Church And State.

Church And State.

1. Pagan Nations. — In the Pagan states the religious life has been, on the whole, part of the political, and religion an affair of the state. In general, the priestly dignity was vested in the chief of the state government. In Athens and other Greek republics the popular assemblies had the final decision on religious affairs. In Rome the priestly dignity was originally united with the person of the kings; after the establishment of the republic, the Senate had supreme control of religious affairs; on the establishment of the empire, the emperor became Pontifex Maximus.

2. Among The Jews. — Among the Jews, the whole government of the state was based upon the idea that Jehovah was the ruler of the people. All the national institutions were destined to promote the worship of the King of Israel, and to make the people obedient to his precepts as they were laid down in the Old Testament. God, the king of Israel, ruled the people through the organs which he appointed — through Moses, Aaron and his descendants, Joshua and the judges, and the prophets. The demand of the Jews for a king was therefore censured by Samuel as a weakening of the perfect theocracy; but even the king always remained in the Jewish law the earthly representative of Jehovah, and he had no right to give new laws, but simply to execute and enforce the laws given directly by Jehovah. (See Theocracy).

3. Teaching Of Christ And The Apostles. — The teaching of Christ on the relation of the Church founded by him to the state was very plain. He distinctly recognized the absolute law-giving power of the state governments in all secular affairs, and enjoined upon his followers to obey the state laws in everything that was not opposed to the precepts of their religion. His reply to the Pharisees, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" ( Matthew 22:21), distinctly pronounces the separation between the Church and the State. He declares the powers of the civil rulers to be of divine authority by saying to Pilate, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above." The apostles enjoin upon Christians obedience to the existing state governments: thus Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans ( Romans 13:1-2), "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation." Similar precepts are given in  1 Timothy 2:1-2  Titus 3:1;  1 Peter 2:13. Only in case of demands directly contrary to the Christian religion, obedience was to be refused. Thus Peter and the other apostles, when commanded not to teach in the name of Jesus, answered, "We ought to obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29).

4. Christianity In The Time Of Constantine. — In compliance with these teachings of Christ and the apostles, the first Christians conformed themselves to all secular laws; and only when things were demanded of them contrary to Christian law, such as the open renunciation of their faith, they refused obedience, but submitted to the penalties imposed upon them. The persecutions which the Christians had to suffer during the first three centuries arose not from any active opposition on their part to the Roman laws, but chiefly from the application of the ancient laws, which forbade any Roman citizen to worship divinities not recognized by the state, and any conquered nation to propagate its religion in other parts of the empire. Hence the more the outward distinction of the Christians from the Jews became apparent, the more they exposed themselves to the application of the Roman law. Most of the persecutions were, however, of short duration, and some of the emperors even showed themselves favorable to the Christians. As civil and military offices frequently brought the occupants into situations in which they had to pay some homage, direct or indirect, to the pagan state religion, the Christians naturally regarded it as dangerous to perform the duties of such offices. The fact, however, that Christian senators and Christian soldiers are mentioned in the early history of the Church, shows that the holding of such offices was, in itself, not deemed incompatible with the religious duties of a Christian.

5. From Constantine To Charlemagne. — A new era in the history of the relation between Church and State begins with the reign of Constantine the Great. In the years 312 and 313 full freedom was guaranteed to the Christian Church throughout the empire. Soon imperial edicts granted many privileges to the clergy. They received the same immunities which were possessed by the pagan priests, and soon were preferred to the latter; the particular churches obtained the right of receiving legacies; the bishops received some kind of independent jurisdiction. The emperor, in conferring these rights, acted from the old Roman standpoint of chief of the state in matters religious as well as secular. Thus the first exhibition of a Christian state churchism was a direct emanation from pagan views transferred to the Christian Church.

The emperor retained the insignia and the name of Pontifex Maximus. Gratian was the first who laid aside the insignia, but the name was retained much longer. On the coins Constantine placed the cross, as a symbol of Christianity, by the side of the sun-god, as the representative of the old religion. The emperors thus from the start began to view themselves more as patrons than as members of the Christian Church, and the chiefs of the Church were, on the whole, well pleased with the privileges which were conferred upon them, and thought little of disputing the influence which the emperor gradually claimed to exercise upon Church affairs. In the East, this subjection of the ecclesiastical authorities to the state governments went much further than in the West, and has remained a characteristic of the Eastern churches up to the present day. The emperors convoked the synods, and claimed the right of sanctioning their resolutions. Even doctrinal formulas were sometimes drawn up by the emperors, and only promulgated by the bishops. The banishment of bishops for not concurring in the resolutions passed by synods convoked by the emperors, and frequently acting under the direct influence of the emperors, began even during the reign of Constantine.

