function, as being an ecclesiastical as well as a civil person, seems to have been tacitly held. His headship over the Church and control in ecclesiastical government were justified on this hypothesis. The Erastian doctrine, according to which the Church, as such, has none of the prerogatives of government, which inhere wholly in the State, had its adherents in England, and left its influence upon the English polity. It was the theory of Hooker that the Church of any particular country, and the State there existing, are one and the same society. They are not two distinct societies which unite or coalesce in a degree; but they are one and the same social body, which, as related to temporal concerns, and all things except true religion, is the commonwealth; as related to religion, is the Church. The supremacy of the King, if the government is monarchical, over the Church, is the corollary of this proposition. Among the modern advocates of this hypothesis, one of the ablest is the late Dr. Arnold. In idea, the Church and State, he thinks, are identical. Their end, their ergon, is the same. He rejects, with all his heart, the modern theory that the design of the State is limited to the protection of body and goods. The State, in its very idea, is religious, and is bound to aim at the promotion of religion. Rejecting, also, the doctrine of apostolic succession and of a priestly order, Arnold finds in the King's supremacy an emblem and a realization of the truth that the laity have a right to govern in the Church. The more the State is pervaded by the spirit of Christianity, the more is the Church, as a separate body,

1 Ecclesiast. Polity, b. viii. "We say that the care of religion being common to all societies politic, such societies as do embrace the true religion have the name of Church given unto every one of them for distinction from the rest." "When we oppose, therefore, the Church and Commonwealth in Christian society, we mean by the Commonwealth that society with relation to all the public affairs thereof, only the matter of true religion excepted: by the Church, the same society with only reference unto the matter of true religion, without any affairs besides."

THEORIES OF WARBURTON AND COLERIDGE.

501

superseded. The ideal towards which we are to strive is the identification of the two.1

The theory of Warburton proceeds upon a denial of the identity of Church and State. They are in their own nature and originally, distinct and separate societies. But this mutual independence does not of necessity continue. They may enter into an alliance with one another upon certain terms, the result of which is a connection and mutual dependence of the two. The Church enters into a relation of subordination to the State, the State making stipulations which bind it to support the Church. There is a contract with conditions to be fulfilled on either side. If the State should fail to fulfill these engagements, the Church may withdraw from the connection, and then falls back upon its original condition of independence.

Coleridge has suggested a theory somewhat diverse from that of Warburton. The hypothesis of Coleridge, as far as it is peculiar, is founded on a distinction between the visible Church of Christ, as it may be found in any particular country, and the national or established Church of that country. The visible Church is a kingdom not of this world; it manages its own affairs, appoints and supports its own ministers. The State is competent neither to appoint nor to displace these ministers, nor is it responsible for their maintenance. The national Church, on the contrary, is a public and visible community, having ministers whom the nation, through the agency of a constitution, has created trustees of a reserved national fund, upon fixed terms, and with defined duties, and whom in the case of breach of those terms, or dereliction of those du

1 See Arnold's Life and Correspondence (by Stanley), passim; and Arnold's Miscellaneous Writings. The eminent German theologian, Rothe, has advocated a similar theory, in his Christliche Ethik, and in his posthumous Dogmatik, iii. 32 seq.

2 This and other theories are sketched in the Preface to Coleridge's Church and State, by H. N. Coleridge. Coleridge's Works (ed. Shedd), vol. vi. 8 Works, vol. vi.

ties, the nation, through the same agency, may discharge." But the ministers of the one Church may also be the ministers of the other; the ministers of the visible Church of Christ may be, also, the ministers of the national or established Church. This is, for many reasons, expedient, and is actually the case. Thus the titles, emoluments, and political power of the clergy, belong to them, not as ministers of the Church of Christ, which is not national or local, but as an estate of the realm; as a body charged with the vast responsibility of preserving and promoting the moral culture of the people. In this capacity they may sit in Parliament, which is the great Council of the nation.

