Relation of Church and State.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE National Reform Association disclaims any intention to bring about anything like a union of church and State, but it will be difficult for them to keep up the illusion very long if they publish many articles similar to the one by the Rev. J. W. Foster, in the last Statesman, entitled “The Relation of Church and State.” The first proposition is that “According to the Scriptures, church and State are mutually separate and independent divine institutions.” Perhaps the average reader may not fully grasp the meaning of that proposition on first reading; we confess that we do not on the second. The next one, however, is more definite. It is this: “According to the Scriptures, the State and its sphere exist for the sake of and to serve the interests of the church.” But the learned writer, and the ingenious party for which he speaks, would not have any one imagine that this means a union of church and State! Oh, no! Both are “mutually independent,” the church being master, and the State existing simply in order “to serve the interests of the church.” The lion and the lamb being “mutually separate and independent” animals, lie down together, the lamb taking its position inside the lion, the better to serve his lordship’s interests. Of course a few Scripture texts are thrown in to support the proposition. The chief one is from the second of Isaiah: “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.” This text the writer correctly interprets to mean that the church (the mountain of the Lord’s house) shall be exalted above the kingdoms of the earth, and will derive its support and nourishment from them. He neglected, however, to quote the part of the verse which shows this to be “in the last days,” and over-looked the verse which says that the Lord has forsaken his people “because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.” The text quoted does indeed show the lofty and exalted position of “the church” in the last days; but those who are so zealously laboring for that end should remember that “the day of the Lord of hosts,” which immediately follows such a union of church and State, “shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low.” “And the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low; and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.” Verse 12, 17. As a corollary of the proposition last quoted, the writer says: “The true State will have a wise reference to the church’s interests in all her legislation—executive, and judicial proceedings. Public vice and crime, immorality, and licentiousness, the wild boar from the forest, that devours the garden of the Lord, it destroys; and morality, virtue, and good order, the handmaids to religion, it promotes and encourages. The expenses of the church in carrying on her public aggressive work, it meets in whole or in part out of the public treasury.” It is but just to the Statesman to say that it enters a gentle protest to this last statement, saying that the National Reform Association “does not hold that the State should contribute directly to the financial support of the church.” But the following statements are indorsed: “The church will recognize the good offices of the Christian State; and the true State will formally acknowledge its obligation to serve the church.” It is also claimed that it is “the duty of the State, as such, to enter into alliance with the church of Christ, and to profess, adhere to, defend, and maintain the true religion.” The writer thinks that the question, “Can church and State enter into mutual alliance and yet each prosecute, untrammeled, its respective ends, and exercise, uncontrolled, its important functions?” was correctly answered in the affirmative long ago, and that although the verdict of the Christian people of the United States might at present be in the negative, our land will soon “be thus in covenant with God, and in a state of friendly recognition and co-operation with the church of Christ.” We doubt not that such a state of things will ere long exist; but it needs no ecclesiastical or judicial education to enable one to understand the results of the relation of church and State that is desired by the so-called “National Reform Association.” It is the relation of master and slave, both of whom are “mutually separate” persons, the slave existing “for the sake of and to serve the interests of” his master. When the State pledges itself to “defend and maintain the true religion,” it will be the office of “the church” merely to define what “true religion” is; and the individual who, taking the Bible as his sole guide, presumes to differ from “established usages,” after having been tried by the elders of the church, will be handed over to the civil power for punishment, with no doubt a recommendation to mercy, according to the good old custom! That religious persecution of Bible Christians must follow such a union of church and State, is apparent when we remember that the same word which has prophesied of that union, also says that the church “will not endure sound doctrine,” but will be “turned unto fables.” Those, therefore, who hold to sound doctrine will come into direct conflict with the church, from whose dictum there can be no appeal, and will be thrown into the hands of the State, which knows no mercy, being only the “revenger to execute wrath!” May the Lord help us to be prepared with the whole armor, that we may “be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” E. J. W.