THE “CHRISTIAN STATE” ILLUSTRATED.
By W. N. G.
The kind of “conversion” which passes in diplomatic circles is illustrated by the following despatch from Rome regarding the infant Bulgarian prince:— “Prince Ferdinand has declared to the Vatican that he will never consent to the conversion of his son to the Orthodox [Russian] religion.” But for this protest of the father, says a London paper, “his infant son might have been officially converted without being conscious of it, and Russia would soberly have proclaimed its reconciliation with Bulgaria.” Another prominent instance is the case of the young empress of Russia, who is a princess of the royal family of Great Britain. Her marriage with the young emperor on his accession to the throne was altogether a political arrangement, and one of the conditions was her renunciation of the Church of England and confirmation in the Orthodox Church of Russia. It was hoped that Nicholas would inaugurate a more liberal policy than his predecessors, and it was expected that the English princess, as czarina, would wield a telling influence in that direction. Or, rather, it was thought that she would be the medium through which her royal relatives, the heads of Great Britain, Germany, Denmark, etc., would be able to influence Russian policy. But so far it seems that the emperor and his mother are disposed to run the government on the old lines, and the English princess, after being diplomatically forced upon the new emperor as his wife, and being diplomatically converted to the Greek Church, has no influence whatever in matters of state. These instances are fair illustrations of state religion. Yet, with the history of all the past and the existing condition of affairs in church and state countries to-day so conspicuously portrayed before us, we are confronted with a radical movement, permeating all the popular churches, urging more positive union of church and state in this country. The churches seem to have become so far separated from the word of God and its power that they are unable to appreciate any power but that of the state. Turning from the arm of the Lord, they seek to lean upon the arm of the state. Knowing that the present form of government is theoretically inimical to such a purpose, the aim is to so use the church influence that the state may be brought to a position of subservient support of the church in her fallen condition. History has shown us church and state union in two phases,—the church domineering the state, and the state manipulating the church. In either case it is the church depending upon the arm of man for support and power, and such dependence must of necessity lead to spiritual degradation on the part of the church, and political corruption in the state. W. N. G.