In the western countries of the empire, the prominent position which was early awarded the bishop of Rome, and subsequently the local separation from the seat of the empire, weakened the power of the emperor in Church affairs. Some of the most prominent bishops and priests (Anbrose, Jerome, etc.) repelled in energetic language the right claimed by the emperors to decide Church questions. Several of the Eastern emperors thought it, moreover, in their interest to gain the friendship of the Roman bishops by making to them large concessions, and thus encouraged the aspirations of the latter to a supreme power in the Church. The Roman bishop Gelasius, in 494, claimed a superiority of the ecclesiastical over the secular power, and a synod convoked by the Roman bishop Symmachus, in 502, condemned the encroachment of king Odoacer upon the rights of the Church. When the German tribes, and in particular the Franks, became Christians, their kings gave to the clergy great privileges, and a great influence upon the administration of national affairs, but in return claimed the supreme power in ecclesiastical as well as secular affairs. Meetings of the clergy could not take place without royal permission, and all their resolutions needed, before being promulgated, the sanction of the kings. Even the appointment of the bishops soon came to be regarded as a royal prerogative.

Charlemagne, who was crowned by Pope Leo III as Roman emperor, conceived the bold idea of a universal Christian monarchy. In his opinion, it was the chief duty of the emperor to defend the Church of Christ everywhere against pagans and infidels, and to extend her territory. The Church, on the other hand, was to aid in the execution of this plan by spiritual means. The pope, in his eyes, was the first clergyman of the empire, whose election, as well as that of the bishops, had to be ratified by the emperor. He was anxiously intent upon avoiding all conflicts between Church and State, but reorganized the whole ecclesiastical constitution of the empire, and even issued decisions on doctrinal questions, as, for instance, the heresy of the Adoptianists.

6. From Charlemagne To The Reformation. — The weak successors of Charlemagne were not able to carry through the ideas of the great emperor; and the natural tendency of the Church, and in particular of the popes, to elevate their dignity at the expense of that of the emperors, met with but little resistance. The synods of this time generally propounded the doctrine that the pope held the highest position in the government of the Christian Church, and the emperor the highest position in the secular government of the Christian world; but that the Church was more important than the state, and the dignity of the pope higher than that of the emperor. This doctrine was in particular propagated by the pseudo- Isidorian decretals, which about this time obtained a leading influence upon Church legislation. The independence of the imperial power found, however, some very energetic champions even among the bishops; as, for instance, Hincmar of Rheims ( † 881). During the ninth and tenth centuries the authority of the papal see greatly suffered from the immoral character of some of its occupants, and it was therefore easy for the great German emperors of this time to increase the imperial power at the expense of the papal.

The emperors still deemed it their duty to execute the laws of the Church, and excommunication was frequently followed by the ban; but, at the same time, the emperors recovered their former influence upon the election of the popes. This lasted until the middle of the 11th century, when the papal see, under the influence of the monk Hildebrand, began to exhibit greater strength, and put forth more exorbitant claims than ever before. In 1059 Nicholas II annulled the direct power of the emperors in the election of popes, which was transferred to the College of Cardinals, while to the emperor only the confirmation of the pope elect was left. When Hildebrand himself, in 1073, under the name of Gregory VII, ascended the papal throne, he boldly and vigorously proclaimed a new theory of the relation between Church and State. He claimed for the Church alone a divine origin, ascribing to all secular institutions, and in particular to the state itself, a human origin. The Church, therefore, was to be the highest power in society, and the state, for its legal existence, required the sanction of the Church. In the Church he enforced the law of celibacy, in order to separate the clergy entirely from the laity, and the absolute subordination of priests to bishops, and of both to the pope, in order to concentrate all power in the hands of the latter, and to make him the real head of the universal Christian monarchy. Gregory and his successors had an unceasing conflict with the German emperors with regard to this theory, and in particular as to the appointment of bishops and other ecclesiastical dignitaries by the secular power. Many bishops and priests took sides with the emperors, who repeatedly caused the election of anti-popes. Nevertheless, the theory which maintained the superiority of the Church to the state continually gained ground.

