明治時期天皇制國家意識型態籠罩穿透各層面，基督徒於此所展開之思想營為之群像以及其框架為何，歷來尚未有完整之論述。關於此，有研究曾針對個別傳教派的松村介石，初步論述被馴化的明治國家意識型態，本文則針對札幌派之內村鑑三及新渡戶稻造，聚焦於宗教、神道、皇室等再行探討，其結果獲知如下。內村及新渡戶雖同是迴避了直接批判神道，然而，內村是以「內外二分法」間接批判了神道，新渡戶卻是肯定了神道固有的祭政合一論。對於現人神，二者同是採用間接迂迴的方式呈現，內村的論述可窺知神人之距離，而新渡戶的則是默認了以人為神之作法。對其各自與神道之間的關係論述上，內村是以「內外二分法」區分彼我宗教，而新渡戶卻以「神道之雙重定義」否定了國家神道儀式所具有的宗教意義。二者呈現之差異可謂被馴化的明治國家意識型態之展現，亦為歷來研究看漏之重要事實

During the Meiji Period, imperial ideology overshadowed and penetrated various aspects of thought. However, the overall picture and framework of the ideological operation launched by Christians has not been discussed completely. Thus, the author conducted a preliminary study on tamed imperial ideology, targeting Matsumura Kaiseki from an individual missionary group. Subsequently, the author discusses Uchimura Kanzo and Nitobe Inazo from the Sapporo Band, focusing on religion, Shinto, and the Imperial House. The results obtained were as follows: although Kanzo and Inazo avoided directly criticizing Shinto, Kanzo indirectly did so through an inside / outside dichotomy, whereas Inazo recognized the inherent “Saisei Icchi” theory (the union of religious and political rule) of Shinto; both presented the “Arahitogami” (Living God) in an indirect and roundabout manner. Furthermore, Kanzo’s discussion examined the distance between God and Man, whereas Inazo tacitly acknowledged the practice of Man as God. Regarding the discussion of their own relationship with Shinto, Kanzo used an inside / outside dichotomy to distinguish an individual’s own religion from those of others, whereas Inazo denied the religious significance of national Shinto rituals through the double definition of Shinto. The differences were highlighted by presenting the so-called tamed imperial ideology, which is a vital fact overlooked in relevant studies