In the western countries of the empire, the promi- nent position which was early awarded the bishop of Borne, and subsequently the local separation from the seat of the empire, weakened the power of the emperor in Church affairs. Some of the most prominent bish- ops and priests (Ambrose, Jerome, etc.) repelled in en- ergetk; language the right claimed by the emperors to decide Church questions. Several of the Eastern emperors thought it, moreover, in their interest to gain the friendship of the Roman bishops by making to them large concessions, and thus encouraged the aspirations of the latter to a supreme power in the Church. The Roman bishop Gelasins, in 494, claimed a superiority of the ecclesiastical over the secular pow- er, and a synod convoked by the Roman bishop Sym- machus, in 502, condemned the encroachment of king Odoacer upon the rights of the Church. When the German tribes, and in particular the Franks, became Christians, their kings gave to the clergy great privi- leges, and a great influence upon the administration of national affairs, but in return claimed the supreme power in ecclesiastical as well as secular affiurs. Meet- ings of the clergy could not take place without royal permission, and all their resolutions needed, before being promulgated, the sanction of the kings. Even the appointment of the bishops soon came to be regard- ed as a royal prerogative. Charlemagne, who was crowned by Pope Leo III as Roman emperor, con- ceived the bold idea of a universal Christian monarchy. In his opinion, it was the chief duty of the emperor to defend the Church of Christ everywhere against pa- gans and infidels, and to extend her territory. The Church, on the other hand, was to aid in the execu- tion of this plan by spiritual means. The pope, in his eyes, was the first clergyman of the empire, whose election, as well as that of the bishops, had to be rati- fied by the emperor. He was anxiously intent upon avoiding all conflicts between Church and State, but reorganized the whole ecclesiastical constitution of the
empire, and even issned dedsions on doctrinal qmrn^ tions, as, for instance, the heresy of the AdopCianistB.
6. From Charlemoffne to the Re/ormatkm Tbs
weak successors of Charlemagne were not able to car- ry through the ideas of the great emperor ; and the natural tendency of the Church, and in particular of the popes, to elevate their dignity at the expense ai that of the emperors, met with bat little r^dstance. The synods of this time generally propounded the doc- trine that the pope held the highest posttioo in the government of the Christian Church, and the emperor the highest position in the secular government of the Christian world ; bat that the Church was naore im- portant than the state, and the dignity of the pope higher than that of the emperor. This doctrine was in particular propagated by the pseodo-Isidorian de- cretals, which about this time obtained a leading influ- ence upon Church legislation. The independence of the imperial power found, however, some -rery ener- getic champions even among* the bishops; as, for in- stance, Hincmar of Rheims (f 881). During^ the ninth and tenth centuries the authority of the papal see greatly suflered from the immoral character of some of its occupants, and it was therefore easy for tlie gnat German emperors of this time to increase the hnperial power at the expense of the papal. The emperors still deemed it their duty to execute the laws of the Church, and excommunication was frequently foUowed by the ban; but, at the same time, the emperors recovered their former influence upon the election of the popes. This lasted until the middle of the 11th centnzy, wiwa the papal see, under the influence of the monk Hilde- brand, began to exhibit greater strength, and pat forth more exorbitant claims than ever before. In 1059 Nicholas II annulled the direct power of the emper- ors in the election of popes, which was transfemd to the College of Cardinals, while to the emperor only the confirmation of the pope elect was left. Wboi Hndebrand himself, in 1078, under the name of Greg- ory YII, ascended the papal throne, he boldly and vig- orously proclaimed a new theory of the relation be- tween Church and State. He claimed for the Chnrch alone a divine origin, ascribing to all secular institn- tions, and in particular to the state itself, a human or- igin. The Church, therefore, was to be the hl^iest power in society, and the state, for its legal existence, required the sanction of the Church. In the Choreh he enforced the law of celibacy, in order to e^>arate the clergy' entirely ftx>m the laity, and the abeolate subordination of priests to bishops, and of both to the pope, in order to concentrate all power in the hands oi the latter, and to make him the real head of the nai- versal Christian monarchy. Gregory and his saccesF- ors had an unceasing conflict with the German emper- ors with regard to this theory, and in particular as to the appointment of bishops and other ecclesiastical dignitaries by the secular power. Many bishops and priests took sides with the emperors, who repeatedlr caused the election of anti-popes. Nevertheless, tbs theory which maintained the superiority of the Churdi to the state continually gained ground. The views of Gregory VII were farther developed by Alexander III and Innocent III. The latter maintained that the State and the world had not the nature of a di- vine institute, but were the products of human power and will. The Church, which is of divine origin, is therefore higher than the state. The state, in itself; is only a body which is dead until a soul is infused into it This soul is the Church. The state is like th« moon, an opaque body, which needs to be illumined by the Church. Christ gave to Peter the government over all the world, and the pope is the legitimate suc- cessor of Peter. To him, therefore, belongs the final decision in all affairs, and in particular the decision as to who is to govern the states. All the decrees of secular rulers require the sanction of the popes. But neither Innocent nor any of the following popes sue-