The views of Gregory VII were further developed by Alexander III and Innocent III. The latter maintained that the State and the world had not the nature of a divine institute, but were the products of human power and will. The Church, which is of divine origin, is therefore higher than the state. The state, in itself, is only a body which is dead until a soul is infused into it. This soul is the Church. The state is like the moon, an opaque body, which needs to be illumined by the Church. Christ gave to Peter the government over all the world, and the pope is the legitimate successor of Peter. To him, therefore, belongs the final decision in all affairs, and in particular the decision as to who is to govern the states. A

ll the decrees of secular rulers require the sanction of the popes. But neither Innocent nor any of the following popes succeeded in carrying out these theories fully in practice. The emperors and kings, aided in general by the laity and a large number of the clergy, opposed the papal claims, in spite of all the excommunications which were hurled against them. Even men like Bernard of Clairvaux expressed their dissent from these ultrapapal theories. The last pope who endeavored to enforce these claims was Boniface VIII, who, in his notorious bull, Unam Sanctam, maintained it to be necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman popes had power over everything on earth. Boniface had to pay for this extraordinary assumption of power with imprisonment and ill-treatment which caused his death. The transfer of the papal see to Avignon, and subsequently the Great Schism, were fatal blows to the practical execution of the mediaeval theory of Church and State, although the theory itself was never formally renounced, and the notorious bull, Unam Sanctam, of Boniface VIII, which, as far as France was concerned, had been revoked by one of the Avignon popes (Clement V), was formally restored by Leo X in 1516. But the popes had not sufficient power to prevent the emperors and kings from passing laws by which the rights of the state governments were enlarged, and many salutary reforms introduced into the churches.

7. From The Reformation To The Present Time. — The great reformers of the 16th century — Luther, Calvin, Zwinglius, Melancthon, and others — were all agreed in condemning the confusion by the Church of Rome of spiritual and secular power. They all insisted on keeping the two powers apart, and especially in their earlier writings favored the self-government of the Church. But these views were not consistently carried through. As all the bishops opposed the reform of the Church, the princes and the municipal governments were invited by the reformers to see to the execution of the Church reform, and to the reconstruction of the Reformed churches. No provision being made for a common bond of union between the Reformed churches in different countries, the power of the state government in each particular country over the Church grew almost without opposition. To this must be added that most of the reformers adhered to the idea of a Christian state whose authorities were invested with the right to punish those who denied the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. (See Servetus).

Thus State-Churchism was established in all the Lutheran and Reformed countries, and developed the more rapidly, as the churches had never so powerful a representative as the Church of Rome had had during the Middle Ages. The constant efforts of the Roman Catholic states to root out Protestantism by force naturally led to retaliatory measures on the part of Protestant princes, and thus the dangerous principle came gradually to be developed, Cujus regio ejus religio (the religion of a country must conform to that of the prince). The application of this principle led, on the one hand, to many and bloody wars, but, on the other, it induced the Roman Catholic princes to claim, like the Protestant princes, a greater influence over religious affairs than the popes had ever conceded during the Middle Ages. The success of the Reformation had shown the weakness of the popes, and their opposition to the radical changes in the relation of the Church of Rome to the states was more nominal than efficient. The last coronation of an emperor of the West by the pope was that of Charles V in 1530. The popes protested in 1648 against the peace of Westphalia, in 1701 against the creation of a kingdom of Prussia, and in 1815 against the treaty of Vienna, but all these and similar acts had no influence whatever.

The growth of rationalism and infidelity in the 17th and 18th centuries accustomed princes and statesmen to regard the churches as part of the state organism, and just as absolutely subject to the government of every territory as the civil administration. This is the aera of the territorial system, the period of the greatest debasement of the Christian churches. Nearly all the Church assemblies, viz. the convocations in England; the national synods and general assemblies of the Protestant churches in France, Germany, and other countries; the national, provincial, and diocesan synods of the Church of Rome, were forbidden, or fell into general disuse. In the Church of Rome, during this period, the claims of the pope were not only denied by the state governments, but strenuous efforts were made in France, Germany, Italy, and other countries to reduce the papal prerogatives in matters purely ecclesiastical, and to increase that of the bishops and of the national churches. These efforts, however, were less successful than those of the state governments.

