and patriotism which it has inspired emblazon the pages of history. Every country has its altars upon which human sacrifices have been offered up in the interest of purer laws and purer government. The lesson of the ages in regard to the state is summed up in the pregnant question, of what avail is the life of man if we have no rights that society is bound to respect. The rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness may be declared to be unalienable; but if there is no government or law to enforce them they become meaningless terms. The state is not a mere pact grounded on expediency. Sovereignty and obedience are inherent in our nature. The state has a divine sanction, and is grounded in the moral nature of man. Its function is not only to protect man in his material interests, but to secure him in his freedom and moral development as well. To use the language of another: "It has for its end the fulfillment of the divine end in history."

What now has religion to do with politics-and what has politics to do with religion? The question is an old one, and yet it is ever new, because religion and politics are both progressive in their nature; and the relation which they sustain to each other differs from time to time, just as the political and religious problems with which they respectively have to deal assume different forms from one age to another.

It is sometimes supposed that our forefathers settled the question once for all when they adopted the principle of the separation of church and state; and we are told that religion and politics have nothing whatever to do with each other. But the question, we submit, is not so easily disposed of. The formal separation of church and state may be final, and it may not be. But even if it should be, there is still an internal, reciprocal relation between the two which legislation cannot annul, and which theologian and statesman cannot ignore. This is being felt particularly at the present time in the re-adjustments that are being made in science and religion. A new theology and a new sociology are being written; and while the tendency in some quarters is to break away from the old moorings and to minimize the force of

religion in its effect upon civilization in general and the bodypolitic in particular, there is a strong protest on the part of many eminent writers and thinkers, who claim to be progressive, too, who insist that religion is the great saving power in the world and without its influence the state is doomed to shipwreck and failure.

I.

On the general question we suggest, in the first place, that the spheres of religion and politics are separate and distinct, while at the same time they are closely and intimately related to each other. While Christ recognizes the distinction between the two spheres when he says: "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's "; St. Paul shows their kinship when he says: "The powers that be are ordained of God." The religious idea is a different thing from the political idea. As religion has a mission and a work to perform peculiar to itself, so has politics. They also differ in their authority, that of the one being referable to the direct command of God, that of the other to the command of man. Christ told His disciples that His kingdom was not of this world. He gave them to understand that the usual modes of government do not obtain in His kingdom. "Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Religion is primarily interested in man's spiritual welfare. It looks to man's well-being and happiness in a life beyond the grave. It does indeed teach morality in its highest sense, but as a part of the religious scheme. Christ did not teach science as such, or art, or political economy, or law, or gov

ernment.

On the other hand, politics looks primarily to man's temporal welfare. It has to do with the regulation of the laws of trade and commerce and finance, with the administration of government, the protection of life and property, the adjustment of international relations, and with kindred matters pertaining to the body-politic. Politicians and statesmen study the sciences that pertain to law and government and man's social relations, while the theologian studies theology or the science of man's relation to God.

Lord Macaulay, speaking of the distinctive spheres of religion and government, says: “Now here are two great objects: One is the protection of the persons and estates of citizens from injury; the other is the propagation of religious truth. No two objects more entirely distinct can well be imagined. The former belongs wholly to the visible and tangible world in which we live; the latter belongs to that higher world which is beyond the reach of sense. The former belongs to this life, the latter to that which is to come."

Adam Smith, speaking of institutions for religious instruction, says: “The object is not so much to render the people good citizens in this life, as to prepare them for another and better world in a life to come.”

While these sentiments may not be considered the best theology in this age, for religion is being more and more considered a matter for this life, here and now; they, nevertheless, present a pregnant truth, namely, that church and state have different aims, and operate in different spheres.

It took long years of historical experiment to demonstrate this proposition. In the old Jewish theocracy there was a union of religious and political interests. God was the great lawgiver and fountain-source of government. Mohammedanism was a politico-religious movement. And among Christian nations, even to modern times, temporal and spiritual powers were united in one form or another. It was only after bitter trial and experience that the world came to realize that church and state should be separated and should exercise their respective functions in separate and distinct organizations. The tendency now is, on the part of the state, not to intermeddle in the affairs of religion; and the policy of the church is to let the state work out its own salvation through its own separate organization and laws.

An eminent member of the British Parliament, at the Alliance of the Reformed Churches at Washington, a year ago, stated that disestablishment in England was only a question of time; and he put the pertinent inquiry, how we would enjoy having the affairs of our churches regulated by our politicians in Congress.

Not only in theory, but in practice also, is it coming to be recognized that church and state occupy separate and distinct spheres, and each has a distinct mission in the world peculiar to itself.

But while these spheres are distinct, they are closely and intimately related. They operate largely upon the same individuals, and the work of the one when properly performed is a constant aid to the work of the other. There is no such thing as an isolated fact in life. Everything stands in relation to something else. Humanity is an organism, and man's interests are all closely related to each other. The interests of the church and state are closely united, and in idea are by no means antagonistic. The two institutions owe reciprocal duties and obligations to each other. The relation is somewhat similar to that which holds between religion and morality. A distinction may be made between religion and morality; and yet they are not independent. Gibbon and Hume both sneer at religion as a power for good in the world; but have they made out their case? If there is one thing that history proves it is that men's morals have always been affected by their religion; and religion is the only true basis or foundation of all true sound morality. We cannot assent to Lord Macaulay's proposition, previously quoted, that government belongs wholly to this life, while religion belongs wholly to the life which is to come; except to the extent that both hold in separate and distinct spheres. The fact is the so-called natural religions are little more than ethical systems. The moral precepts of the Christian religion are gems of the highest order, and no system of natural ethics has ever produced their equal. The Christian virtues are the highest and best ethical virtues. The poet has well said:

"The Christian is the highest style of man."

While Christianity primarily teaches man's duty to God, it at the same time teaches man's duty to man. The teachings of Scripture, at every point, insist upon the proper regulation of our lives in this world. It gives us the true view of life here, and lays down the

norm of all true human happiness in the divine precept," thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It goes without saying that the best morality of the world has been inspired by the revelations of the Christian religion. The church has inspired the noblest achievements of the state. The state recognizes this, and, even in this country where the two institutions are separated in external form, it assumes a receptive attitude towards the influence of the church in all its operations. It asks the prayers of the church; it frames its laws on Christian principles; it protects the church in its worship and property; it enforces the observance of the Sabbath; it recognizes Christianity as a part of the common law of the land.

The effect of an improper conception of the intimate relation between the secular and religious is apparent in many of the schools of modern thought. The science of government and political economy is constructed without reference to religious principles. It is based entirely upon what are termed natural laws, which, it is held, are sufficient of themselves for the proper. evolution of the state and the social order; just as the physical laws are sufficient of and in themselves to uphold the universe in its appointed order and course. Adam Smith had no room in his system for the consideration of moral and ethical principles, or of religion. Let every man enjoy the fruits of his own labor, was the law which he regarded sufficient of itself in the regulation of commerce and trade. In the same way Ricardo and Malthus and others have constructed theories pertaining to man's economic relations regardless of his religious needs, aspirations and hopes.

Modern politics is suffering from a disregard of the influence of religion upon its work and operations. Thus while an undue severance of the realms of religion and politics begets a cold and lifeless theology, it at the same time breeds a false and spurious sociology.

While, then, a coalescence of the two spheres must always prove detrimental, as is evident from the history of the past, it is apparent that their too wide severance or separation will be fraught with equal, if not greater, injury.