Pastor Steve Paulus

At the establishment of the nation of Israel by covenant on Mt. Sinai, the people of Israel were referred to as a kingdom of priests, a holy nation (Ex. 19:6), and the covenant nation was established under a theocracy. During the time of the apostasy of the people as outlined in the book of Judges, it was the Lord who repeatedly raised up deliverers for the people, thus revealing his kingship over the Israel. As the Lord spoke to Samuel when the people sought another, visible king: “[I]t is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king” (I Sam. 8:7). This statement reveals Yahweh’s role in the civil order of Israel.

But the Israelites did not live solely under a theocracy or messianic king. This was especially evident in the time of the exile (586 B.C and after). The books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther depict life for the Jews under Babylonian and Persian rule. Of particular interest are two passages dealing with “church-state” relations. The first is Daniel 3:29. After the miracle of the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar, in ancient autocratic oriental fashion makes a “church-state” decree respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save this way. At a later date, Nehemiah secures the legal and material support of King Artaxerxes for his expedition to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the walls of the city. I also said to him, ‘If it pleases the king, may I have letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will provide me safe conduct until I arrive in Judah? And may I have a letter to Asaph, keeper of the king’s forest, so he will give me timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?’ And because the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my requests. (Nehemiah 2:7-8).

Unencumbered by restrictions on state-sponsored religion, the kings were free to decree how they would relate to the community of believers. In fact, most ancient rulers were legitimized by a temple or priestly cult including Egypt (Re), Babylon (Marduk) and Persia. Cyrus the Persian issued a decree in 538 B.C. allowing all captive peoples to return to their homeland and restore the worship of their gods. This decree was discovered in the last century on a stone artifact known as the cylinder of Cyrus, which contains the words of the decree. This included Israel’s commission to rebuild the temple and re-establish temple worship of Yahweh.

Jesus was asked a question by the religious leaders of his time concerning taxes. The question was intended to trap him on one side of the current debate on Jewish attitudes toward Roman occupation. His answer indicated that both God and Caesar had their proper claims on the allegiance and property of believers.

Both Paul and Peter address the issue of civil government as well. Romans 13 is the classic biblical statement on Christian attitudes toward civil rulers, even hostile ones. It establishes the legitimacy of civil government and states the believer’s duty toward it. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves . . . For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:1-2,4).

In similar fashion Peter states the following: Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king as to the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right (I Peter 2:13-14).

In Acts the apostles show that there is a limit to obedience to earthly rule: Then they (the Sanhedrin) called them in again and commanded them not to speak r teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’ (Acts 4:18-20).

9.3 Early State Persecution of Christianity

The earliest state-sponsored persecution of Christians came from the Sanhedrin (overseers of Jewish interests in Roman Palestine). They questioned or imprisoned the apostles on repeated occasions (Acts 4:1 ff., 5:17 ff., 6: 11ff.). Finally, the Sanhedrin stoned Stephen, and Saul of Tarsus conducted an official persecution of the Christians attempting to go as far as Damascus with letters of authorization for the high priest (Acts 7: 54 ff., 9:1 ff.).

James was beheaded and Peter imprisoned by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12: 1-4). Paul and his co-workers were detained or imprisoned on several occasions by local or Roman authorities (Acts 16:22 ff., Acts 22:24 ff.).

Here’s what the church historian Eusebius tells us about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul:

The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: ‘Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.’ Thus publicly announcing himself as among the first of God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter was likewise crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book II, xxv, 4-5).

Other emperors after Nero continued the official persecution of the believers.

9.4 Post-Apostolic, Pre-Constantinian

One of the earliest documents addressing the question of the treatment of Christians by Roman authorities is found in the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan. In it a course of legal action to be taken against Christians is outlined. Many of the early Christians were persecuted because they refused to engage in the practice of emperor worship. Cyprian, and many other Christian martyrs were killed for their refusal to engage in these rites of worship which they considered to be idolatrous.

