that they would defend the King and his rights, with life and property, and that they would disclose, at once, to the proper authorities, any thing hostile to the government, which should come to their knowledge. This wounded the feelings of the better part of the clergy, exceedingly, as it degraded them, in some measure, to the rank of official spies. Besides this, many of them could not, and would not, recognize the king as the supreme Bishop of their church.

The main ground of opposition, however, was, that this liturgy proceeded from the king, and that in virtue of his office as Bishop, he claimed the right of changing at pleasure, the forms adopted in public worship. Those who denied the authority of the government, thus to interfere in the internal concerns of the church, were very glad to have the matter brought to a discussion, in hopes that it would lead to a recognition, on the part of the government, of the right of self-government in the church. Calling public attention to this subject, and exciting a spirit of investigation into the grounds of the power so long exercised by the Protestant sovereigns in Germany, over the church, has been one of the most beneficial results of this controversy. Those who have espoused the cause of the King, and endeavoured to prove his right, not only to regulate the forms of worship, but to exercise ecclesiastical power, legislative as well as executive, have proceeded on one or other of the three following grounds. First, that on the principle cujus regio est, ejus est religio, this right is an essential part of the sovereignty with which the monarch is invested. This is the ground taken by Augusti, who endeavors to show, from the example of the heathen Kings and Emperors of Rome; from Numa downward, that the regulation of the affairs of religion was vested in the hands of the civil ruler; and that these Emperors, long after the introduction of Christianity, continued to exercise the office of Pontifex Maximus. To this it is answered, that no argument, as to the relation in

which the Christian church stands to the state, can be derived from the power of heathen Emperors in matters of religion, since these Emperors, by uniting two offices, exercised two distinct kinds of power, as the very assumption of the title of Pontifex Maximus proves. But this office the Christian church has never conferred on civil rulers, however frequently it has been usurped and exercised. It is further objected, that, it is not true, that, after the union of the church with the state, the power was yielded to the civil authority; the history of those ages proves, that the church by her presbyters, bishops, and councils, retained the governing power in her own hands, in the great majority of instances. In the time of the reformation, the symbolical books, both of the Lutheran and the Reformed churches, clearly maintain the principles of religious liberty, and deny the right of the state to regulate the affairs of the church. Neither is it conceivable, that such men as the reformers, would ever have sanctioned a principle which, as the opposers of this system justly remark, would make the Turkish Sultan the head of the Greek churches throughout his dominions. The assumption of the title of Bishop, by the German Princes, would also prove, that, even in their own estimation, it was not in virtue of their civil authority, they had a right to the ecclesiastical power, which they have so long exercised. In all cases too, where these Princes have become Catholics, they have at once given up their control of the Protestant church, (the recent case of the Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, forms, perhaps the only excep tion,) without dreaming of divesting themselves of any portion of their authority as sovereigns.

A second ground on which this authority of the Princes, is defended, is that of "Devolution ;" that is, that at the time of the reformation, all the rights and powers of the Catholic Bishops, devolved on them, when the Bishops, first in fact, and afterwards by treaty (at the peace, 1555,) relin

quished all claim, to the jurisdictio ecclesiastica, over the Protestants. That in point of fact, the Princes did assume the jurisdiction which the Bishops had renounced, cannot be doubted, and in their hands it has since remained. But that the church ever recognised the propriety of this assumption, cannot be proved, It is true, that in the disorder incident on the peculiar circumstances of the times, Luther, and others of the reformers, did call upon the electors, to supply the deficiencies of a regular organization of the Protestant church, and to take the necessary measures for the preservation of peace and order. But the government seldom acted, without consulting the leading theologians, or contrary to their suggestions. And where the ruling authorities took no part in the reformation, as in France, Austria, and elsewhere, the churches organized themselves. It is obvious that the reformers, in throwing off the authority of the Pope, could never have intended to place the church in the same state of subjection to the arbitrary authority of their civil rulers; they merely called on them in the time of emergency, as the most important members of the rising communion, to take the lead in reducing things. to order. Accordingly, all measures were adopted, with the advice and consent of the clergy, or the leading members of their body. The elector Moritz replied to the Emperor in reference to the Interim, that he could do nothing, nisi consultis prius Doctoribus suis. The Landgraf Phillip of Hesse called a regular synod, by which all the steps regarding the reformation, were directed. Although the method of procedure, was at this time various, the Princes in some instances, acting on their own authority, in others, at the request of the clergy, it is clear that no solid foundation can be found, in this admission, for the power which they have continued to exercise, when the necessity for so doing no longer exists.

A third ground, therefore, which has been assumed, as the

R

foundation of this authority, is, that the power really vested in the church, has, by her consent, been transferred to the civil rulers, as her organs and representatives; and consequently that all they do, is done by the church, inasmuch as it is done by representatives, appointed by herself. If it be asked, who delegated this power to the civil rulers? it is answered, either, the theologians as the representatives of the church; or the church herself, by her tacit consent to its assumption. But what right had the theologians to make any such transfer, even admitting the fact, and is this act of theirs binding for all future generations? But the fact itself is denied, and appeal is made to the whole tenor of the standards of the German churches; approved, and in many cases, signed by these Princes themselves, which proves, that neither the church nor its leaders, ever intended to make their civil governors, the perpetual and supreme rulers of the church.

The power, therefore, which the German Princes have so long exercised in ecclesiastical affairs, is regarded by a large portion of the most enlightened of the clergy, as an unwarrantable usurpation. They feel that they are held in unworthy bondage, and (to use the language of one of the recent writers on this subject) look with envy to the condition of the Moravians, and even of the Jews. The King of Würtemburg has generously offered, to allow the "Evangelical church," throughout his dominions, to exercise all the rights of self-government; reserving for himself no other control over it, than such, as the government exercises over all corporate bodies, which is purely negative. Strange to tell, the clergy have as yet taken no advantage of this act of emancipation. This, no doubt, has arisen from the want of clearness and unanimity of opinion, as to the manner in which the church should be organized. It is probable that it will not be long, however, before the church in that part of Germany, at least, will enter on the exercises of her long neglected rights.

It may be interesting, to state here the outlines of the system of church government, at present in force in Prussia, which in most of its essential features, is common to the other Protestant sovereignties in Germany.

This system is founded upon the principle, that the King is rightfully vested, with full powers for the government of the church. How far this authority, in theory, might be made to extend, it is difficult to say; that he has no right to change the doctrinal standards of the church, would probably be admitted on all hands; but short of this, there seems to be little, which is not regarded as lying within the legitimate sphere of his control. The extent, however, of the King's authority as Bishop, will be best learned, from the powers vested in the several organs, by which he administers the ecclesiastical government. These are

1. The Minister of worship and public instruction, and his council.

The minister himself is a layman, and his council is composed of clerical as well as lay-members. This department of the government is the supreme ecclesiastical authority. It has the general oversight and direction of every thing, pertaining to religion and education. To it, all other ecclesiastical bodies, are subordinated, and are required to observe its ordinances. It is the depository of the King's prerogatives, in reference to the church. Its supervision and authority extend not only to ecclesiastical affairs, but to all literary institutions-the universities, gymnasia, learned and elementary schools, all scientific and literary societies, &c. &c. This body can in most cases decide finally, on all measures relating either to church or school affairs. With respect to some points, however, the immediate consent of the King is necessary. As 1, The reception of funds, intended as endowments for any purpose, connected with religion or education; or changing the destination of funds given for any such purpose. 2, The decision of the question, whether