Mr. Gladstone, in his work on "Church and State," some of the doctrines of which he has since renounced, does not differ materially from Coleridge.1 Mr. Gladstone holds, that the State is a moral person, bound to act in the name of Christ and for the glory of God, and to make religion the paramount end in guiding and governing the nation. But he claims that the true Church, which has in it the apostolic succession, must be the body chosen by the nation for the performance of this high office. He admits that there may be a condition of religious opinion, where this alliance of the State with the Church is impracticable, as is the case in the United States; but in all such communities, he considers the life of the State maimed, imperfect, conventional.

Chalmers maintains that an establishment is necessary to the proper effect of Christianity upon a people. The State, he thinks, is bound to select and support some one denomination, and maintain its religious teachers. In making the selection, the State must be governed, if this be practicable, by a consideration of the truth or error of the tenets of the various religious bodies. It must in

1 The State in Connection with the Church (4th ed., 1841).

2 Works, vol. xvii.

THEORIES OF AN ESTABLISHMENT.

503

quire, what is truth. divided, or the circumstances are such, that this cannot be made the sole criterion, some one "Protestant," " evangelical" denomination must be chosen.

But if religious opinion is so

66

Macaulay, in his review of Gladstone's book, represents the lowest, or most moderate type of opinion among the advocates of an Establishment. He denies that the direct end of government is the propagation of religion. The direct end of governments is the protection of life and property. This is the proper and only essential function of the State. But while pursuing this end, the State may and should, as a collateral object, have in view the moral and religious improvement of the people. Especially may public education be defended as necessary to the safety of the State. The promotion of religion is an incidental, not a direct or main business of the civil organization. In selecting its Church, or the religious instructors of the people, the State or government must be determined, not, indeed, by the mere will of a majority, but not by its own views of truth exclusively; but must act in such a way as to secure the largest proportion of truth with the smallest admixture of error. Hence the religious views and prejudices that prevail in the community must always be consulted and respected.

In the English system, the filling of all high ecclesiastical offices devolves on the sovereign, the ecclesiastical bodies not being at liberty to refuse the formal concurrence which is required to fulfill the election. The two provinces of York and Canterbury have each its Convocation, composed of two houses, the first consisting of the bishops, and the second, of the rest of the clergy; and the two Convocations may combine. But Convocation cannot assemble without authority from Parliament, nor is it possible for any ecclesiastical laws or canons to be 1 Macaulay's Essays, vol. iv.

passed without the consent of Parliament. The result has been that for nearly two centuries, Convocation has had little more than a nominal existence. To this extent has synodal government vanished in the English Church, and the government of the Church been surrendered to the State,1

Turning to the Catholic Church, we find, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, a singular development of doctrine on the origin and nature of civil authority. High views of Papal authority, as extending over mundane affairs, were promulgated by the Popes themselves, and by the Catholic theologians, especially those of the Jesuit order. The centralization of Europe, which gave such increased vigor to national feeling and to temporal authority, made it for the interest of the Papal See to divest that authority of a portion of its sanctity. Bellarmine adopted the figure which had been used by Thomas Aquinas to define the distinction, but close connection, of the civil and the Papal authority. The former is to the latter as the body to the soul. The two are not the same, but the one is inferior and subordinate to the other; at the same time that the body has functions of its own. Bellarmine affirmed only an indirect control on the part of the Pope over the temporal power. The Pope does not immediately legislate in temporal affairs. Yet as the

1 Convocation, in 1665, surrendered the privilege of taxing the clergy, which had before pertained to it, to the House of Commons. Within the last twenty years attempts have been made to revive Convocation, and to invest it with some real function. Boswell records a vigorous expression of Dr. Johnson, on this matter, under date of August 3, 1763: "I had the misfortune before we parted to irritate him unintentionally. I mentioned to him how common it was in the world to ascribe to him very strange sayings. JOHNSON. What do they make me say, sir?' BOSWELL. 'Why, sir, an instance very strange indeed (laughing heartily as I spoke). David Hume told me you said that you would stand before a battery of cannon to restore Convocation to its full powers.' Little did I apprehend that he had actually said this; but I was soon convinced of my error; for, with a determined look, he thundered out: And would I not, sir? Shall the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland have its General Assembly, and the Church of England be denied its Convocation?""