. must there be taught. Of such affront to our equal rights and to common equity, only the modern Deist is thus far guilty. “Go about your own business”— he says to us all—“the common schools are neither sectarian nor atheistic, but they are, and shall be, religious. They shall teach that religion which was before the Bible and, if need be, can do with¬ out it. Divest the creeds of your churches of every distinctive feature, and whatever is left,— to wit; my religion and creed,—give to the youth of the land ; let that be the creed of the Public School. Against that, nobody can have any rea¬ sonable objections; with that all can, all must, be satisfied. Damit basta!” And lo, the most per¬ plexing question of the age, how readily, how self- satisfactorily, answered. It leaves our schools in happy possession of an indefinable First Great Cause, and of the escape-valve policy that, where¬ as probably there is a heaven and possibly a hell, it is best in the ordering of one’s life to have some respect to that First Great Cause. “ Having children before you, you may, after the manner of old faiths, call that great Unknown, “God;” but be sure to say nothing about that old absurdity of a “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All things considered, you may use the Bible; but be careful in your selec¬ tions. Beside its many excellent qualities there are, you know—! The beatitudes are fine; so is ‘Our Father’ an unobjectionable form of prayer . . . This miserable pretense of a more miserable relig¬ ion is not only ingeniously offered us in solution of the vexed problem under consideration—alas, it has thus far been the solution actually accepted 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 369 and put into operation. The “religion” just de¬ scribed is in reality to a great extent the religion of our Public School. Happily, its disastrous effects have thus far been counteracted in great measure by the Christian influence of some of its teachers, but especially by the Christian family and the Christian churches. Unless arrested in good time this, the worst of all forms of sectarianism, and which now practically constitutes the creed of our common schools, will inevitably work our religious, and with it our na¬ tional, ruin. Of this, many of our good citizens are already aware; and many more are fast learn¬ ing. Unfortunately, of these not a few, as already observed, propose measures of correction in a way wholly impracticable. Like Grimke, they would make the common schools truly and thoroughly religious, that is, Christian. A more effective and better means of relief, certainly, can not be sug¬ gested. The teaching of the Word of God, in fact, is our only help and safety. But its salvation can¬ not come to us by way of the school common to all the people of the land. That is wholly out of the question. It is true that the atheist, who derides the very idea of God and cries out in contempt of godliness in all its forms, is wickedly guilty; and nothing much better can be said of the moralizing infidel. Likewise is he greatly in the wrong who holds and propagates false doctrines. All such doings are for¬ bidden by God, and He will judge them in due time. But it is no less true that, in affairs strictly religious, He would allow no resort to coercion and 370 THE SCHOOL. VI. violence by any man against his fellow. This is recognized, though not in this form, throughout our whole theory of Government. As in other things, so especially in affairs of the soul and of God, our Government is founded on the principle of equal rights and liberties to all. Now we must make up our minds either to depart from the posi¬ tion thus assumed or to abandon every thought of establishing Christianity as an integral part of our public system of instruction. As things are : full religious freedom and schools both Christian and public, are two things we cannot possibly enjoy at the same time. Either we must surrender the one or do without the other. The laws of our land—the laws which our fathers made—forbid the establishment of any re¬ ligion, forbid its compulsory support by taxation and otherwise, forbid a legally enforced attendance upon worship, and religious restraint, by the mag¬ istrate, of every kind whatsoever. In their close distinction between things civil and religious; in their legal separation of the State and Church; in their declaration of equal rights and liberties; and in their proclamation of freedom then and for ever ;— have our fathers been over-wise and over-generous, have they been extremists? Would we at this day, when history has demonstrated that they thought wisely and did well, begin to doubt their wisdom and deplore their work ? Are we prepared to undo and to amend what we know to have been well done—prepared to break the promises for us made and to demand a return of the gifts, to us as well as for us, bestowed? No! Yet these things we must do would we Christianize the Public School. 