My latest study has been on the mediatorial dominion of Christ, but my initial promptings to study it, unbeknownst to me, started when I did a deeper study of Psalm 2 possibly back in 2015 or 2016. I was forced to the conclusion that Christ is King over the nations, and it recent months I've been seeing the greater implications of this. But that's for another time. I've been going through the Scriptures, and I've done reading in James Bannerman and Roy Blackwood, and it seems that one historical Reformed position is that although the church and state are never to be intermingled or assume one another's functions (sacralism), and though the church is never to govern the state (Popery), and the state is never to be head of the church (Erastianism), still the church and state should act in friendly relations to one another, and the state should countenance and support the church, and the government is responsible to pattern its laws after Scripture. This would include blasphemy laws and Sabbath laws among other things. There's a broad-brush summary, hoping not to debate this at the moment. Now growing up, it had just always been assumed that this is a bad thing, that it's good for the government to establish no official religion at all but to remain neutral toward God. Among other arguments, one thing I hear frequently is that whenever the church and state have such friendly ties that it only works for the worst. One example is the decline of the church when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. Though, after taking one history class I wonder about even this example, as I understand that Constantine was a driving force behind the Council of Nicea, and I doubt any of us regrets that. So, how has the doctrine described in the third paragraph actually borne out in history? Accounts of the good, the bad, and the ugly all welcome.