The French Revolution of 1789 shook the structure of society of Europe, political as well as ecclesiastical, to its very foundations. The principles of the Revolution did not prevail, but the governments of Europe saw the necessity of reconstructing the administration of the states. Several important changes date from the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The long alliances of Protestant and Roman Catholic governments in the war against France, and the territorial changes introduced by the Congress of Vienna, led to an interchange of toleration, as far as the Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic churches were concerned. Some states recognised all three as state churches, entitled to support by the state governments; and in most of the others there was at least a gradual approach to giving to the members of the three churches equality of political rights. The relation of the Roman Catholic Church, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant countries, to the pope was regulated by concordats and conventions, (See Concordats), which stipulated what rights the state governments should allow the pope to exercise upon the Church of a particular country, and what influence the state governments (even the Protestant) should have upon the election of bishops, the appointment of other ecclesiastical dignitaries, the direction of Roman Catholic schools, the management of Church property, and other denominational affairs. In the Protestant churches, a consciousness awoke of the unworthy servitude into which the Church had been forced in the 17th and 18th centuries, and the demand grew stronger and stronger for the restoration of at least a part of the self- government of the churches, by means of convocations, synods, assemblies, and councils.

A new impulse was given to these demands by the revolutionary movements of the year 1848, and by the agitation for political reforms which has since been going on in nearly all the European states. The regular convocation of elective Church assemblies, and the transfer to them of a greater or lesser part of the government of the Church, has, since 1848, been the general tendency in all the Protestant churches of Europe. As regards the Church of Rome, public opinion more and more declared itself against the conclusion of concordats, and in favor of a regulation of the Roman Catholic affairs of every particular country by special laws, due regard being had to the recognition by the Roman Catholics of the pope as the head of the Church. While the Lutheran and Reformed churches assumed almost from their very beginning the character of state churches, a number of minor sects sprang up in the 16th and the following centuries, which, meeting, on the hand of the state governments, with nothing but persecution, were led to demand from the state not only toleration for themselves, but freedom of religious belief in general. Especially was this the case in England, where the Nonconformists gained greater strength and influence than any dissenters on the Continent of Europe, and became true pioneers of the principle of a complete separation between Church and state. Persecution drove many of the dissenters to the New World, and here their principles found a genial soil. In some of the colonies Church and State were united, more or less closely, until after the Revolution. At the declaration of independence, the United States established the absolute separation of Church and State, and the legal equality of all forms of belief, as fundamental institutions. The United States have always remained true to this principle, and in the several states of the Union it is now practically carried out.

The prosperous growth of the free American churches, and their influence upon society, has had great effect upon opinion in the Old World. The experience of America has largely added to the number of the friends of free churches in Europe. The number of dissenting churches which claim absolute independence of the state is everywhere on the increase, and with them sympathize a large political party of Radicals, who make entire separation between Church and State a part of their political platform: In 1848, the principle of separation of Church and State was formally acknowledged in the new constitutions of France, Austria, Prussia, and other states. This triumph of the American principle was of only short duration; but none of the European countries have since ceased to have a large political party which aims at conforming legislation on Church affairs to that of the United States, and at carrying through the principle of entire separation between Church and State. It is a very remarkable fact that even men like Dr. Pusey have of late shown themselves favorable to the separation of Church and State, in order to put an end to the servile condition of the Church. One of the most prominent Protestant statesmen and writers of France, Count de Gasparin, speaks on the subject as follows: "Let no one be surprised at the extreme importance I attach to the separation of Church and State. For two centuries past the Church and society have been at war. In abolishing the unjust and worn- out pretences of both Church and State, their separation would give both to the Church and to society the peace they require. It would seem nowaday as though the citizen and the Christian were two different persons, having different rights and different duties. The Christian is taught to curse liberty as the poisonous fruit of philosophy and revolution; the citizen is taught to look upon the Church as the natural enemy of modern institutions. Thus arises a sullen enmity, a deep-rooted anxiousness in the minds of the people, and, so to speak, two nations within the same society.