Many brutal official persecutions continued up through the reign of Diocletian (d. 313). With the Edict of Toleration (311 A.D.) and the Edict of Milan (313) under Emperor Constantine, Christianity went from being a persecuted faith to being religio licita or a legal religion. It eventually became the dominant and sometimes only favored religion of the empire.

9.5 Constantine and the State Establishment of the Christian Faith

One of the first changes in church-state relations is reflected in Constantine’s participation in the Arian controversy. It was he who called the First Council at Nicea. He recognized that the peace and unity of the empire was tied in with the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. A heresy like this one, which bitterly divided the Church could not be ignored. So the Council was called by the emperor to resolve the dispute.

Constantine was enlisted by bishops in North Africa to intervene in the Donatist controversy which eventually became a violent and schismatic conflict. The emperors also were involved in endorsing Arian or Nicene Christianity alternately in the period following Constantine and the first council.

Almost a century later, in the late fourth and early fifth century Augustine, bishop of hippo in North Africa, continued to struggle with the Donatist Schism. It was he who validated the idea of state punishment of heretics, both to protect his own party and to compel the schismatics to return to the true faith and Church. This decision to use state power to punish heresy was to have profound effect on the future of Church-State relations in the west.

After Rome, the “Eternal City” was sacked by Vandal tribes in 410, the people were shaken and believed that this crisis had arisen because the Romans had forsaken their traditional gods. Rome had been sacked by Alaric in 410, and Northern Africa was falling to the Visigoths at the time of Augustine’s death. In the classic of western civilization, The City of God, Augustine dealt with the hard theological questions of the relations between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. He emphasized the temporal nature of the latter. Government was an instrument given to the fallen world to restrain corruption. Believers have dual citizenship and while the city of man is visible, the city of God often is not. Augustine saw Christians as bearing a responsibility to assist in preserving order through participation in the State, including military service and holding public offices or judgeships. This was a departure from the Church’s practice prior to Constantine.

One of the questions Augustine addressed had to do with waging war in light of gospel teachings. He developed what has come to be known as Just War Theory. This theory was later re-stated by medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas and deeply influences western thinking about state engagement in warfare even today.

Some of Augustine’s guidelines for the conduct of the just war: a) Is there just cause? (a clear injury needing redress); b) Has every reasonable attempt been made to redress without bloodshed? c) Is the war declared by a legitimate authority? (no vigilanteism or terrorism); d) How is the war fought? (i.e. against military as opposed to civilian targets); e) Is the damage incurred likely less than the prior injury? f) Is success likely? Does the good outweigh the bad? (Eerdmans Handbook to the History of Christianity, p. 24).

There were numerous emperors who deeply influenced the church and vice versa. The code of Justinian (6^th century) firmly established Orthodox Christianity in Byzantium (Constantinople). In the East the Emperors chose or affirmed the appointment of major bishops and intervened in church affairs even calling Church councils. The emperor’s power over the church in the east came to be known as Caesaro-papism. In the West a different scenario unfolded. With the decline of the western empire, the bishop of Rome became the stabilizing figure in western Europe, eventually encompassing both spiritual and earthly power. The Holy Roman Empire was founded with the crowning of Charlemagne on Christmas Day, 800. All western emperors were then beholden to the bishop of Rome as the legitimator of their earthly power. This arrangement was challenged in various ways throughout the middle Ages. (See excursus on “The Rise of the Papacy”).

One of the more remarkable and difficult developments in this western system was the institution of the Crusades and the Inquisition. Crusades (Holy War) were declared against the Muslim to regain sites in the Holy Land. Later, under the crusading doctrine the inquisition was established as crusades not against Muslims, but heretics within the realm of Christian (read Catholic) emperors and kings. The arm of the state, in keeping with Augustine’s dictum, was used to punish heretics. This led to the Inquisition, a wing of the Crusading movement. Pope Urban II preached the first Crusade after an appeal from Emperor Alexander Comnenus of Constantinople. Those in Clermont, France who heard his first sermon exhorting his hearers to take up arms to liberate the land of the Holy Sepulchre from the violent oppression of its Turkish overlords shouted “Deus Vult” or “God wills it.”

