The
Church and the State occupy two distinctly different realms. The realm of the
Church is the realm of morals; the realm of the State is the realm of civics.
The realm of the Church is the inner life of man, and the world to come: the
realm of the State is the outward life of man, and the world that is.
The
State rightly constituted, and abiding within its own realm, never can interfere
with the affairs of the Church; and as a matter of fact, no State ever has
interfered with the affairs of the Church, except when it went outside of its
proper realm, and assumed to itself the garb of religion. The Church, abiding in
its own realm, can never interfere in any way with the interests of the State;
and, as a matter of fact, the Church has never done so, except where she left
her own realm, ascended the throne of civil power, and presumed to wield the
sword of the State.
The
State, within its own realm, and for itself, has a right to establish a system
of education, which in the nature of things must be only of this world. The
Church, in her own realm, must maintain Christian education.
The
State, in establishing and conducting such system of education as may seem to it
best, can not ask that the Church shall abandon Christianity. The Church, in her
own realm, in maintaining Christian education, can not ask that the State shall
abandon such system of education as it may have adopted; and must not antagonize
the State in its chosen system of education, any more than in any other affair
or act of the State within its own realm.
The
Government of the United States is the only one ever in the world that was
founded upon the principle announced by Jesus Christ concerning civil government
-- the total separation of religion and the State. "No one thought of
vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual, till a voice in
Judea, breaking day for the greatest epoch in the life of humanity, by
establishing a pure, spiritual, and universal religion for all mankind, enjoined
to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar's. The rule was upheld during the
infancy of the gospel for all men. No sooner was this religion adopted by the
chief of the Roman Empire, than it was shorn of its character of universality,
and enthralled by an unholy connection with the unholy State. And so it
continued till the new nation -- the least defiled with the barren scoffings of
the eighteenth century, the most general believer in Christianity of any people
of that age, the chief heir of the Reformation in its purest forms -- when it
came to establish a government for the United States, REFUSED TO TREAT FAITH AS
A MATTER TO BE REGULATED BY A CORPORATE BODY, OR HAVING A HEADSHIP IN A MONARCH
OR A STATE." -- George Bancroft.
The
men who made the United States, distinctly declared that in the matter of this
fundamental principle of the separation of religion and the State, they were
acting "upon the principles on which the gospel was first propagated, and
the Reformation from Popery carried on." They declared: "We hold it
for a fundamental and undeniable truth, `that religion, or the duty which we owe
to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason
and conviction, not by force or violence.' The religion, then, of every man must
be left to the conviction and conscience of every man, and it is the right of
every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an
inalienable right: it is inalienable, because the opinion of men depending only
on the evidence contemplated in their own minds, can not follow the dictates of
other men. It is inalienable, also, because what is here a right towards men is
a duty towards the Creator.
"It
is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as
he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent, both in order of
time, and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. Before any
man can be considered a member of civil society, he must be considered as a
subject of the Governor of the universe; and if a member of a civil society who
enters into any subordinate association must always do it with a reservation of
his duty to the general authority, much more must every man who becomes a member
of any particular civil society do it with a saving of his allegiance to the
universal Sovereign. We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion, no
man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society; and that religion
is wholly exempt from its cognizance."
In
the course of its existence, the United States has developed and established a
system of education. The principle upon which this system of education is
founded is acknowledged to be, in this respect, the principle upon which the
nation was founded -- the separation of religion and the State: therefore
religion must not be taught in the State schools. This principle, though
infringed in instances, has been generally adhered to on the part of the State.
But THE CHURCH has not adhered to this principle: indeed, she has hardly
recognized it at all. She has generally acquiesced in the State's adhering to
the principle, and refusing to incorporate religion, or the religious method, in
its system of education; but she has not at all adhered to the principle that
the Church must not adopt the secular method in education. But this story is so
well told by the United States Government itself that we need go no further in
defining it.
In
the Annual Report of the United States Commissioner of Education for the school
year 1896-7, the United States Government has made perfectly clear the
distinction between the secular method and the religious method in education: a
distinction strictly in accordance with the principles of Christianity, and with
the fundamental principles upon which the Government of the United States was
founded.
First,
as to the secular school: --
"The
secular school gives positive instruction. It teaches mathematics, natural
science, history, and language. Knowledge of the facts can be precise, and
accurate, and a similar knowledge of the principles can be arrived at. The
self-activity of the pupil is before all things demanded by the teacher of the
secular school. The pupil must not take things on authority; but, by his own
activity, must test and verify what he has been told. He must trace out the
mathematical demonstrations, and see their necessity. He must learn the method
of investigating facts in the special provinces of science and history. The
spirit of the secular school, therefore, comes to be an enlightening one,
although not of the highest order. But its enlightenment tends to make trust in
authority more and more difficult for the young mind."
Next,
as to religious education: --
"Religious
education, it is obvious, in giving the highest results of thought and life to
the young, must cling to the form of authority, and not attempt to borrow the
methods of mathematics, science, and history from the secular school. Such
borrowing will result only in giving the young people an overweening confidence
in the finality of their own immature judgments. They will become conceited and
shallow-minded. It is well that the child should trust his own intellect in
dealing with the multiplication table and the rule of three. It is well that he
should learn the rules and all the exceptions in Latin syntax, and verify them
in the classic authors; but he must not be permitted to summon before him the
dogmas of religion, and form pert conclusions regarding their rationality."
