THE Wisdom of ALMIGHTY GOD has instituted three societies, within each of which it is His Will that every human being should be included. They are the Church, the State, and the Family. Perhaps it would be better to say, that there are three classes of societies. For the number of individual families is very great; and they do not seem to have any other bonds of connection than the Church and the State. There are also many States, and it does not appear to be the Divine Will that they should have any other bond of union, than the membership of their members in the Church. The Church, indeed, is, in theory, one great society, extending all over the world; and the particular Churches which exist within the bounds of the several States are all portions of the one Church. But this one Church may be considered, even in theory, as the sole specimen of a class. Practically, the several particular Churches have so little intercourse with each other, and the place of the Church is so often usurped by a pseudo-Church, that the actual appearance presented is rather that of a class of societies than of a single society. But whatever phraseology we may use, the fact remains, that it is the Will of GOD that every man and woman in the world should be a member of three societies.

This being so, it follows that those societies must bear some relation to each other. Occupying the same territory and

composed of the same individuals, the result is inevitable. It is intended in this paper to say something of the relations between the Church and the State; that is to say, between the State and the particular Church within her boundaries. Of the Family, it is not intended to speak, except perhaps incidentally; the relations of the Church and State, to each other, will furnish a theme quite as extensive as can be conveniently dealt with.

There have been several theories on this subject. One is that the State and the Church, within its precincts, being composed of precisely the same members, are one society and not two. But it is not practically true, that their members are the same. Moreover, they have two sets of officers; and if they are one society, that society has two governments. The practical effect of this will be very much the same as if they were two societies. In the one case it is necessary to inquire into the relations of the two societies; in the other, of the two governments. The difficulties of the enquiry and the principles upon which it is to be conducted will, in both cases, be very much the same. Another theory is that they are two societies, but that one is subordinate to the other. This leads to two sub-theories, as the superiority is assigned to the State or to the Church. The first of these sub-theories is Erastianism; the other is Ultramontanism or the old Scottish Covenant Presbyterianism, as it happens to be combined with Romanism or Protestantism. Another theory is that the two should exist in absolute independence of each other, neither having any authority over the other.

The last is the American theory, and, as the writer believes, the true one. It involves the difficulty of providing for collisions between the two authorities; which in all the others are summarily disposed of by the authority of the State; except in those countries in which the authority of the Church has been held to be the superior one. There, it has never hap pened that the theory has been acceptable to the civil govern ment. The civil government has always found adherents, and the result has generally been a strife; which could only be terminated by the victory of the State, or by the termination of the connection. In that case the Church must assume the inde

pendent position. The only case of the sort which history affords is that of the so-called Free Church of Scotland. In the United States and some of the British Colonies, the connection has been dissolved by the State.

There thus exist several independent Churches and pseudoChurches in the world; to the number, it seems clear, that the Church of England will in time be added. Whether the societies which are in this position be Churches or pseudo-Churches, makes no difference in their rights with relation to this question; because the State has no right to determine the question of their character. But it is well to know what those relations are. The State is bound to recognize every Society which presents itself as a Church. But she is not bound to allow any Churches, true or false, to interfere with the exercise of her legitimate authority. This raises the question of the extent of State and of Church authority. Both exist and must be provided for; and some boundary must be settled between them.

This has been attempted upon two principles. The first was the nature of the question. All questions were considered as either temporal or spiritual; but it has been found that all questions are both spiritual and temporal. Actions only are the proper objects of law; and all voluntary actions are the proper objects of law. But all voluntary actions are either. sinful or not sinful, and so have qualities which cannot be denied to be spiritual. On the other hand all voluntary actions may affect the welfare of the community, and so have temporal qualities also. It is thus impossible to draw a satisfactory line between questions. An attempt has, also, been made to draw the line between persons; but this failed for a similar reason. All persons were, or ought to have been, members of both societies. Each party, however, attempted to secure a special portion of exclusive jurisdiction. The Church claimed for the clergy an exemption from the jurisdiction of the State; while the State advanced a similar claim for her rulers and their immediate dependants. Such exemptions were absurd, and only tended to subvert the authority of both institutions; while they afforded no protection to the great body of mankind from the oppressions of either.

It was not, therefore, wonderful that each party denied the

claims of the other, and so those claims only furnished new causes of discord. The only settlement which would have provided for the case was never thought of. The only remedy is to regard the two societies as absolutely independent of each other, and not entitled to take any control of each other's proceedings; except in certain special cases, and that according to certain principles. The dangers of collision may be reduced under two general heads, as they are connected with the making and the interpretation of human laws. There may be danger that the Church will make laws, or so interpret those which she has made, as to interfere with the welfare of the State or the citizens. On the other hand, there may be danger that the State may make laws, obedience to which will involve men in sin, or so interpret her laws as to produce the same effect. The danger in either case is rather apparent than real. But it is well to consider carefully the nature of law.

All law must be resolved into the Divine Will; which is made known to man by the Word, the Works, and the Providence of GOD. But it is, notwithstanding, not easy to ascertain with absolute certainty what that Will is in any particular case. The Word often furnishes only general principles; which cannot be applied to particular cases, without a great deal of thought and reasoning, in which men are liable to be mistaken. The Will of GOD can only be collected from His Works by a long and laborious induction, to which few are equal. The cases in which the Will of GOD is to be collected from His Providence are not very many, and present their own peculiar difficulties. Where a person is acting by or for himself, and his actions will affect no one but himself, he may be allowed to decide what the Law of GOD is for himself. without any appeal, except that which must always be acknowl edged, to the Lawgiver. But such cases are not many. In very many cases, to say the least, this cannot be done. When men act together they must act upon some one interpretation of the Law. When their actions affect other persons, such persons cannot be expected to acquiesce in the decisions of the agents, if they differ from their own. Hence the necessity of public authority. The oldest form of public authority is the judicial. The ruler, whether civil or ecclesiastical, interfered to decide a dis

pute between two or more persons; who interpreted differently the law which ought to govern some transaction in which they were both or all interested. In process of time a legislative authority was developed, which dictated to the judges the principles, according to which they were to decide the controversies which came before them. The legislative authority was a check upon the judicial, operating by dictating its course of action. To dictate implied superiority. So the legislature is regarded as superior to the judiciary. Yet it is only a development from it, and the earliest human laws were the precedents which the judiciary both made and followed. The earliest written human laws were the rules, which the judges. caused to be written for their own guidance and the information of those who had business with them. The next step was that of instructions from superior to subordinate tribunals. The next, the gathering together of the judges of the subordi nate tribunals to consult with their superiors about such instructions. The last, the formation of assemblies, whose business it is to prepare such instructions, that is to make rules, for all tribunals indifferently. But the object of the decisions, of the precedents, of the instructors, and of the rules, is the same. It is to discover and apply the Will of God in the particular case. It may, and often does happen, that, in the course of a complicated process, the means may defeat the end. But it is not the less necessary that there should be somewhere an authority to use some means for so necessary a purpose. To leave the interpretation of the law of GOD, and its enforcement, in each particular case, to private judgment, would be to deliver the world over to anarchy and perpetual

war.

Such was not the Divine intention. The two great societies of which we are treating, were erected to meet the evil. Both involve the need of authority; and all authority must be Divinely given, or it can have no existence. The Divine Wisdom has chosen to institute two societies and to delegate to them two authorities; which are, in a certain sense, the same. Both are to interpret His Laws; both are to enforce His Laws. But they are to interpret them for different purposes; and to enforce their interpretations in a different man