Yet nothing would be more erroneous than this distinction. Christianity is so far from being the enemy of free institutions, that these institutions have never existed but in Christian countries; the nations which obey the law of Brahma, of Buddha, and of Mohammed, know of no other form of government than despotism. Liberty is the fruit of the Gospel; it proceeds from the only religion which intrusts the individual with the care and the salvation of his own soul; materialism kills it, faith makes it live; and, in return, by an intimate and mysterious connection, despotism kills faith, liberty nourishes it. What is this opposition which divides the Church and society? Nothing but a misunderstanding, whose mist shall disappear before the sun of liberty. The ideal of the Christian is also the ideal of the citizen. The state would gain no less than the Church by their mutual independence. We never attempt with impunity to rule that which God has created to be free. For two centuries the state has dragged on the Church, or has been dragged by it; the result was mutual suffering and mutual servitude. Separation restores each to its proper place. The state has no longer but citizens to deal with; it has no longer to fear the murmurs of conscience, or those invisible enemies which sap and weaken its foundations. Free in its action, authority gains both in strength and in respect; the vestry-quarrels, which are the plague of all state religions, are at an end. Union made the Church the enemy of the state, separation makes them friends. Conscience revolts against the hand of the state, it loves a power which guarantees it freedom." (See Toleration).

Among the Liberal party of the Roman Catholic countries of Europe the principle of a separation between Church and State has likewise found many advocates. Of the great statesmen of Europe in modern times, few have given so cordial an adhesion to the principle as count Cavour, who, during his whole political career, stood up for a free Church in a free state; and baron Ricasoli, whose famous letter to the Italian bishops, dated Nov. 26,1866, is a complete commentary on the subject, and a document which, in the history of European State-Churchism, will remain of lasting importance. We give the following extract from it: "The decisions adopted by the government arise from the desire that perfect liberty in the relations between Church and State should pass from the abstract religion of principle in which it had hitherto remained into the reality of fact.

The government, therefore, desires that Italy may very soon enjoy the magnificent and imposing religious spectacle now afforded to the free citizens of the United States of America by the National Council of Baltimore, wherein religious doctrines are freely discussed, and whose decisions, approved by the pope, will be proclaimed and executed in every town and village without exequatur or placet. It is liberty which has produced this admirable spectacle; liberty, professed and respected by all, in principle and in fact, in its amplest application to civil, political, and social life. In the United States every citizen is free to follow the persuasion that he may think best, and to worship the Divinity in the form that may seem to him most appropriate. Side by side with the Catholic Church rises the Protestant temple, the Mussulman mosque, the Chinese pagoda. Side by side with the Romish clergy the Genevan consistory and the Methodist assembly exercise their office. This state of things generates neither confusion nor clashing. And why is this? Because no religion asks either special protection or privileges from the state. Each lives, develops, and is followed under the protection of the common law, and the law, equally respected by all, guarantees to all an equal liberty. The Italian government wishes to demonstrate as far as possible that it has faith in liberty, and is desirous of applying it to the greatest extent compatible with the interests of public order.

It therefore calls upon the bishops to return to their sees whence they were removed by those very motives of public order. It makes no conditions save that one incumbent upon every citizen who desires to live peaceably — namely, that he should confine himself to his own duty and observe the laws, The state will insure that he be neither disturbed nor hindered; but let him not demand privileges if he wishes no bonds. The principle of every free state, that the law is equal for all, admits of no distinctions of any kind. The government would be glad to cast off all suspicion and abandon every precaution, and if it does not now wholly act up to this wish, it is because the principle of liberty which it has adopted and put into practice is not equally adopted and practiced by the clergy. Let your lordships remark the difference between the condition of the Church in America and the condition of the Church in Europe. In those virgin regions the Church is established amid a new society, but which carried with it from the mother country all the elements of civil life. Representing the purest and most sacred of the social elements, the religious feeling which sanctions right, and sanctifies duty, and carries human aspirations far above all earthly things, the Church has here sought only the empire pleasing to God, the empire of souls. Companion of liberty, the Church has grown beneath its shelter, and has found all that sufficed for free development and the tranquil and fecund exercise of its ministry.

