A State Cannot Be a Theocracy.
By J. O. Corliss
That injustice to citizens and final governmental destruction arises from ecclesiastical assumption of power in the civil sphere, or vice versa, has been fully demonstrated in the history of the Roman government. In the fourth century the bishops of that time adopting the theory that the Roman government was, or could become, a theocracy, brought about a union of the church with the civil power, in order to receive support from the state in bringing the world to the religious faith held by themselves. In his History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol. 2, sec. 2, part 1, Neander says of that time: “There had in fact arisen in the Church . . . a false theocratical theory, originating not in the essence of the gospel, but in the confusion of the religious constituents of the Old and New Testaments, which . . . brought along with it an unchristian opposition of the spiritual to the secular power, and which might easily result in the formation of a sacerdotal state, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way. . . . This theocratical theory was already the prevailing one of the time of Constantine; and . . . the bishops voluntarily made themselves dependent upon him by their disputes, and by their determination to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.”
It may be readily supposed that when a worldly church thus prostitutes itself to the civil power in order to accomplish its ends, the civil government will in turn, to secure the political influence of the church, yield to its demands, although it may be evident that the granting of such demands will lead to flagrant abuses. In this case, it is well known what followed. Decrees were issued by the emperor regulating the conduct of all Roman subjects in matters of religious faith. Penalties so severe were attached to these edicts, that all feared to disobey who desired to preserve their lives. Hence, nearly all conformed to the decrees, even though at heart they were not in harmony with them. Such a course made hypocrites, from whom were chosen the chief dignitaries of the church and empire. The result was that the bishops became more and more ambitious, bold, and unscrupulous. But the government having bargained with the church for its influence, could not well withdraw from the compact, because the political influence for which it had bargained had become the dominating one. To combat it, at that stage in the drama, meant the loss of the empire to the civil power, yet to let matters still go on was sure to bring the same result at some future time. As the rapidly-growing influence of the church in secular matters was a dangerous thing to oppose, it was allowed to strengthen year by year till the church clearly gained the ascendancy in political intrigue. In fact, the emperors, in order to maintain their authority, had themselves recognized as bishops of the church, in order to administer affairs of the church as well as those of the state. The result of all this was most natural—men who desired some rich benefice became extremely servile before those from whom they expected favors, and were ready to bestow upon their anticipated benefactors the most flattering titles. This in turn placed the suppliants where they were ready to be used as tools of the bishops to do the vilest work. Not only were appeals made to the bishops to settle religious controversies, but Rome being the first city in the empire, other bishops appealed to the bishop of Rome to arbitrate their differences. Then Constantine enacted a law “permitting judgment to be passed by the bishops when litigants preferred appealing to them rather than to the secular courts. He enacted that their decree should be valid, and as far superior to that of other judges as if pronounced by the emperor himself; that the governors and subordinate military officers should see to the execution of these decrees; and that sentence when passed by them, should be irreversible.”375Sozomen’s “Ecclesiastical History,” Book I, chap. 9. Neander says that this furnished to worldly-minded bishops “a welcome occasion for devoting themselves to any foreign and secular affairs, rather than to the appropriate business of their spiritual calling; and the same class might also allow themselves to be governed by impure motives in the settlement of these disputes.” Vol. 2, sec. 2. Thus the way was open for the church to exalt itself above the civil power, and the dignitaries of the church were not slow to seize the opportunity. This point gained, the highest offices in the church were filled by political methods, and through intrigue and bloodshed the worst characters became bishops, sometimes before any formal initiation into the church. With these, no opposition of any kind was tolerated, and any one who dared to be out of harmony with a bishop, paid the penalty with his life. All this naturally grew out of the false notions of theocracy entertained by the church of that time. If the state was a theocracy all government must be moral, as the government of God. In this way the church became the state, and the state the church. This accomplished, the church of Rome was not long in securing an empire, known as the estates of the church, and its bishops lived in a style of luxury and pomp rivaling that of the emperor himself. But when the church thus permitted itself to surrender the power of the gospel for that of regal splendor, it only hastened the nation’s downfall. Corruption of the most fetid kind permeated both church and state, and ennervated the people. This made them an easy prey to the barbarians of the North who dismembered and destroyed the empire. The Dark Ages followed, and for hundreds of years religious wars and religious persecutions afflicted the people of Europe. Not one of these was necessary had the great truth been recognized, “that the state has no concern with the opinions of men, and no right to interfere, even in the slightest degree, with the form of worship which they may choose to adopt.” Buckle’s History of Civilization, vol. 1, page 190. The theocratical theory has, in fact, always wrought mischief when introduced into human governments. It could not be otherwise; for that theory undertakes to make the Bible the rule of government, and to administer civil affairs according to the interpretation placed on the Bible by the officers of the government. This takes away the right of private judgment, extends the authority of law to opinions, as well as to acts, and so destroys the individuality of every subject of the government, which always was, and always will be, utterly ruinous.