Is the idea of a state church biblical?

Thus union of state and church, the attempt to get political power and standing, are ideas clean contrary to the genius of Christianity and the teaching of Scripture. It is to show ignorance of the true nature of the church of God and of her relationship to Christ and of her heavenly calling. We need to be jealous with a godly jealousy in these matters.

The most fruitful and least suspected root of evil corruption, was in confusing civil power in the world (that is, Caesar not bearing the sword in vain), and the power in the church (that is, Christ acting in the church through faith and the Holy Spirit). The systems are two, and not one: government of God on earth, and Caesar the ruler, on the one hand; and, on the other, worship of God in heaven, and the Holy Spirit, the vicar of Christ, among the heavenly saints down here. The nominal church became worldly and selfish, and claimed the world; but Constantine came in with imperial power, and (though Pontifex, chief priest of heathenism) took the place of being head of the bishops and the church. The bishops watched their time, and got for themselves and their world-church the upper places in the world. Their language then became, "I sit a queen, and am no widow (which she should have been, 1 Tim. 5:5-6), and shall see no sorrow." (Rev. 18:7.) This went on till the Reformation, when kings and princes threw off the tyranny, and professed to become "nursing fathers" to the church. These are facts, at all events; and as results have told out through centuries the ruin of the professing church. Civil power is of God, for time and on the earth. Christ set up at Pentecost a church for eternity and heaven; and therefore, as it had commenced, it was to be now (that is, in time) that which lived in heaven. To blend, or try to blend, the two distinct and opposite things in one, was to make a new system, and a system of confusion. The Greek and Roman churches apply Babylon to all that is not of themselves; for instance, to all sects and heresies, and to Protestantism, with its subdivisions innumerable. Protestants return the compliment, and apply Babylon to the Romish church. I dare do neither. But of this I am sure, that the so-called religion of 1876 is part of Christendom, and is not of Christianity; if so be that this was formed through Peter, and Paul, and John, and is described by them in the scriptures written since Pentecost. "The church" now is an honourable profession in the world, doomed by the word of God to be destroyed. But the principles, as given by God, and a heavenly people to be formed by Him for the. new Jerusalem as city and bride have not dropped out of His mind; and if the professing church and the churches have become worldly, sensual, and devilish, there are yet those as individuals who are victors and overcomers, who walk with God, and are led by Him to own, and seek to act upon, all the principles of truth, as laid down through Peter, and John, and Paul. And I beseech you, be you, beloved hearers, among the number of such.

These were days of power, days of that kingdom which is not in word, but in power. The Church and the world were then dissociated the one from the other. There was nothing in common between them. An ecclesiastical, or political, or commercial relation was unknown and unsought. Each moved in its own orbit, and possessed its own sphere. That is the normal and true position of each. Alas! eighteen hundred years have produced an amazing change. An amalgamation has been effected whereby the two are blended to the loss of any distinctive character. The world may have gained, but the Church has lost immensely.

These were days of power, days of that kingdom which is not in word, but in power. The Church and the world were then dissociated the one from the other. There was nothing in common between them. An ecclesiastical, or political, or commercial relation was unknown and unsought. Each moved in its own orbit, and possessed its own sphere. That is the normal and true position of each. Alas! eighteen hundred years have produced an amazing change. An amalgamation has been effected whereby the two are blended to the loss of any distinctive character. The world may have gained, but the Church has lost immensely.

Here, then, we have the divine instruction for the church of God, in all ages. We must never, for a moment, lose sight of the fact that the Bible is the Book for every stage of the church's earthly career. True it is, alas! the church is not as it was when the above lines were penned by the inspired apostle; a vast change has taken place in the church's practical condition. There was no difficulty, in early days, in distinguishing between the church and the world, between "the saints" and "unbelievers;" between "those within" and "those without." The line of demarcation was broad, distinct, and unmistakable, in those days. Any one who looked at the face of society, in a religious point of view, would see three things, namely, Paganism, Judaism and Christianity — the Gentile, the Jew and the church of God — the temple, the synagogue, and the assembly of God. There was no confounding these things. The Christian assembly stood out in vivid contrast with all beside. Christianity was strongly and clearly pronounced in those primitive times. It was neither a national, provincial nor parochial affair, but a personal, practical, living reality. It was not a mere nominal, national, professional creed, but a divinely wrought faith, a living power in the heart flowing out in the life.

