letters of Luther himself and of his associates are in response to petitions for advice from princes and private persons, respecting marriage and divorce. The unsettled views on this subject-the state of things inevitably consequent on the renunciation of the old system of ecclesiastical laws, which in many points the Reformers judged to be unscriptural and unreasonable — must be taken into account, in considering the conduct of the Wittenberg Reformers in the case of the scandalous doublemarriage of the Landgrave of Hesse. But marriage was partly a secular matter, falling under the cognizance of the civil tribunals, and partly ethical and religious, and so coming within the province of the Church and clergy. Hence mixed tribunals, composed partly of clergy and partly of jurists, were constituted by the civil authority, and into the hands of these bodies, called consistories, the same name which the former episcopal courts had borne, the whole ecclesiastical administration, including the right of excommunication, was committed. The only right left to the churches in the election of pastors, was that of confirming or rejecting the nominations made by the patrons.

In Brandenburg and Prussia, where the bishops were not averse to the Protestant movement, the episcopal system lingered until 1587. In Denmark it was suppressed in 1536; the Danish superintendents being appointed by the king. Sweden alone of the Lutheran countries has continued the episcopal organization.

A remarkable attempt was made in Hesse to establish a church system of a quite different character. This was made under the auspices of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, ' who was governed by the advice of Francis Lambert, a converted Franciscan, a native of Avignon, who had embraced Protestantism, and had resided first with Zwingle at Zurich and then at Wittenberg. The Church constitution, to which we refer, was devised at a synod at

THE SYNOD OF HOMBERG.

493

Homberg, in 1526, and was democratic in its principles. The Gospel was to be preached in every place, and then a Church was to be organized, to consist of true believers who were willing to unite in a common subjection to the rules of discipline. The body thus composed was to choose its own pastors, who were called bishops, and might be taken from any profession, and to exercise self-government including the administration of a strict discipline and of excommunication where it should be required. Every year each Church was to be represented by bishops and delegates in a general synod, where all complaints were to be heard, and doubtful questions solved. The business of the synod was to be prepared beforehand by a committee of thirteen; and at each meeting three visitors were to be chosen to investigate the condition of each Church. The plan may be described as the Congregational system with an infusion of Presbyterian elements. "The features of it," says Ranke, 66 are the same as those on which the French, the Scottish, and the American Church was afterwards established; upon them, one may say, the existence, the development of North America rests. They have an immeasurable, world-historical importance. At the first experiment, they appear in a complete form: a little German synod adopted them."

Luther considered the people quite unprepared for such arrangements. He often complained of the indocile. roughness and obtuseness of the rustics, who could not be brought to undertake the support of their own ministers. Before the Homberg Synod he had become convinced that Church arrangements, so much at variance with those with which the Germans had been familiar, would prove impracticable and abortive. Artificial legislation, not a historical growth, was contrary to his ideas even Moses, he said, had set down what was customary and traditional among his people. In all such matters he held that we must proceed with slow steps.

"Little and well" was the motto which he adopted. Such a mass of new laws, he wrote to the Landgrave, he could not approve of: it was a great thing to make a law, and without the Spirit of God no good could come of it. Partly from Luther's opposition, and still more from the influence of the causes on which his objections were founded, the Hessian constitution was never fully set in operation.

The course of events in Germany had brought the government of the Church into the hands of the Protestant princes within their respective states. Theologians and jurists proposed various theories in explanation or justification of this fact. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the "episcopal system" was advocated, according to which the civil rulers were held to have received their ecclesiastical powers from the Emperor, by the Treaty of Passau and the Peace of Augsburg. Some held that these powers were provisionally bestowed, by "devolution," until the opposing churches should be reunited; others, that they were now restored to the place where they had originally and rightfully belonged. At the end of the seventeenth century, the "territorial system" was set up, in which episcopal authority - jus episcopale was identified with the conceded right of the princes to reform abuses in religion — the "jus reformandi." This system made the government of the Church, not including, however, the determination of doctrinal disputes, a part of the prince's proper function, as the ruler of the State. This theory was advanced by Thomasius, whose opinion was shared for substance by Grotius, and by Selden, the English defender of the theory which denies the autonomy of the Church, and is known under the name of Erastianism. Professed at first in the interest of toleration, the "territorial system" became the potent instrument of tyranny. Another theory, the "collegial system," was elaborated

POLITY OF THE CALVINISTIC CHURCHES.

495

by Puffendorf and Pfaff. This made the Church originally an independent society, which devolved, by contract, episcopal authority upon the civil rulers. The oppression of the Church by the State-what the Germans call Cæsaro-papismus has been a prolific source of evil in Lutheran communities.

In the Reformed branch of the Protestant family there was the same theory respecting the rights of the Church to govern itself, and respecting the relation of Church and State as auxiliary to one another. The independence of the Church upon secular control was in general maintained with much more distinctness and tenacity, partly from the circumstance that several of the Calvinistic Churches-for example, the churches of France, Scotland, and the Netherlands-framed their organization as sects, with no sympathy from the civil rulers. This fact was not without its influence in stamping more republican features upon their polity. In Zurich, Zwingle saw, as Luther had seen, that the body of the people were not ripe for self-government according to a popular method; and accordingly ecclesiastical authority was placed in the hands of the great Council, which governed the city, and was considered to represent the ecclesiastical as well as civil community. The clergy were nominated or presented by the magistracy, the privilege being given to the people, who were convened for the purpose, of objecting to the candidates. Zwingle held, also, that excommunication should be left to the Christian magistracy, as long as they did not neglect their duty in this particular. In 1525, a court composed of pastors and civilians was constituted for the decision. of questions pertaining to marriage and divorce. The infliction of all punishments was relegated to the civil authority. The principle of the parity of the clergy was strictly adhered to. Ecolampadius at Basel endeavored to restore church discipline to the Church itself, but his

efforts in this direction, though partially successful for a time, soon failed; and the Zurich system, in its essential characteristics, was adopted in the other Swiss Cantons.

The doctrine of Calvin with regard to the proper constitution of the Church and the connection of Church and State, is set forth with his usual clearness in the Institutes. The officers of the Church are, besides deacons, lay elders who, in conjunction with the clergy, have charge of church discipline. The equality of the clergy, or the identity of presbyters and bishops, is affirmed. The officers are to be chosen by the congregation, under the lead and presidency of the officers already existing. Calvin, in speaking of the constitution of the State, does not conceal his partiality for an aristocratic form modified by democratic elements; and this feeling, notwithstanding his view that power resides ultimately in the congregation, betrays itself in his remarks on the proper method of electing officers of the Church. The Church has no authority to use force or inflict civil punishments of any sort. Its functions are purely spiritual. On the other hand, the State has no moral right to intrude within the jurisdiction of the Church or to diminish its liberty. Nevertheless, the State is bound to coöperate with the Church, and to aid it by the efficient use of distinctly civil instrumentalities. Calvin rejects the theory that the State has cognizance only of the worldly concerns of men. It is the first and most imperative duty of the magistrate to foster religion, and hence he is solemnly bound to punish and extirpate heresy. He says that if "the Scripture did not teach that this office (of the magistracy) extends to both tables of the law, we might learn it from heathen writers; for not one of them has treated of the office of magistrates, of legislation, and civil government, without beginning with religion and divine worship." It belongs to government to see "that