All
this is an excellent reason as to why and how religion can not be taught in the
public schools: why religious education can not be adopted by the State. And it
gives just as excellent reason why the Church, in her education --
"religious education" -- can not even borrow, much less adopt, the
methods of the secular school.
(a)
"The self-activity of the pupil is before all things demanded by the
teacher of the secular school." But in Christianity, instead of
self-activity of the child or of the man, it is self-surrender and self-emptying
that is before all things demanded. "If any man will be My disciple, let
him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." "Let this
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God," "but emptied
Himself."
(b)
In the secular school, "the pupil must not take things on authority."
But in Christianity, in religious education, both the pupil and the teacher
"must cling to the form of authority." This, because God is the Author
of the religious sense in man, and of Christianity the only true complement of
the religious sense; and the Word of God is the authority of Christianity. And
God is supreme in everything. When He has spoken, that ends the matter. That is
authority, the very ultimate of authority : not only because it is the Word of
God, but because it is essential truth. And essential truth is the highest
possible authority, and must be accepted as the authority which it is. Jesus
Christ, who is the Truth, "spake as One having authority, and not as the
scribes." His word was as from One having authority, not because he had any
position of authority, but because of the essential truth which was expressed in
the Word which He spake. All authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him,
because He had all the truth in heaven and earth.
(c)
"The spirit of the secular school," though "an enlightening
one," yet is not "of the highest order;" while on the other hand,
"religious education, it is obvious," gives "the highest results
of thought and life."
(d)
The enlightenment of the secular school "tends to make trust in authority
more and more difficult for the young mind." Since, therefore, the
enlightenment of the secular school tends to make trust in authority more and
more difficult for the young mind: and since religious education must cling to
the form of authority; it clearly follows that to adopt the spirit of the
secular school, or to borrow the methods of the secular school, in religious
education, is nothing less than to undermine the very citadel of religious
education.
(e)
It is therefore in perfect wisdom that the United States Government has given
the counsel that in religious education there must be no "attempt to borrow
the methods of mathematics, science, and history from the secular school."
And this, for the further excellent reason that "such borrowing will result
only in giving the young people an overweening confidence in the finality of
their own immature judgments. They will become conceited and
shallow-minded."
Every
Christian desires that his children shall have a religious education. And surely
no Christian who has any wish for the welfare of his children would consciously
incorporate into their education that which would result in giving them an
overweening confidence in the finality of their own immature judgments, and
which will cause them to become conceited and shallow-minded. Surely, therefore,
it has been in complete unconsciousness of the principles involved, and of the
disastrous results incurred, that the Church leaders and teachers have, in
education, taken precisely the course which the United States Government
declares must not be taken: that is, the borrowing of the secular method in
religious education. For that same report continues: --
"With
the spectacle of the systematic organization of the secular schools and the
improved methods of teaching before them, the leaders in the Church have
endeavored to perfect the methods of religious instruction of youth. They have
met the following dangers which lay in their path: --
"First,
the danger of adopting methods of instruction in religion which were fit and
proper only for secular instruction: secondly, the selection of religious matter
for the course of study which did not lead in the most direct manner toward
vital religion, although it would readily take on a pedagogic form.
"Against
this danger of sapping, or undermining, all authority in religion, BY THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE METHODS OF THE SECULAR SCHOOL, which lay all stress on the
self-activity of the child, the Sunday-school has not been sufficiently
protected in the more recent years of its history. Large numbers of religious
teachers, most intelligent and zealous in their piety, seek a more and more
perfect adoption of the secular school methods.
"On
the other hand, the topics of religious instruction have been determined largely
by the necessities of the secular school method. That method is not adapted to
teach mystic truth. It seeks everywhere definite and especially mathematical
results. But these results, although they are found everywhere in science and
mathematics, are the farthest possible from being like the subject matter of
religion. Hence, it has happened that in improving the methods of the
Sunday-school, greater and greater attention has been paid to the history and
geography of the Old Testament and less and less to the doctrinal matters of the
New Testament."
(a)
"The introduction of the methods of the secular school" in religious
education incurs the danger "of sapping or undermining all authority in
religion." And against this danger, even "the Sunday-school has not
been sufficiently protected in the more recent years of its history." What,
then, of the religious education of the children of Christians in the United
States outside of the Sunday-school?
(b)
"More and more perfect adoption of the secular school methods" has
been sought even in the religious education in the Sunday-school. What, then, of
the religious education of the children of Christians apart from the
Sunday-school?
(c)
"The topics of religious instruction, even in the Sunday-school, have been
"determined largely by the necessities of the secular school method,"
which method "is not adapted to teach mystic truth;" and the results
of which "are the farthest possible from being like the subject matter of
religion." What, then, of the topics and methods in the religious
instruction of the children of Christians apart from the Sunday-school?
When
the professed Protestant Church has so far forsaken her own true Christian
ground in education, and has so far adopted the topics and methods of secular
education, has she not gone a long way in the course of the original apostasy in
adopting the topics and method of secular education in that day? And in so
doing, has not the Protestant Church in this day gone just that far on the way
to the positive union of the Church and the State which resulted in the like
course in ancient time? And with all this, how can the State here escape the
certain ruin that must come from this apostasy and union of Church and State, as
certainly as it came from that apostasy and union of Church and State in ancient
time of which this is so exact a parallel and likeness?