It has never sought to deny to others the liberty which it enjoyed, nor to turn to its exclusive advantage the institutions which protected it. In Europe, on the other hand, the Church arose with the decadence of the great empire that had subjugated the earth. It was constituted amid the political and social cataclysms of the barbarous ages, and was compelled to form an organization strong enough to resist the shipwreck of all civilization amid the rising flood of brute force and violence. But while the world, emerging from the chaos of the Middle Ages, re-entered the path of progress marked out by God, the Church impressed upon all having any relation with it the immobility of the dogma intrusted to its guardianship. It viewed with suspicion the growth of intelligence and the multiplication of social forces, and declared itself the enemy of all liberty, denying the first and most incontestable of all, the liberty of conscience. Hence arose the conflict between the ecclesiastical and the civil power, since the former represented subjection and immobility, and the latter liberty and progress.

The conflict, from peculiar circumstances, has greater proportions in Italy, because the Church, thinking that a kingdom was necessary to the independent exercise of its spiritual ministry, found that kingdom in Italy. The ecclesiastical power, from the same reason, is here in contradiction not only with the civil power, but national right. The bishops cannot be considered among us as simple pastors of souls, since they are at the same time the instruments and defenders of a power at variance with the national aspirations. The civil power is therefore constrained to impose those measures upon the bishops which are necessary to preserve its rights and those of the nation. How is it possible to terminate this deplorable and perilous conflict between the two powers-between Church and state? Let us ‘ render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's,' and peace between Church and state will be troubled no more."

See Herzog, Real-Encyklop. vol. 19 (Supplem.), s.v. Staat und Kirche; a complete history of the relation of the Christian Church to the state was begun by Riffel (Romans Cath.), but not completed (Geschichtliche Darstellung der Verhaltnisse zwischen Kirche und Staat, vol. 1, Mainz, 1836, embracing the time from the foundation of Christianity to Justinian I); Vinet, Essai sur la manifestation des convictions religieuses et sur la separation de l'eglise et de l'tat envisagee comme consequence necessaire et comme guarantie du principe (Paris; 1842; translated into English, Lond. 1843, 12mo); Laurent, L'E'glise et l'E'tat; Hundeshagen, Ueber einge Hauptmomente in der geschichtlichen Entwickelung des Verhaltnisses zwischen Staat und Kirche, in Dove's Zeitschrift fiur Kirchenrecht, vol. 1 (Berlin, 1861); Roscovany (Romans Cath.), Monumenta Cathovica pro independentia ecclesice ex potestate civili, tom. 1 (Quinque Ecclesiis, 1847); Richter, Geschichte der evangel. Kirchenvsrfassung in Deutschland (Leipzic, 1851); the manuals of Church law (Kirchenrecht) by Richter, Walter, Philips, and others. Lord Montague pleads for the State Church in The Four Experiments in Church and State (London, 1863), maintaining that only four forms of Church and State are possible: 1. When the Church is identical with the state, i.e. when it is a national Church; 2. When the Church is under the state; 3. When the Church overrides the state; 4. When there is no Church at all. In the author's opinion, the national is the only normal form of Church and state. In each of the other forms the Church and state are depraved. See also Dupin, Traite de la Puissance eccles. et temporelle (Paris, 1707); Dupin's Manuel du Droit Ecclisiastique (Paris, 4th ed. 1845; claiming the rights of Roman Catholic state governments over the Church of Rome); Zachariee, Einheit des Staats und der Kirche (1797); De Maistre, Du Pape (the most celebrated defense of ultra-papal theories); Archbishop Wake, The Authority of Princes; Warburton, Alliance of Church and State (1736); Hobbes, Leviathan (1608); Gladstone, State in Relation to Church (2 vols. 4th ed. 1841); Pusay, Royal Supremacy (1847); Coleridge, Constitution of Church and State (1830): Chalmers, National Churches (1838); Vincent, Protestantisme enz France, p. 190; Brownson's Review (Romans Cath.), Oct. 1854; Dexter, Congregationalism (Bost. 1865), p. 209; D'Aubigne, Essays (N. Y. ed.), p. 239; Palmer, On the Church, 2, 291 sq.; Church of England Quarterly, Jan. 1855, art. vi; Schaff, Church History, 2, 90, 356; Calvin, Institutes, bk. 4, ch. 20; English Review, vol. 11 and foll. (many articles); Catholic World, April, 1867, art. 1; Wardlaw, On Church Establishments (London, 1839, 8vo); Noel, On the Union of Church and State (N. Y. 1849,12mo); Cunningham, Discussion of Church Principles (Edinb. 1863, 8vo).