The authority, which in England had been taken away from the pope, should return in accordance with scriptural principles to the members of the Church; and if, following the example of the primitive Christians, they had adopted the forms existing in their own country in the sixteenth century, they would have placed as directors of the Church—Christ remaining their sole king—one or two houses or assemblies, authorized to provide for the ecclesiastical administration, the maintenance of a pure faith, and the spiritual prosperity of that vast body. These assemblies would have been composed, as in the primitive times, of a majority of Christian laymen, with the addition of ministers; and both would have been elected by believers whose faith was in conformity with that of the Church.[56]
But was there at that time in England a sufficient number of enlightened Christians to become members of these assemblies, and even to hold the elections which were to appoint them? It is doubtful. They were not to be found even in Germany. 'I have nobody to put in them,' said Luther; 'but if the thing becomes feasible, I shall not be wanting in my duty.'[57] This form of government not being possible in England then, according to the Reformer's expression, two other forms offered themselves. If the first were adopted, the authority would be remitted to the clergy; but that would have been to perpetuate the doctrines and rites of popery and to lead back infallibly to the domination of Rome. The most dangerous government for the Church is the government of priests: they commonly rob it of liberty, spontaneousness, evangelical faith, and life.
There remained no alternative then but to confide the supreme authority in the Church to the State; and this is what was generally done in the sixteenth century. But men of the greatest experience in these matters have agreed that the government of the religious society by the civil power can only be a temporary expedient, and have universally proclaimed the great principle, 'that the essence of all society is to be governed by itself.'[58] To deny this axiom would be utterly contrary not only to liberty, but, further still, contrary to justice.
We must not forget when we speak of the relations between Church and State, that there are three different systems:—the government of the Church by the State; the union of the Church, governing itself, with the State; and their complete separation. There is no reason for pronouncing here upon the relative value of the two last systems.
[36] 'Which we should answer to afore God.'—State Papers, i. p. 403.
[37] 'Cui uni et soli, post Jesum Christum.'—Rymer, Acta, p. 192.
[38] 'Erga castum sanctumque matrimonium.'—Ibid.
[39] 'In quæstione illa famosa de Romani pontificis potestate.'—Wilkins, Concilia, iii. p. 771.
[40] 'Nemine eorum discrepante.'—Wilkins, Concilia, p. 782.
[41] 'But of Boheme, Italy, and Almayn, as also out of Spain, to invade his realm.'—Certain Articles. State Papers, vii. p. 560.