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 371 The Public School is the property exclusively of the State. But it is granted on all sides that the propagation of religion is the office of the family and the Church, that it does not come within State- jurisdiction except as a matter wherein individual citizens and the Church are entitled to protection. Introduce religion as an object of instruction, and the State is made to transcend the limits of its vo¬ cation; it encroaches upon the rights of individ¬ uals, of the family and the Church, for it is the State which administers the schools of which we speak. In short, every argument against the estab¬ lishment of any religion by the Government is an argument also against the introduction of religion into the public educational system. Between the two there is virtually no difference. In the one we have a national church including church-schools; in the other we have a national church-school sub¬ serving all the purposes of some non-established sect. The talk about teaching a religion of which no one shall be able to define the substance and tell the name, is nothing but a blind and a subter¬ fuge of deists in disguise—of men who are bent upon reducing all religions to the low level of their own and who, to accomplish their purpose, would employ as the most effective instrument the schools of the people. “ Probably at the time of the adop¬ tion of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it ... an attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of State-policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disap¬ probation, if not universal indignation.” The time to level all religions without exciting universal dis- 372 THE SCHOOL. VI. approbation if not universal indignation—that time, thank God, has not yet come; and, we hope, least of all in our own beloved country. Than the rationalistic and flatulent deism of our times, no more cau Christianity occupy a legit- mate place in the course of public-school instruc¬ tion. Though no doctrine of Christianity, and were it the least and the least believed, is, properly speaking, sectarian; nevertheless, its every truth is more or less distinctive so that Christians are, as such, religiously separated from all other people. The idea of a Christianity so broad that it can be approved by both Jew and Gentile, may be a whim of somebody’s brain but it is no thing of reality. The inculcation in our public schools of Christian doctrines, which are such in truth, is subversive of the object for which they were established, namely, to be secular schools and adapted to the secular wants of the whole people. Let the Christian re¬ ligion be taught, and the foes and the friends of Christianity will withdraw their support; each party for a reason its own. No, the Bible—precious as it is and, for one reason, just because it is so precious—can find no place as a text-book in the Public School. Neither the infidel and the atheist, nor the true and intel¬ ligent Christian, want it there : the former because they hate it, the latter because they love it, and wisely love their children. The former, in their wicked folly, do not want it taught their children; the latter will have it taught, but only by teachers of their own election, at least only by such as they can approve. You say: “ What need we care 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 373 about the wishes of infidels, atheists, and secta¬ rians ?” If you do not, happily the people gen¬ erally, the law, and the Government, do concern themselves about their wishes. ’Tis well that they do. Were they to order the schools, which are equally the property of all, in deference to the wishes of some and in defiance to the will—not to say the consciences—of others, then might we have a large land to live in but its liberties would be small, The Christian religion is the best and the only true safeguard of our country and its noble institutions; at the same time, no sooner is it forced upon the common school for propagation than re¬ ligious freedom and civic equity, peace and order, are made to quit the land. In so far as you com¬ mit the cause of religion to the School of the State, in that measure you make it the concern of the State itself, and you dispossess the Church of its rightful charge. And such a course is altogether repugnant to our idea of common rights and civil government. The Convention by whom our Con¬ stitution was formed, says Chief Justice Jay, “ were of the opinion that the Gospel of Christ, like the ark of God, would not fall, though unsupported by the arm of flesh; and happy would it be for man¬ kind if that opinion prevailed more generally.” Even so; then leave religion to the care of the Church; and as citizens of a free country remem¬ ber that, according to Iiavard, “The greatest glory of a free-born people “Is to transmit that freedom to their children.” Moreover, w T here there is such a great diversity of religious convictions, as is the case among our peo- 374 THE SCHOOL. VI. pie, the promulgation of any religious doctrine is sure to involve an unjust restraint. The School depends for its support upon general taxation. But to compel a man to pay for instruction in religion, such as he cannot approve, is an infraction of his liberty of conscience, and therefore unlawful. We know that this is a convenient plea, and liable to abuse. We likewise are of the opinion that many w T ho resort to this mode of defense by so do¬ ing only render themselves ridiculous. Such are, for example, the atheists and all people of low character. Such are also, it would seem to us, in this particular instance, the extreme Romanists; for since the Romish Church, wherever it has the power, shows no regard whatever for the religious and conscientious convictions of others, but