9.6 Reformation and Post-Reformation Developments

The Protestant Reformation was about doctrine and church polity (church government), but it was also about politics – i.e. the renunciation of the temporal authority of the papacy. The significance of this issue is seen in Luther’s writings and developments in Germany as well as in Britain. Significant documents in British history reflect the relations between church and state in England, culminating in the renunciation of papal authority by Henry VIII who declared himself head of the English Church. This led to the establishment of the Church of England and of the persecution of non-conformist or dissenting Protestants in England. Many of them came to the American colonies for relief.

Several centuries prior to the developments with Henry VIII and the Bishop of Rome, the place of the Church in English society had been enshrined in one of the great documents of western civilization, the Magan Carta or Great Charter of 1215. This charter is considered foundational to the concept of western constitutional democracy. The embattled King John, at the insistence of his nobles, enters into a compact which guarantees rights, liberties and responsibilities to king, nobles, and citizens. In the preamble he states that the undertaking is to the honor of God and the advancement of Holy Church. The first chapter states, in part, “ That the English church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed . . . .” In principle this established the freedom of the church from taxation and interference from the state in the election of clergy in the British system. Reformation and post-Reformation events altered this arrangement as a far as governance was concerned with the monarch and parliament exerting constant influence over matters of religion.

One wing of the Reformation, the Anabaptists, repudiated all connection with state established churches and declared principles of freedom or independence from state interference. They were persecuted by Catholic and some Protestant states alike. They also adhered to separatist views regarding participation in public life and state functions. On grounds of conscience they refused to take oaths of allegiance or swear in court. Most were non-violent pacifists and refused military service. The reference to oaths, and legitimate state use of the sword in the Westminster Confession are references to these theological controversies.

The American colonies afforded relief to colonists from the continent, many of whom were members of dissenting groups. One of the earliest such groups to come to these shores was the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth. As dissenters they came seeking freedom to worship without state restriction and founded their society on the Mayflower Compact.

The experience in England that led these colonists to flee to Holland, then America, is chronicled in William Bradford’s Of Plymouth Plantation. As a member of the original party and its second governor, he was uniquely acquainted with the history of the group.

But after these things they could not long continue in any peaceable condition, but were hunted and persecuted on every side, so as their former afflictions were as flea-bites in comparison of these which now came upon them. For some were taken and clapped up in prison, others had their houses beset and watched night and day, and hardly escaped their hands; and most were fain to flee and leave their houses and habitations, and the means of their livelihood.

Yet these and many other sharper things which afterward befell them were no other than they looked for, and therefore were the better prepared to bear them by the assistance of God’s grace and Spirit.

Yet seeing themselves thus molested, and that there was no hope of their continuance there, by a joint consent they resolved to go into the Low Countries where they heard was freedom of religion for all men; as also how sundry from London and other parts of the land had been exiled and persecuted for the same cause, and were gone thither and lived at Amsterdam and in other places of the land (William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, p. 9-10).

Unlike the Plymouth colonists of Massachusetts, those who came to Virginia adhered to the established (Anglican) church. Contention over the favored position of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, requiring attendance at and monetary support of Episcopal Churches led to a revolutionary development. The General Assembly of Virginia passed the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1786. This act authored by Thomas Jefferson became the basis of the non-establishment clause of the first amendment.