Henry VIII. of England declared that as there was no hope of a free General Council, every prince should take upon himself the duty of reforming the church of his own country. "My kingdom is not of this world," said our Lord; and what had worldly princes to do with reforming the church? Christendom generally had long before grown into a great outward system half political, and half religious, so that it was difficult to distinguish the church from the world. The Reformation seemed to be a coming out from this, but it soon began to drift into a similar false position.

Thus Protestantism was always wrong ecclesiastically from the very beginning, because it looked up to the civil ruler as the one in whose hand ecclesiastical authority was vested; so that if the church had been under Popery the ruler of the world, the world now became in Protestantism the ruler of the church. It is not a question of church and state that politicians may discuss; which is a great deal too narrow and low a question for a Christian. There is but one thing satisfactory — to be in the path of Christ, giving honour to Him.

That protest was assuredly a necessity; but it was also deemed that there must for this reason be something that would give more stability to it than the testimony of a few scattered and hunted souls. The kings and the nations, alike trodden down under the hard heel of Rome, had plenty of reason for desiring to set up a bulwark against her; and where could they have one more effectual than the profession of a Reformed creed, and putting the power to maintain it into the hands of a civil magistrate? It was the Spirit of God that had raised up a testimony against the evil, but the Spirit of God could not be counted upon by the mass to maintain that testimony. Had not, in fact, the apostle enjoined upon Christians to be subject to the powers that be? Rome had for her followers decreed a large exemption from such a duty. The Church could everywhere, as it pleased, throw the mantle of its charity over those whom the state condemned. On the other hand, for Protestants, the State now was to interfere in that which belonged really to the Church. The creed must be maintained, and non-conformity to the creed be penal. Hence, persecution and laxity went hand in hand. The things of God were committed to hands that were unfit to touch them; and while the purer creed indeed commended itself to a larger circle than of those who had true faith in it, it was thus continually nullified and defiled by its nominal adherents.

"Thus Protestantism was always wrong, ecclesiastically, because it looked up to the civil ruler as the one in whose hand ecclesiastical authority was vested; so that if the church had been, under popery, the ruler of the world, the world now became, in Protestantism, the ruler of the church.... Sardis describes what followed the Reformation, when the glow and fervour of truth and the first flush of blessing had passed away, and a cold formalism had set in.... In Protestant lands, there has always been a measure of liberty of conscience. But the object of God is not merely to deliver either from gross evils, or from mere details, but that the soul should be right with God, and should allow the Lord to have His way and glory — liberty for the Lord to work by the Holy Ghost according to His will. When He is allowed His right place, there is the blessed fruit of it in love and holy liberty. It is not a human liberty derived from the power of the world that we want — though God forbid that we should speak a word against the powers that be, in their own sphere — but the liberty of the Holy Ghost. It is the sin of Christians to have put the powers that be in a false position. The Lord Jesus touches the root of the whole matter in the way He presents Himself to the church of Sardis. Whether it is spiritual power or the outward authority flowing from it, the Lord claims it all as belonging to Himself.... When there is faith to look to Him in His place as Head of the church, He will assuredly supply every need. If He listens to the simplest cry of His lambs, does He not enter into the deeper need of His church, which is always His most beloved object? He took His Headship of the church only in heavenly glory, and He went there not merely to be, but to act, as the Head."*

All historians are agreed that the second Diet of Spires marks the commencement of Protestantism, but all, perhaps, would not go the lengths of the opinion here quoted, which nevertheless is well worthy our consideration. "At the Reformation," says W. Kelly, "in escaping from popery, Christians fell into the error of putting church power into the hands of the civil magistrate, or else made the church itself a depository of that power; whereas Christ, by the Holy Ghost, should still maintain the Lordship. . . . Protestantism was always wrong, ecclesiastically, from the very beginning, because it looked up to the civil ruler as the one in whose hand ecclesiastical authority was vested; so that if the church had been (under popery) the ruler of the world, the world now became (in Protestantism) the ruler of the church."The statement is at first startling, but we are persuaded that prayerful reflection will lead every unbiassed mind to a similar conclusion.