is among you. He also, in the same place, implies a condemnation of assumed superiority: Not as being lords over God's heritage.

1130. The second assertion, that the primacy given to St. Peter was intended to continue in the Church in after ages, is generally supported by urging that such a primacy is necessary to preserve the Unity of doctrine and discipline in the Church. But we must reject altogether the arguments of a disputant who imagines to himself a constitution of the Christian Church which he conceives to be necessary to its completeness; and on this ground asserts that such a constitution has always existed. We cannot assert anything to be necessary to the constitution of the Christian Church which Christ and his Apostles have not declared to be necessary. Nor does it appear that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is fitted to secure, or has secured, the unity of doctrine and discipline in the Christian Church.

1131. The third assertion; that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter in the office of Head of the Church; is contrary to the early history of the Church. The Bishop of Rome was always recognized as the successor of St. Peter in his bishoprick. But the claim of a legislative and judicial power over other bishops and their sees, was never allowed till a much later period; and was never generally allowed, even in those churches which agreed in doctrine with the Church of Rome. The Gallican Church, for instance, always strenuously denied the absolute authority of the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church.

1132. It is very natural for Christians to desire to see on earth a visible and organized embodiment of the Universal Church of Christ ;--that Body of Believers, united to Christ as their Head, to which are promised, as we have said (590), unity, perpetual existence, and the possession of Religious Truth

through the guidance of the Holy Spirit: to which also is committed the office (743) of constantly labouring to make all men truly Christians. And the defenders of the Romish Church represent their Church as this Universal Church; having the Pope, guided on some occasions by a General Council of Bishops, for its earthly Head; and having Ecclesiastical Governors and Ministers, of various degrees and offices, acting in a regular subordination, in every Christian Country. But the experience of all history shows that, as we have already said, men are not sufficiently pure and spiritual to be intrusted with a Supernatural Authority. The Papacy, at an early period, usurped temporal power: and ever since, there has been a struggle between the Ecclesiastical and the Political Authority, in every country into which the Romish Church has found admission. The struggle has, in different ages, turned upon various points, and been carried on by various means; but it has never ceased. The Pope has claimed and exercised, at various times, the Right of Deposing Sovereigns, of absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, of excluding whole Nations from a participation in the Ordinances and privileges of the Christian Church, of sole Jurisdiction over all ecclesiastical persons, and the like. Such claims, if allowed by States, would render the whole population of Christendom subjects of the Pope, in temporal as well as spiritual matters. By the very Idea of the Catholic Church, these claims, if they were ever Rights of the Church, must be so still; and may be revived, if a favourable occasion should ever arrive. But in more recent times, the struggle between the Papacy and the National Government has turned upon other matters, as the appointment of Bishops, and their power in the State; but especially upon the question of Education: for this is a matter in which, as we have said, if the Church be protected

only, there must be a struggle between the Church and the Ministry of Education (1083). The Romish Church, wherever it is protected, must, by its principles, seek to rule or guide the State. It is the necessary and perpetual rival of the National Government. It does not appear that any position of equilibrium can be found, in which the Romish Church and the National Government are balanced. It does not appear that the Rights of the National Church, considered as a branch of the Roman Catholic Church, can ever be so defined as to produce a tolerable measure of tranquillity. The whole history of Europe, especially from the time of Pope Gregory the Seventh, is, for the most part, the history of the War between the States of Europe and the Papacy. In England this war never ceased to agitate and torment the land, till the time of the Reformation. Perhaps in Countries where the Government is despotic, there may be a treaty of alliance between the Roman Catholic Church and the Despotic State, by which, expressed or understood, the subjects may be retained in tranquillity; but this must be a tranquillity which excludes all Political Freedom and all Moral and Religious Progress. Where there is a movement party, as we have said, its dangers and evils are greatly augmented by its combination with a Romish Party in the same Country (1114).

1133. The experience and apprehension of the national evils belonging to the Romish System of Ecclesiastical Polity, joined with a conviction of its religious errors, led many nations in Europe to cast off its yoke, and to establish National Churches. These National Churches are members of the Universal Church of Christ; but, for the most part, they have no established extra-national relations and ties; except so far as religious sympathy may be deemed to be such. They have no extra-national earthly

Head; if they have a visible Head, it is the Head of the Nation: the Sovereign. For since the Religious cannot be made superior to the Political Authority, the Political Authority must be superior to the Religious, in matters in which the Ultimate Authority comes into play. In such National Established Churches, the Ecclesiastical Authorities, as they are upheld by the State, derive their Authority in some measure from the State; this derivation not interfering with the Spiritual Authority which they have as ministers of the Church of Christ; and which they derive from Christ's Commission (821), through the channel of the Spiritual Authorities of the Church.

1134. A National Church affords a position of equilibrium for the Relations of Church and State, in proportion as it is fully and completely established. If the Polity of an Established Church be imperfectly carried out, then there arise, as we have said (1100 and 1102), great difficulties; especially on the question of Education. These difficulties

may draw the Polity nearer and nearer to the Polity of mere Protection of the Church. But this latter Polity, as we have already said, has its own difficulties and evils, which are far greater than those of an Established Church.

1135. By the views which we have explained in the present and the preceding Chapter, we are led to the conviction that the Polity of an Established Church is the intermediate position of national safety, national morality, and national progress, between the system of an equal Protection of religious truth and falsehood, which can never satisfy a religious nation and the System of Spiritual Domination, which is inconsistent with national tranquillity and freedom.

BOOK VI.

INTERNATIONAL JUS.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN STATES.

CHAPTER I.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.

1136. WE have already spoken of States as Moral Agents, and have treated of their Rights, their Obligations, and their Duties. We have hitherto spoken of these, only so far as they belong to the relation between each State and its own members. But States have also relations towards each other. States are Nations, acting through an organized Government; and Nations, as well as Individuals, may commit acts of violence, make agreements of mutual advantage, possess property with its appendages, and the like. In such actions, there must be a difference of right and wrong: Morality must apply to the dealings of Nations with each other; and before quitting the subject, we shall treat briefly of that branch of Morality.

1137. In the Morality of Nations, as of indi. viduals, Duties must depend upon Rights and Obligations; and Rights and Obligations cannot exist without being defined.