Another significant event in England which occurred some 40 years after the founding of Plymouth Plantation and over a century before the Virginia Act Establishing Religious Freedom was an event known as the Great Ejection where non-conforming Puritans were removed from their pastorates all over England for refusal to subscribe to state-sponsored Anglicanism. Iain Murray writes of the event:

The restoration of Charles II in 1660 brought back into power all those spiritual influences against which the Puritans had stood prior to the Civil Wars. Episcopacy, compulsory liturgy and uniformity ion ceremonies were again to be the sate religion. A meeting at Savoy in 1661 between Episcopalians and Presbyterians indicated the futility of any hope of accommodation, and rather than comply with the terms of the Act of Uniformity, which was imposed in the following year, some 2,000 Puritans gave up their churches and livings. This Great Ejection of 1662 was one of the most decisive event in the history of English Protestantism, hardening the division between Conformity and Non-Conformity for three centuries to come. (Iain Murray, ed. The Reformation of the Church, p. 148).

In America a new era in Church-State relations was introduced -- not secularism, but freedom. According to Jefferson’s statute, one’s beliefs “shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” Non-establishment does not mean removal of faith, or reference to God, or religious beliefs from the public square. An honest reading of historical documents, especially the inaugural addresses of the Presidents, challenges that notion. It does mean no single belief or denominational system can be recipient of the exclusive support and endorsement of the government.

Another, more recent experiment in church-state relations was the failed Soviet Union with an official policy of atheism. One’s beliefs did affect their civil capacities legally. Church life was severely restricted, and many were imprisoned or deprived of life, liberty, and property because of their beliefs.

9.7 Excursus: Rise of the Papacy

The establishment of the institution known as the papacy can only be understood in the context of our earlier discussions. Many factors contribute to the immense ecclesiastical and temporal power eventually exercised by the bishop of Rome. This brief excursus will isolate a few of them. A Catholic view would begin the discussion with Jesus’ commission of Peter as the rock upon which the church is built. The Protestant discussion begins a generation later with Clement of Rome and the doctrine of apostolic succession. In Clement’s view, himself a bishop or presbyter at Rome, the ministers of the church had been established by Christ or His apostles. Therefore the legitimacy of their office was rooted in the unassailable authority of Christ and His apostles. In addition, Clement, Ignatius, martyr-bishop of Antioch (c. 117), and Polycarp, martyr-bishop of Smyrna, all acknowledge the special place which Rome holds in the life of the Catholic church. As the place where arch-apostles Peter and Paul both ministered and were martyred, it enjoyed the “presidency of love,” to quote Ignatius. Eusebius was careful to preserve records of Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdoms there. Irenaus (late second century), in his Rule of Faith gave the bishops the role of protectors of the true tradition, and the Roman church, and by implication, the bishop of Rome, final say in matters of dispute regarding the traditions handed down by the apostles though all the bishops.

In addition to belief in apostolic succession and the primacy of the church at Rome, the role of the bishop and apostolic churches play a significant part. Ignatius had posited the concept of the monarchical episcopate – one city, one bishop, one church – as a means of protecting both the unity and doctrinal purity of the church, especially in the age prior to the recognition of the New Testament canon. Lists of bishops who presided in a given church from generation to generation were preserved. Churches founded by apostles took on special importance in this system, since they presumably had the closest association with the original founders. Cyprian’s (c. 251) doctrine of the unity of the church, and the role of the bishop in wielding the power of the keys to admit or dismiss penitents further strengthened episcopal power.

The bishop of Rome, as representative of the leading apostolic church, intervened in controversies in Corinth (I Clement), and Asia Minor (the Quartodeciman controversy regarding the proper date for observing Easter). In addition to administrative issues, the Roman bishop addressed the doctrinal concerns of the wider church, sending a representative to Nicea, and later speaking authoritatively to the Christological controversies at Chalcedon.

The canons (conciliar decisions taking on the force of church law) of Nicea and Constantinople reflect a metropolitan system of church administration. Bishops of major sees exercised archepiscopal oversight of the bishops and churches within their region. The leading apostolic churches became patriarchates. An order of jurisdiction was established by these canons: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. The exact meaning of this “pecking order” became a source of contention between the Roman church and the other patriarchates. It is important to note that Constantinople was not of apostolic foundation. The Roman bishop understood his role as primacy – the other patriarchs saw his place as a place of honor, conceding him a place as “first among equals.” The resulting conflict and tension over Roman primacy became a root cause of the eventual schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The place of the pope in church governance remains a primary impediment to the reunion of these churches today. Some churches, known as Uniate have returned to the Catholic Church through acknowledgement of papal authority, while retaining an Eastern Rite (liturgy, discipline, etc.).

