RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Church and State
who discovered the process of secularization. With the restoration of the Western Empire by Charlemagne Byzantine ideas came into play. The Roman idea of a papal imperium mundi was apparently dormant. When, therefore, Germany became the center of gravity of European history it was quite natural that the bishops should be advanced to the position of temporal princes, in the interest of the State. Otto the Great completed this innovation by taking under his protection the spiritual head of these princes, the pope himself. Thus the functions of the bishop were largely secularized. Investiture with property constituted his title, and his chief duty was to aid in carrying on the business of the empire. Without any premonition of the danger ahead of them, the Germanic people entered upon this fatal course.
It remained for Gregory VII. to lift the veil and show the Church in its character of a ruling power. With him begins the period of the so-called spiritual universal state, which lasted for several centuries. Just as formerly the State had ruled the Church, so now the Church, to a large extent, ruled the State. The officials of the Church were brought under the authority of Rome, and such public interests as education, charity, care of the sick, and even legislation and the administration of justice, were made affairs of the Church. As against the powerful Roman hierarchy the State, crude, undeveloped, and split by dissensions, was practically helpless. It should be added, however, that not infrequently the State rebelled against having to take a subordinate position; and toward the close of this period it developed such legal institutions as placetum regium and recursus ah ahum to curtail ecclesiastical authority. In view of this fact, the spiritual universal state must be regarded as theory, rather than reality, and the relation of Church to State during this period as one of legal coordination, but with the preponderance of competency on the side of the Church.
The Renaissance brought a revival of the ancient idea of the State, and with this a transformation of the relation of Church to State. The 4. Subor- new state made it its chief function to dinationof advance the welfare, or happiness, of Church to its subjects, but, since preparation for
State. eternity was seen to be essential to human welfare, the State now extended its activities into the ecclesiastical field. In short, to a greater or less extent, it took over the organization of the Church and assumed responsibility for the intellectual and spiritual wellbemg of the people. The famous sentence Dux thvuc est papa in suis terris, the reform-program of the Bavarian grand dukes, of George of Saxony, of Louis XIV., of Joseph II., and finally the Constitution civile du clerge of 1790— all these give P''°°f of the characteristic relation between Church and State which had its origin in the Renaissance, tt was the fate of the Reformation to fall in the midst of this political development. It was necessary that the new Christian community should have an outward organization; but whence was this to come? Considered juristically, that was a grave question. For Luther, however, it presented no
difficulties. It was sufficient that means of grace be provided, and immaterial how this might be accomplished. In the end, it was found that the simplest arrangement was to entrust the care of the Church to the existing authorities. Thus arose the German state churches, as the mature product of the state of the sixteenth century. The Reformation did not recognize the necessity for an ecclesiastical organization distinct from that of the State. The Church was a homogeneous mass, and each temporal prince fostered that particular section which was conterminous with his temporal domain. With the appearance of dissent and the rise of other confessions, the inadequacy of tliis simple arrangement became manifest. The solution of the difficulty was offered by the theory of natural right, which was expounded by Hobbes (q.v.) and Rousseau. This is the view that the State is based upon an original agreement among the people, who delegate to the sovereign whatever authority he has. Every church, just as the State, is a community; but the State remains the supreme community, in which these other communities take their place. Thus the State again becomes secular in character. To be sure, the temporal prince retains his authority over the churches. This he no longer claims on Christian groxmds, but by right of jus territoriale. In this way the territorial system was developed (see Territorialism). It should not be forgotten that this was the form in which tolerance first asserted itself. The next step in the development was CoUegiahsm (q.v.), which is only a palliated territorialism. The ruling prince remains the highest authority in the Church. The only result was that now a sharper distinction was drawn between jura circa sacra, rights which are naturally incident to the position of a sovereign, and jura in sacra, rights which are deduced from the Church. The fact that these rights are exercised through two sets of officials is merely incidental, being due to considerations of convenience. Prussia affords the classic example of this kind of relation between Church and State.
Whatever may be characteristic of the present position of the Church in its relations to the State
has not been brought about by any 5. The essential change in the Church, but by Modern the wonderful development of the State. modern State and the rapid growth
of constitutional government. The State, as the political organization, holds the supreme authority, which can not be modified or limited, except by the State itself. Such a selflimitation, however, is the striking characteristic of the modern constitutional State. The people have been given a voice in the government. In sharp contrast to the police-state, which absorbed everything, has been the fostering care exercised by the government over private organizations for the conduct of affairs of public interest. This new position taken by the State has been particularly favorable to the manifestations of reUgious life. Religious liberty is now generally secured to all by state constitutions. At the head of the various societies, or organizations, which now enjoy a cer-
Church and State