CHURCH AND STATE

Vol. 1, MARCH 1874, No. 1

THE REFORMATION ADVOCATE

David Steele, Editor
Republished 2010
Gospel Covenant Publications
www.gcpublications.com

Yes, Church and State, - that is the order. Not state and Church. In all sacred and profane history, since the dawn of the Christian dispensation, the Church, in the terms and order of announcement, takes precedence of the civil state. Why is this? Some reason, deeply seated in the Christian, if not in the human constitution, must exist to account for the uniformity of this order. Indeed, the sacred and civil interests of mankind are so plainly distinguishable, that “nature itself” taught heathen writers to give decided preference to the former. The student of Grecian and Roman literature everywhere meets with this conviction. But the same conviction of the prior and superior claims of religion is to be found among nations much older than Greece or Rome. In Egypt, Babylon, and Persia, this priority was recognized. “Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh… only the land of the priests bought he not” (Gen. 47:20,22). Artaxerxes, King of Persia, was explicit - “Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven.” (Ezra 7:23) Such was the conviction of heathen civil rulers, when only partially instructed from heaven. Whether their devotion had for its object an idol or the true God affects not the principle. The conviction is thus evidently natural to man. “Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods?” This question conveys the idea that the national existence of a people, of any people, depends upon Deity. It requires a great deal of sophistry to counteract or obscure this innate conviction of the human mind, a conviction which cannot be eradicated. But what nature thus teaches all men obscurely, God has clearly taught by supernatural revelation in the Bible.

The church and the state are divine ordinances. They derive their being, their moral character and authority, from God. They are coordinate, distinct, related, independent, and inseparable. We are aware that this doctrine is exceedingly unpopular and distasteful. Perhaps its unpopularity is a good evidence of its orthodoxy. The popular outcry against the union of church and state does not alarm us, whether it be uttered by the illiterate or the learned: it is very often an indication of ignorance intensified by prejudice, a superficial acquaintance with history, and a hackneyed perversion of a few portions of Scripture, will account for the popular and unmeaning outcry. Few will question the divine origin of the church, the Scriptures speaking so plainly on this point: “He shall build the temple of the Lord…and he shall be a priest upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”(Zech. 6:13) So says the Father respecting the offices and work of His Son the Mediator. A common notion is, that church and state are necessarily hostile. This is a mistake. Provision is made in the divine economy for harmonizing them. Christ is “a priest upon His throne.” the regal and sacerdotal offices meet in His mediatorial person. They do not conflict, but gloriously harmonize. “The counsel of peace shall be between them both.” — Not between the Father and the Son — a precious truth in itself; but between the priestly and kingly offices of Christ, and consequently, between church and state. They are related as neighbors, and where both exist, the one cannot ignore the other; and they ought to be, and yet shall be, good neighbors. So the Lord has assured us by the mouth of his prophets (Ps. 72:3; Is. 49:23).

We have said that the church and the state are related. The question arises, and it is one of vital importance to the welfare of each, - what is, or ought to be, the nature of this relation? Some call it an alliance, while others speak of a union of the two. If by alliance we mean mutual recognition, that each shall recognize the existence and rights of the other, such relation we approve. A union of the two, is at once absurd and impossible. It never did exist by divine appointment or approbation, either under the Jewish or Christian dispensation, no, nor under the despotic reign of Antichrist. We are aware that many have adopted, without examination, the Socinian theory, - That “the Jews being under a theocracy, the church and state were united; the church was in fact the state, and the state was the church”. Nothing can be further from the truth. The two departments of organized society were as distinct as the persons of Moses and Aaron, whose offices were as distinct as their persons; and the same is true of their legitimate successors in their respective officers.

That civil government is of divine appointment, none but infidels can deny. “The powers that be, are ordained of God.” Magistrates “are God’s ministers” under the Christian economy (Rom. 13:1,6). Well then, since church and state are equally divine institutions, and their officers of his appointment, it seems to follow that they are equally “under law to God”. But God in the person of the Father “judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22). Thus the Mediator is constituted by the Father “King of kings, and Lord of lords, Prince of the kings of the earth;” and the Father has expressly commanded all civil rulers, supreme and subordinate, who hear His authoritative word, to signify their loyalty by an open profession of their subjection, - “Kiss the Son”. (Ps. 2:12) In every land, therefore, favored with the Bible, the state is under obligation equally with the church, to recognize the authority of Jesus Christ.

To the foregoing doctrines there are many objections, framed by two classes. The avowed infidel, of course, “will not have this man to reign over him,” - to reign at all. Neither personally nor in social relationship does he admit or regard Christ’s authority. It is, however, one of the mysteries of poor human nature, that any professed disciple of Christ should entertain the imagination that he can possibly be in any position, or occupy any relation, where he can be exempt from the jurisdiction of Christ. Yet the existence of such imagination, no less foolish than wicked, is often supposed in the word of God (Ps. 139:7, etc. Jer. 23:24). Even among professing Christians this self-deception is often prevalent. Carried away from all scriptural landmarks by the fervor of political feeling, the Christian forgets his allegiance plighted to his Savior. And if challenged for unfaithfulness and inconsistency, he is ready to stand upon the defensive. As a citizen he must know no religion. That would be to join church and state! In plain words we will find him sometimes express himself thus: “When church and state are united, the state assumes infallibility, arrogates to sit in judgment upon creeds, to determine what is true and what is false in religion.” - This is the reported language of “The Hon. J. L. M. Curry, LL. D., of Richmond, Va.,” before the “Evangelical Alliance” in New York. He assumes not only the possibility, but the reality, of the union of church and state. We have equal right to deny his first assumption, on which are built all the following arguments. It is conceded that in his speech or article on that occasion, some excellent sentiments are enunciated; but these are only incidental, not cohering with the primary assumption. The speaker had before his mind, no doubt, the unholy alliances of Popery and Prelacy. In his hostility to these we cordially sympathize with him; while we do not believe in the correctness of the logic which reasons against the lawful use, from the abuse, of anything. It is by such processes of reasoning, if it be reasoning, that infidelity condemns and rejects the Bible, and the religion which it teaches and inculcates.