Under Leo (440-461) and later Gregory (590-604), the ecclesiastical and temporal power of the pope increased, especially due to disintegrating conditions in the western empire. The church remained the one institution able to maintain order and stability; its bishop the one official who could command obedience and cooperation from a fractured civil administration and populace.

Some of the following excerpts from Bettenson’s Document’s of the Christian Church may illustrate developments for us:

Regarding the deposition of Athanasius, Julius, bishop of Rome writes to the Council of Antioch, 341:

And why were we not written to about the church in Alexandria in particular? Do you not realize that it has been the custom for word to be sent to us first, that in this way just decisions may be arrived at from this place? If therefore any suspicion was directed against the bishop there, word ought to have been sent to the bishop of this place. But they neglected to inform us, and proceeded at their own pleasure and on their own authority; and now they wish to obtain our approval of their decisions, though we never condemned him [Athanasius]. This is not in accordance with the constitutions of Paul or the directions of the traditions of the Fathers. I am informing you of the tradition handed down from the blessed Apostle Peter (Julius, Letter to the Council of Antioch, 341, in Documents of the Christian Church, Bettenson, ed.).

Note how Julius presents himself as the spokesmen for the teachings and traditions as handed on by Peter.

An excerpt from a letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus (c. 376):

“I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none save your Beatitude, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. This is Noah’s ark and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood overwhelms all” (Jerome in Documents).

Later, in 1076, the Pope Gregory VII exercised temporal power over King Henry IV:

Blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, incline thy holy ear to us, I pray and hear me, thy servant, whom from infancy thou hast nourished and till this day hast delivered from the hand of the wicked…especially to me, as thy representative, has been committed, and to me by thy grace has been given by God the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth. Relying, then, on this belief, for the honor and defense of thy church and in the name of God Almighty, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, through thy power and authority, I withdraw the government of the whole kingdom of the Germans and of Italy from Henry the King, son of Henry the Emperor. For he has risen up against thy church with unheard of arrogance. And I absolve all Christians from the bond of oath which they have made to him or shall make. And I forbid anyone to serve him as king…(Gregory VII, in Documents).

While church discipline against erring or violent rulers had been exercised in the past, this exercise of temporal power is extraordinary, but a sign of things to come.

Under Innocent III (c. 1198), the theory of papal power reaches dizzying heights:

The Creator of the universe set up two great luminaries in the firmament of heaven; the greater light to rule the day, the lesser light to rule the night. In the same way, for the firmament of the universal Church, which is spoken of as heaven, he appointed two great dignitaries; the greater to rule over souls (these being, as it were, days), the lesser to bear rule over bodies (those being as it were, nights). These dignities are the pontifical authority and the royal power. Furthermore, the moon derives her light from the sun, and is in truth inferior to the sun in both size and quality, in position as well as effect. In the same way the royal power derives its dignity from the pontifical authority; and the more closely it cleaves to the sphere of that authority the less is the light with which it is adorned; the further it is removed, the more it increases in splendor (Innocent III in Documents).

In the west, the power of the papacy continued to increase the power of a single church official. The pope, as the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, increased in both ecclesiastical and temporal power. Papal secular power was rooted in the Holy Roman Empire, established under Charlemagne, crowned emperor by the pope on Christmas day, 800. In the east, a different ethos had taken root. The eastern church is marked by conciliarism, or the authority of councils, and what is known as caesaro-papism. In the east, the emperor often guided the affairs of the church, even approving the choice of candidates in influential episcopal sees. This, in contrast to the continual elevation of the papacy helped create conditions leading to the Great Schism.

Discussion Questions

Do you think the kind of persecution faced by the early church was beneficial to its spiritual vitality? Why or why not?

