EVIL OF A STATE THEOLOGY.
By Samuel T. Spear, D.D.
WE present the disabilities, the persecutions, and the martyrdoms, which are so conspicuous in the history of State theology, as more than suggesting that there must be some radical mistake in the doctrine itself. A doctrine that can by perversion turn the mild and genial religion of Jesus into a flaming persecutor, and make it a ferocious enemy to religious liberty, as vested by God in individual souls; a doctrine that undertakes to adjudicate upon questions lying exclusively between the soul and its Maker; a doctrine that substitutes carnal for spiritual weapons; a doctrine that resorts to the law of force, where nothing is pertinent except the peaceful persuasion of argument and the gentle and loving voice of entreaty; a doctrine that in practical execution becomes an abominable despotism exercised over the bodies and attempted over the souls of men—yes, such a doctrine has written upon its face in letters of light the glaring evidence of being essentially and fundamentally wrong. Judging it by its fruits, we find it difficult to use terms sufficiently intense to describe the degree of that wrong. Its pervading principle is hostile alike to God and man, although it professes to be the servant of both. It is, moreover, a significant fact of history that Christianity has always prospered most in the true sense when it has had least to do with the State, and the State has had least to do with it. For the first three centuries it was the theology of individual conviction, resting simply on its own evidence, holding no other relation to the State than that of a persecuted religion, and doing its entire work by the use of spiritual means; and then it was that it spread itself among the nations of8the earth with a purity and power that have never since been exceeded. Then it was that venerable and pompous systems of paganism yielded to the restless energy of its moral march. Afterward it became a State theology; and then, in the hands of the State, it was not only corrupted and half paganized, but at once assumed, and for centuries maintained, the character of a persecuting religion. All the persecutions of the Romish Church, and, indeed, all the persecutions that have existed in the name of Christianity, have had their basis in State theology. If God should be pleased to constitute a theocracy on earth, and by inspiring it guarantee its infallibility, then it would be the duty of men to bow to its authority; but until we have this fact established by appropriate evidence, the conclusion drawn from history is that the State should confine itself exclusively to things temporal, and leave theology to the individual convictions and private judgments of men. This is certainly the truth in respect to Christianity. There can be no doubt that a true theology in the heads and hearts of the people is a very important and much-needed influence for good in relation to civil government; yet it does not follow that the State is the proper party to take care of this theology, to define it, to teach it, to support it, or in any way invest it with the sanction of law. Those who set up the proposition that religion is essential to morality, and also the further proposition that morality is essential to good government, and then infer that the State should establish and support religion, are guilty of a palpable non sequitur in logic. The truth of their premises does not prove the truth of their conclusion. It may be true (facts show it to be so) that the State will receive the largest and purest contribution of morality founded on religion when the latter is left entirely to the educational influences of the family and the church; and if so, then State theology is not only a superfluity, but a positive damage to the best interests of the commonwealth. The morality as derived from religion which the State needs will be best supplied by the confinement of its agency to things temporal, and the entire omission on its part of any attempt to administer things spiritual. The State can do religion no favor so great as to have nothing to do with it, and itself no favor so great as to let religion alone. The moment the two are put in alliance with each other, both are injured.—Samuel T. Spear, D.D.