In this speech there is a free use made of terms and phrases, without any definition of the sense in which they are employed. Such are “liberty of conscience”, “freedom of conscience”, “the distinction and blessedness of an entire separation, organically, of church and state”. Now this “entire separation, organically,” in our sense of the terms, is what we earnestly desire; but it is a “blessedness” to church and state which has not been witnessed since the days of the Westminster Assembly — and then only on paper. We cannot but notice the omission in this address of the word practically, when boasting of the aforesaid “separation entire” of church and state: for indeed the separation is far from entire, while it is not so practically. Perhaps the speaker did think of the “civil places and power of churchmen” actually and frequently occupied in the national and state capitals! Alas! No, the separation is not entire while reputed ministers of the gospel are members in the legislative hall, judges on the civil bench, and commanders in the military camp. But the “organic separation” of which this learned speaker was treating for the instruction of the members of the Evangelical Alliance, admits of all these ways of mixing church and state. If the “titles of nobility,” prevalent in the old world, are offensive to our republican sensibilities; and “Lord Bishop” especially seems a monstrous union of ideas sacred and civil: ought such as the following to be less distasteful, - Rev. Captain, General; or The Hon. Rev. etc? We think the “distinction and blessedness” of which the Hon. speaker is so fond, and which he so eloquently and fervently commended to the consideration of the trans-Atlantic scholars and divines, has as little of historical basis as of scriptural warrant or authority.

But what? - it will be asked: do you say that a nation should have a religious creed? Yes, we say so - and a religious practice also. And do you mean to say that the civil magistrates should dictate their creed and worship to the people? Is not this the quintessence of tyranny? - invasion of the indefeasible rights of conscience? We put these questions in the strongest terms, most familiar to the illiterate and prejudiced mind; because we know that they do spontaneously suggest themselves to such minds, being bandied about in the political badinage of the day.

To these and such like questions we reply, - The civil magistrate ordained of God, may not dictate to the people in either sacred or civil matters. He is the “minister of God.” But a minister is not a dictator. The very official title which he bears forbids the idea. The chief magistrate is as much the subject of law as any in the state. The state is greater than he; and so is the law; he is therefore amenable to both. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only dictator, in his prophetic and royal offices (Deut. 18:15,18,19). It may be objected, as it has often been,-“The Jews were under a theocracy.” “God was their king.” But the prediction last quoted refers to the Christian dispensation (Acts 3:22). We are therefore no less under a theocracy than were the Jews. “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.” (Rom. 3:29) Theocracy, as the word literally signifies, is the government of God. Now, God governs rational beings by a moral law. This law is fully and clearly revealed only in the Bible. We have seen that Christ is actual governor. The Bible, wherever it comes, is the law or rule by which he governs, and by it mankind are to learn their rights, relations, and all the duties growing out of those relations. Civil relations are to be learned and constituted by this standard. All the citizens are required by Christ to hear and obey His commands. They, or a majority of them, are authorized to erect civil government among them. They fix the conditions, and limit the power of their rulers. The supreme executive carries out, not his own will, but the will of the state expressed in plain and public law, and while doing so, it is not in his power to oppress anyone. To punish criminals is not oppression, when the penalty is in just proportion to criminality.

Again, the rule of human conduct in civil relations is either the will of God, or the will of man. But we have seen already, that both the light of nature and the Scriptures refer civil society to God as its author. And since He is thus recognized as the authoritative source of civil power, it follows that His will must be the rule by which that power is to be exercised and limited. “We ought to obey God rather than men,” when their commands are antagonistic, as they too often are. The magistrate “is not without law to God, but is under law to Christ,’ precisely as other persons are, who are favored with the Bible. But the magistrate is not merely subject to the law of God in his private station: his responsibility rises with his official position; and as the “minister of God for good,” he is the authorized administrator if the law-“a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:4). He is, ex officio, custos et cindex utriusque tabulae, the official keeper and avenger of each table of the divine law. This was once the avowed doctrine of civil magistracy by all the reformed churches, as deduced from the Holy Scriptures: and this too, in opposition to the Romish apostasy. While repudiating the perversion of this divine ordinance by the Man of Sin, and steadfastly resisting his blasphemous assumption of divine prerogatives, the reformers did not find themselves forced upon infidel ground. They sought to recover and re-exhibit to the world the “ordinance of God,” and they were successful. They were able to distinguish between analogy and parallelism; between the father of a family, and the father of a state: that while the responsibility of each is enhanced by the elevation of his social position, they are both to be controlled by the moral law-especially by the requisitions and prohibitions of the fifth commandment.