III. PART and thus, indirectly, to decide what are the doctrines of the Church. Hence, it has never occurred, where such a union existed between the Church and the State, that the former, was not cruelly oppressed by the latter. Q. xx. But is it not the duty of the State to recognise the true Church? A. It is the duty of the State, as it is the duty of each individual who is a member of the State, to recognise the true Church; because it is his duty to believe in, and obey the Divine Revelation. But that is a duty which is between each individual and Almighty God, or at most, between each individual and the Church. It is just as much the duty of every individual, that his recognition should be sincere and unforced, as that it should be made. Every step, then, taken by the State, beyond simple recognition, is a violation of the true principles of the Church. Nor can a simple recognition take place, unless it is a true and real one, made heartily and sincerely, because the State itself, that is, the people of the State, do sincerely and heartily believe in the existence and doctrines of the true Church. Unless such a recognition can be so made, it must be deferred until the component parts of the State, in their individual capacities, are brought over to a different mind. Until then, the want of such a recognition by the State is to be excused by invincible ignorance; just as the want of such a recognition is excused in the case of the individuals. In other words, the recognition of the Church by the State is only a public and united expression of her recognition by the individuals who compose the State. The possibility of making it, then, depends on the fact, of whether the individual recognitions, of which it is made up, really exist. The duty is, in other respects, precisely parallel to the individual duty, and the non-performance of it, is excusable V. on similar grounds to those which excuse from the CHAP. performance of the individual duty. Moreover, the duty, in both cases, is one for the neglect of which no man is accountable to any human authority. Q. xxi. But have not the Church and State authority over the same matters? May not their decisions clash? In such a case, if they are independent of each other, who is to decide between them? A. They have both jurisdiction over the same matters; but their jurisdictions are for different purposes, and rest on different foundations. The State judges of actions as they are, or are not, civil wrongs, and affect the temporal welfare of her citizens. The Church judges of them as they are, or are not, sins, and affect the consciences of the actor. If the matter be merely a temporal one, touching this world's goods, and its decisions clash, it is the duty of the Church to give way, so far as relates to the actual disposal of the property. But as relates to the conscience of the party, the Church has a right to insist on his conforming to her laws, and to enforce those laws by merely ecclesiastical censures; of which, if they carry no temporal disabilities with them, the State has no right to complain. The individual must then choose between his Church privileges, and the exercise of the power which he derives from the imperfection, misapplication, or perversion of the temporal laws. Q. xxii. What are the actual relations between the Church and the State, in the United States? A. The Church professes obedience for conscience sake to the civil "powers that be;" they, on their part, afford her protection of her assemblies for public worship from interruption, in common with those of all sects and religions, and also the III. PART protection of the property of the Church in her corporate capacity, to the same extent, in the same manner with other property. Q. xxiii. Does the Church desire any thing else of the State? A. The Church desires no exclusive privileges of the State. She desires that, in common with all sects and religions, her sons may have the power of associating themselves into corporations, or legalized associations, with perpetual succession, for the purpose of more conveniently holding the title to her houses of worship, and the other real estate which it may be necessary or convenient that she should hold in order to the carrying on her great work. Q. xxiv. Why is that necessary ? A. Because the courts of law require that all real property should belong to some person or corporation. If church property be intrusted to an individual, it is liable in his hands, or those of his heirs, to be perverted from Church purposes, and will, moreover, be liable for his debts. There is in such a case no definite or ascertainable person or persons, whom the courts recognize as interested in the matter and entitled to interfere, and demand their aid in preventing such perversion. The difficulty can only be gotten over by giving a legal standing to some body of Churchmen, in whom the legal right to property may reside, and who will therefore be entitled to protect it in the courts. Q. xxv. How are such corporations formed? A. The right of forming corporations is regarded as belonging to the sovereign power. In Great Britain, it belongs to the Crown, the theoretical Sovereign; in the United States, it is exercised by the legislative bodies. This right, so far as concerns the Church, is exercised in two different modes. In some States it is necessary to apply to the legislature for a special act of incorporation in CHAP. each case. In others, power is given to a certain number of citizens to associate themselves into a voluntary corporation, with the usual privileges of a legal one, including that of holding property to a certain limited amount. Most of the States permit such associations for the purpose of maintaining public worship, to be formed in the easier mode; but in the case of corporations to hold property for the purposes of Church education, or for any Church purposes, other than the maintenance of public worship, the direct interference of the legislature must be sought. Q. xxvi. Does the State do her duty to the Church in this matter? A. The power of doing so belongs not to the General Government, but to what are technically called the States. Most of these do their duty in this matter. Virginia is distinguished by her obstinate refusal to permit the existence within her jurisdiction of any corporation for the maintenance of public worship. New York has attempted to monopolize education, and will no longer give the right of conferring academical degrees to any other institutions than the State University; which acknowledges no Church or creed, and will not extend the benefit of its degrees to those educated in any institution which does. There may be in other parts of the country some similar facts. They are evidences, wherever they exist, of a misguided hatred of religion, disguised as a morbid fear for religious liberty; against which it is, in fact, waging war. In general, however, the States are willing to do all that the Church ought to desire. V. PART CHAPTER VI. A SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER ON THE RELATIONS OF Q. i. ARE the relations of the Church and State the same in England, as in the United States? A. No. In England there exists an alliance between Church and State, by means of which the Church is subjected to great evils. Q. ii. What is the origin of that alliance? all A. From the time of Constantine, an alliance between Church and State has existed throughout Europe. The kings, as well of England as of other nations, were always desirous to make the most of it for their own temporal advantage; the clergy every where desired to check their encroachments. This led to a perpetual struggle between the governing powers of the nations and of the Churches. The Clergy of each nation being unable to sustain this struggle against the governing power of that nation, there was formed a kind of union among the Clergy of Western Europe. Of this union, the Bishop of Rome, who, to the possession of the chief bishopric of the West, united the character of a temporal prince, was naturally the head. These circumstances gave rise to the papal power, and to many of the corruptions of Romanism. When, in the sixteenth century, a portion of the clergy of Europe opened their eyes upon the corruptions of the Church, they found that they could not get rid of them, without also getting rid of the papal power, by which they were sustained. To effect this object, they called in the aid of the tem |