op¬ presses them without a sign of compunction, he who approves thereof forfeits the benefit of the principle—of the principle that the consciences of men must be respected. Be this as it may, there are many honorable men whose consciences will not allow them without remorse to contribute to the dissemination of any religion which they hold to be false and pernicious to all the interests of hu¬ manity. That possibly they are mistaken, that in the opinion of many others what they think to be false and hurtful, is true and wholesome, does not alter the case. Every just law’ requires that they be left free to follow their moral convictions. The Christian protests against an enforced support of Judaism, the Jew against a like support of Chris¬ tianity; the Protestant emphatically objects to each and every compulsory contribution towards 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 375 promulgating Romanism, while the Romanist con¬ siders it an insult to be asked to do anything for Protestanism; etc. Would our Government keep the peace, to do which it is called, it must in no way whatever levy taxes for purposes avowedly religious. Would a commonwealth possess and ad¬ minister the School, that School should be rigidly secular and not engage to do the work committed to the Church. The idea of a school, intended to impart re¬ ligious instruction and at the same time to be the common property of all sorts of people, is in itself something preposterous in the extreme. If, as al¬ ready pointed out, conscientious parents cannot always avail themselves of schools designedly sec¬ ular on account of the teachers and books at times employed and on account of the influence there exerted, how much more must this be the case in schools where moral and religious instruction is made an object. This a few simple and pointed questions will show. How can the atheist and the believer, the Jew and the Christian, the Romanist and the Protestant, ever agree to intrust their children to the same religious instructor? how can they possibly find religious text-books to which no one can have any objection? Will the atheist, the Jew, the Romish, ever submit to have the Bible expounded to their children by Protestant Christians? Can these accept of such a service at the hands of the former? To all of these, and simi¬ lar, questions, all will cry out in the negative, and that most vehemently, too. Yet, as people are in this country, to such things, atrocious as they are 376 THE SCHOOL. VI. in part, we would have to submit were the Public Schools made decidedly religious. No, if we desire to have State-schools, these must be secular. Such, upon the whole, they are; and systematically such they are designed to be. But again, the fact is recognized and is beginning to be felt more and more among our Christian people “ that high mental attainments afford no adequate security against moral debasement / 7 and that the education by the present public system is not at all such as the temporal and spiritual wel¬ fare of the child demands, even when supplemented by domestic and churchly efforts. What is pro¬ posed to remedy the evil, and the utter impracti¬ cability of every proposition so made, we have seen. We inquire, what is actually being done? There are some families who quietly attend to the education of their children personally, or com¬ mit them to the care of private schools. Then, as is well known, the Romish sect interdicts the atten¬ tion of the Public School by the children of its own connection. It provides for them by schools of its own establishment. Whatever our opinion may be of their merits, and of the merits of the Romish creed and policy generally, as viewed from a religious standpoint; as citizens we must acknowledge that Romanists have a full right to their opinions and to the establishment of such schools as they may deem best suited to themselves and to the wants of their children. Since they cannot avail themselves, as they say, of the schools of the public, the most honorable course they can pursue is the one adopted by them, i. e. their system of 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 377 parochial schools. But we consider as dishonor¬ able the measures here and there employed to dis¬ able and destroy, it would seem, the schools of the people; and expressly must we condemn their con¬ tinued endeavors to possess themselves of a share of the public school-funds. In these they have suc¬ ceeded, notably in New York City, and are most likely to succeed wherever politically they hold the balance of power. In some of our States the application of the people’s money for sectarian purposes is constitutionally forbidden, as by right it should be everywhere. We as Protestants ob¬ ject to taxation for religious purposes of whatever kind, and most of all to any Romish propaganda as by our means. Besides the Romanists, there are others who have established parochial schools; nominally the Lutherans, and to some extent also those belong- to the Calvinistic branch of Protestantism. But these people seem to be bound not only to have their own schools but, as is right and proper, to support them by means their own. This is as it should be; for the State has the full right to es¬ tablish secular schools, however and whenever it may think best to do so. But this involves the other, namely, to levy a tax for their maintenance. Then, when