Did the establishment of the Christian religion create a corrupt church system?

What do you think of Augustine’s concept of punishing heresy with the arm of the state?

How do you read the first amendment to the Constitution? What does separation of Church and state mean to you?

Is it possible to understand the concept of non-establishment without knowing the historical context of church-state relations in western Europe?

Should Christians be involved in politics, bear arms, hold public office, or advocate for specific legislation?

How does the democratic system as opposed to the empire or monarchy of the apostles’ time affect the way Christians relate to civil government?

Does Jesus' teaching on turning the other cheek require states to be pacifist? Is it wrong for a Christian to serve in the armed forces? Does your country permit believers to be pacifist?

Do you think that in today’s climate one’s beliefs can in Jefferson’s words “affect their civil capacities”?

Readings for Chapter Nine

Pliny and Trajan

Edict of Toleration, Edict of Milan

Constantine on Donatism

Crowing of Pepin and Charlemagne

Gregory VII’s Dictatus

Mayflower Compact

Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom

First Amendment

God and Caesar

Glossary

Caesaro-Papism: This describes the power of the emperor over the affairs of the church including polity and doctrine. It has tended to be a feature of Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodoxy.

Crusades: A series of military expeditions against Muslim overlords of sites considered holy to Christendom. The crusades were approved by the papacy and offered spiritual advantages to those who engaged in them. They were later used to fend off Ottoman encroachment into the lands and realms of Christian emperors. Crusades were also waged against heretics. This use of state power to defend or advance church interests led to the Inquisition.

Edict of Milan: An edict established under Constantine in 313 A.D. affording freedom of worship to adherents of the Christian faith.

Donatist Controversy: A controversy in the North African church which arose around the year 304 and involved questions of the validity of ordination performed by fallen bishops. The disputants appealed ot Constantine for a resolution. After nearly a century of conflict in the North African Church which sometimes became violent, Augustine endorses the use of sate power to coerce the schismatics back into the catholic fold. This use of state power to address questions of belief led to similar practices in later history.

Inquisition: This was the use of state power to punish heresy through the use of ecclesiastical courts.

Just War: The doctrine formulated by Augustine that there were certain circumstances in which state power could justly be used to wage war. His system provided specific guidelines for judging the legitimacy of state us eof military action.

Lay Investiture: The practice of appointment to clerical office in the church by wealthy layman, usually nobles or kings. This practiced provoked biter disputes between bishops and nobles, especially the pope and emperors or kings.

Millet System: The practice allowing non-Muslim ethnic groups to live under the representative leadership of a representative, usually a cleric, in Islamic lands of

Papacy: The name for the powerful ecclesiastical and temporal institution based on the episcopal see of the Roman church.

Shari’a: Islamic law based on the Koran and Sunni tradition. This form of law recognizes no distinction between the claims of Islam and the legal requirements of citizenship in a Muslim land.

Theocracy: The belief that God is the ultimate ruler over a society and state and religious considerations are the primary or sole guide of its laws.

Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom: Law penned by Thomas Jefferson and passe din Virginia in 1786. The law forbade the state to require anyone ot support or frequent a given house of worship and allowed for freedom of worship and the attendant right to support, or not, the religious practice of one’s choice. It was the forerunner of the first amendment to the Constitution.

Bibliography

Augustine. The Political Writings of St. Augustine. Henry Paolucci, ed. South Bend, IN: Gateway Editions, 1962.

William Bradford. Of Plymouth Plantation. New York: The Modern Library, 1981.

Henry Bettenson. Documents of the Christian Church, Second Edition. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Tim Dowley, ed. Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

Iain Murray, ed. The Reformation of the Church. London: Banner of Truth trust, 1965.

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. Eusebius. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol.1. rpt. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

J. Stevenson. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337. London: SPCK, 1987.

Milton Viorst, ed. The Great Documents of Western Civilization. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965.

Pastor P. Steve Paulus D.min. ~ pastor@stauntongrace.org