CHURCH AND STATE.
I. General Treatment. Scope of Subject (§1).
Ancient Rome and the Eastern Empire (§ 2). Rise of Papal Temporal Power (§ 3). Subordination of Church to State (§ 4). The Modern State (§ 5). Relations with Rome (§ 6). The Evangelical State Church (§ 7). Tendency toward Separation (§ 8). Decadence of Protestantism in Germany {§ 9). Self-Government for Church the Remedy (§ 10). II. The United States.
Philosophical Background (§ 1). Colonial Period (§ 2). Conditions after the Revolution (§ 3). Special Legislation (§ 4).
I. General Treatment: Since the Christian community presents itself outwardly as a part of the social order, for the regulation of which the State exists, the question arises, What shall be -the relation between Church and State ? From the point of view of the different confessions this quesstion might be variously answered. However,
Church and State
THE MOW SClIAFF-HEIlZOd
disregarding minor distinctions, three answers are possible: The State may rule the Church and administer ecclesiastical affairs for its
1. Scope of own purposes; the Church may rule Subject. the State and use the temporal
authority to further the interests of the Church; or Church and State may be completely separated, each confining itself to its own sphere, and neither exercising any authority over the other. .\s a matter of history, however, Church and State have seldom been completely independent of each other, the one occupying itself solely with things spiritual, the other restricting itself to things temporal. The Roman Catholic Church still insists on having a voice in the control of temporal affairs, and the Protestant states of Europe usually claim a considerable share in ecclesiastical affairs. The difficulty of coordinating the ecclesiastical and the political authority as two distinct systems, or, indeed, of effecting any great innovation where the Church is concerned, is to be accounted for on historical grounds. The fundamental legal ordinances involved here are not made by act of will, but are passed along from one period to the next, from one community to another. Laws and rights are inherited; and in no field is this so true as in that where religion is concerned. Even where new forces have effected the most complete changes, the effort is made to prove that each form links itself back on the old. The time of King Josiah, which saw the reconstruction of the Israelitic tradition in the spirit of the new law; the Pseudo-Isidor, who represents the asserted increase in the power of the liierarchy as an old right; even the Reformation itself, which claimed so frequently to restore the primitive Churchall bear witness to the statement.
From the very beginning the relation between religious worship and temporal authority was a most intimate one. The cliief of
2. Ancient the tribe, as likewise the king of the Rome and first community that could be called the Eastern a state, united in himself the functions
Empire, of judge, military leader, and priest.
He represented his people in their relations toward one another, toward their enemies, and toward God. Religion was an affair of the State. In the later development the ruler might transfer his priestly duties to a special class of priests, but the close relation between religion and rule remained. At the advent of Christianity into the world's history the Roman emperor, as pontifex maximus, stood at the head of the religious system in the Roman Empire. It was not his object, however, to suppress the foreign gods worshiped in Roman possessions in the interest of the Roman deities whose high priest he was. In so far as these foreign gods had their states over which they ruled, all, including Yahweh, were regarded juristically as free and equal, though Yahweh was deposed after the destruction of Jerusalem. The God of Christianity, on the other hand, having no visible kingdom, was not a deity in the Roman sense of the word. Hence the persecution of the Christians as atheists. With the advent of the Christian emperor the organization of the Church and its relation to
the State was definitely determined for centuries to come. The position of pontifex maximus which Coiistantine united with his arbitrary authority had net Ikcu depreciated by the decay of the old Roman faith. He was the absolute head of the Church. Even after the title of pontifex maximus had been dropped, toward the end of the fourth century, the office remained. The designation epiacopus universalis is only a Christian translation of the heathen expression. To be sure, the emperor no longer performed the functions of a priest, but he united in himself all ecclesiastical authority. He appointed and disciplined the priests and exercised a protectorate over the leges regiw, those duties toward God which were required of every one. Laws and rights were created by the dictum of the emperor. Thus the Church became an institution of the State, and at the same time a compulsory institution. The very persecution which, in the name of religion, had formerly been directed against Christianity was now employed to uproot heathenism, as well as to put down dissent within the Church. To be a citizen of the empire one had to be an orthodox Christian. This system, which was most consistently developed in the Eastern Empire, after its separation from Rome, became the heritage of the Russian autocracy. Though Russia has had its Holy Synod since the time of Peter the Great, the Czar remains the only source of authority in the Church, and uses the ecclesiastical organization to strengthen the State. Consequently withdrawal from the state church is not permitted.
The second characteristic relation of Church to State was developed in the Western Empire.
While the temporal power in the West 3. Rise of gradually waned after the division of Papal Tem- the empire, the ecclesiastical organizaporal Power, tion remained intact; and, when the
ancient State disappeared, the pope virtually succeeded the emperor as pontifex maximus and appropriated as much temporal authority as was consistent with his priestly character. This transition of authority may be said to have begun in the year 44.5, when Valentinian III. promulgated a law requiring obedience to the ordinances of the pope. Thus the religious dream of a civitas dei was fused with the Roman tradition of an imperium mundi. Over against this papal State stood the Germanic tribes. Their conversion had been accomplished without difficulty, but for this very reason it had not been profound. Their indifference toward the Roman Church is explained by their relation to Arianism. Goths, Burgundians, and Vandals had their own churches, which were separate from those of the provincials. The bishops were representatives of the king, and the subjected Roman provincials were treated just as tlie Phanariots are treated by the Turks. Even the conversion of the Franks did not greatly improve the position of the Roman Church. The Prankish king suffered no foreign interference in ecclesiastical affairs, not even from the pope himself. Here material interests take precedence, and the Church assumes importance chiefly as a large property-holder. In fact, it was the Franks
10?