we remember that a secular education, even where it is imperfect in many respects, is a thousand times better than none at all—when we think of the social and political, yes, and the indi¬ rect churchly, benefits derived from the education as now furnished by the Public School—what citi¬ zen were not willing to assist in its support, even 16 * 378 THE SCHOOL. VI. when for his own children he provides something far better ? There are some, especially among those who prize higher the State than the Church, who have an unreasonable prejudice to parochial or, as they call them indiscriminately, sectarian schools. They pre¬ judge them as necessarily engendering and strength¬ ening a factious spirit, and that for this reason they are politically injurious—that they are apt to drive out the spirit of true patriotism. We own that there is some truth in the first part of this state¬ ment, this namely, that they do stand in the way of those who fondly desire to see all existing religions reduced to some common level—to that, for exam¬ ple, which these people themselves occupy. But there is no truth in the charge that church-schools tend to destroy one’s love of home and country. No, they foster that love; they purify and strengthen the patriotic sentiment. America has been desig¬ nated “the land of sects.” Truly, here the sects abound and thrive, if anywhere; yet, than are the Americans, where is there a people in all the world more patriotic—a people greater in the love of their country and more brave in its defense ? No, widely as our people differ religiously, and firm as they are in their religious convictions—in the love of their country they are one and they are strong and brave. Consulting the good of our country no less than the advancement of God’s kingdom among us, we say with the lamented Grimke that the schools and teachers of our children must be such as “ to make them what they should be, peculiarly a Christian and American people .” And whereas, un- 379 THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. der existing circumstances, the State can possibly give us neither such schools nor such teachers as we both need and demand, we say: let no one discour¬ age those who do—the people of the Church. Time will show that not the schools of the several States, the American and secular schools, but that the schools of the several churches, the American and Christian schools, are in the end by far the greater preservative forces and benefactors in a nation. In the meantime, as long as the great ma¬ jority of our citizens think it best to continue the present public system of instruction, it behooves every one readily to submit to the necessary taxation. And though he may know of a better system and in a good spirit and legitimate way labor for its introduction, he must not overlook the great importance of the public schools to the land in which he lives; nor forget that he likewise is a partaker of all those benefits which accrue from the education of the masses under State supervision. They who think that a different and better education is due to their childrQn than the one so provided—an education which conforms more to the will of God and answers more fully the true interests of humanity—must content themselves to devise means and to establish schools of their own, as many Christians of the land have done and are now doing. But while so doing they should first make up their minds from their own resources to pay for and support such schools. There must be no covert attempt or other to obtain possession of the public money—that must be, as collected, so also used for secular purposes only. 380 THE SCHOOL. VI. Towards a satisfactory solution of the vexed question before us, the following general proposi¬ tions are thought serviceable: 1) Let the State demand that all the children of the land be educated in a manner and degree as required by the public safety and good; that is, let secular education be made compulsory. 2) Let the churches likewise require their members to have their children instructed as re¬ quired by the will and word of God; that is, let religious instruction be insisted on more earnestly and be made more thorough in the home, the Church, and in the Church-school. 3) Let both, the State and the Church, pro¬ vide for adequate educational facilities—the schools of the State not to furnish more than a common political education, as defined in § 4 p. 78. 4) Before the law of the land let each one be free to send his children to the schools of the State or of the Church, as he may think best. 5) Let every one, who can, be held to pay for the education of his children. 6) Let the State, and the churches who will ? make proper provision for the education of the poor and friendless. These general propositions are in full accord with our American theory of the relation of State and Church. They are no more revolutionary to the present condition of things than anything thus far advanced, such as the division of the school- 20. THE AMERICAN SCHOOL. 381 funds, exemption from taxation of those who can¬ not avail themselves of the schools as they are and are conducted, etc. But whatever change be proposed or whatever movement inaugurated, in each and all, let mutual good-will, moderation, and equity, be the ruling graces; and let the true good of the land to the glory of God, be the purpose of every heart. .