CHURCH AND STATE. Between these two institutions, in modern times, there has rarely, if ever, existed perfect harmony. This struggle, so long protracted, bids fair, unless some astonishing upheaval occurs, to last for all time. It has been a bitter one. It has in volved large interests and brought to the fore front momentous discussions. It has fomented uprisings of all kinds and originated a literature of vituperation without parallel outside of political strife. It has been, not seldom, mere political contention. There has been much con fusion of issues, yet the lines of division are visible throughout. The question has its his torical side and its doctrinal features. In con temporaneous events it is reduced, practically, to a battle between one important Church and not a few of the civil powers. In Italy the recognition of that Church has reached the irre ducible minimum. France has at last snapped the only link which, since the days of the Directory, constituted after all but a semblance of union. Everywhere at present we find our selves confronted with a state using its power against a Church, or a state Church, or Church and state going their own ways, very little mindful of each other. Summarized, the his tory of the contest is that before the coming of Christ there was no Church in the sense in which it has been presented by Christianity in its many forms. The religions of antiquity, with the exception of that of the Jews, were for the most part unsystematized beliefs and a ceremonial which was either identified with the. state or was a mere function thereof, dependent in a large measure on civil rulers. This is found to be the case in the great religions of the ancient the religions of the Egyp of the Assyrians and Babylonians, of the Iranians, of the early Sanscritic Indians, of the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, of the Etruscans, and of the ancient Greeks and Romans (Raw linson). The religion of the Jews, as is suffi ciently well known to all educated persons, was the essential element in their theocratic form of government. While this lasted friction was hardly possible. In captivity the Jews, as re ligionists, were more or less hampered by their conquerors. They were sometimes persecuted, sometimes unmolested. In general, a goodly amount of religious liberty was accorded •them. The historic struggle for Church supremacy and independence began with Christianity. It met with opposition from the start. The antagonism germinated the day when Herod, his court and all Jerusalem were troubled, because wise men came from the East and asked where is He that born King of the Jews. It became more accentuated when Christ began to teach in public and more intensified when His disciples set out upon their missionary journeys. In the commencement of the 2d century the Roman Empire, which was the whole known world, was agitated, and for 200 years thereafter the Im perial state used all its powerful machinery to crush the Church out of existence. It is to be noted that whenever the state pressed heavily against the Church, the reason put forward was the weal of the state. This has always been the war cry. Under Constantine the Church entered the arena of universal activity as a collaborator in the task of civilizing the peoples. Acknowledged as the spiritual ruler, it gradually acquired a local habitation and a name as a temporal potentate. It became a world power. This success was the beginning of all the many disasters of the Church. Some say this external grandeur was the cause, oth ers that it was merely the occasion, of every calamity by which the Church has been visited. Emperors granted her immunities and promul gated laws in her favor. The wealth and posi tion which she acquired (legitimately or not, according to the spirit of her founder or not, is still a problem for many) was a basis for her of independent action. From the preaching of Christianity at Rome, to the conversion of Constantine, the state persecuted the Church, and refused to recognize the divine authority it claimed to possess. From Constantine to Charlemagne the civil power, while giving legal recognition to the Church, interfered in its gov ernment. From Charlemagne to a period ap proaching that of the Reformation, Church and state were closely united and there was a gen erally acknowledged subordination of the civil to the spiritual authority. During this last divi sion of history the Church was in possession-to a very marked degree of the prize which she has lost, though still fights for; that is, she was admitted to have an independent sphere of ac tion, a supremacy in all spiritual matters and an undisputed title to the territory which in one or other way she had acquired and enlarged. She has been accused of greed and tyranny in her management of her temporal rights. In every age many foreswore their allegiance to her. Deserters from her camp counted peasants and princes. These either used or invoked the secular arm against her. The Arians and other dissenters did this. Modern nations were formed and the idea of individual independ ence became stronger and more general. The Eastern schism was open rebellion against the parent Church. The Orient went its own way through many vicissitudes and much bickering, until it was finally absorbed by the 'state. In that large portion of Europe there was no long er conflict, for ecclesiastical rule was swallowed up in that state Church which Peter the Great established and which he denominated the Orthodox. Constantinople had drawn Russia into the schism. From 1700 A.D. onward, Peter no longer appointed any one to the office of patriarch, but decreed a directing -synod at Saint Petersburg and placed himself at its head (1721). The secession of Martin Luther and his adherents revolutionized the condition of things. His doctrines and his alliances with princes brought about rupture after rupture with the old Church (1530). The followers of Luther discarded all Roman authority whether in temporal or spiritual matters. The Roman Empire gradually split into fragments. Princes introduced the new creed into their respective states. The opposition to Rome grew awe. It ran like a tidal wave over Europe. The Brit ish Isles were drawn into the vortex. Henry VIII declared himself head of the English Church. In France Gallicanism propagated a spirit hostile to the Church. Voltaire and the Revolution abolished every vestige of papal authority. A reaction began with Napoleon, who aimed at subordinating the supreme ruler at Rome to himself and to his power. There was a protest on the part of the pontiff. He was thrown into prison. At last a concordat was agreed upon between the consul and him self. Barring the revolutionary changes, the attitude of France has remained the same. The concordat was more or less religiously adhered to until these later times, when the French government violated nearly all its agreements and recently annulled it, thus completely sep arating state from Church. The Chamber of Deputies passed the bill effecting the separation of Church and state in France. The principles involved in the measure are destructive of all union between the two powers. The state recognizes nor salaries any form of worship. The exercise of worship is free tin der certain restrictions. French citizens, eccle siastical as well as lay, are not all at one in their views regarding the nullification of the concordat. Some see in it a beginning of bet ter days for religion just as not a few Catholics, the world over, are against any kind of a union anywhere between Church and state and think that the Roman pontiff is much better circum stanced now that he has no temporal rule, for the welfare of the Church and its mission. They hold that the Church won spiritually dur ing the three first centuries —a period when the popes never dreamed of becoming civil sov ereigns. Whether or not this view can be con sidered an orthodox Catholic view may be de cided by a reference to recent papal utterances on the matter. It would appear that since the Reformation the only Church which maintains what it considers its prerogative in relation to the state is that of Rome. Practically every
other Church is a state one, or claims no rights as against civil government, and as a conse quence is ignored by secular constitutions, or is an instrument more or less passive, of the king doms principalities or republics of which it is a territorial part, or is so limited numerically and has so small a voice in general affairs that its demands challenge neither notice, nor cen sure, nor opposition, on the part of the state. Thus the struggle which for so many centuries shook the world is narrowed down to an.an tagonism between governments and Rome. The old Roman Church power has dwindled down to a very small area, without kingdom or weap ons of defense. Its isolation is complete and absolute. As this Church holds views on the status of Church and state, as she still main tains the principles which for no short period directed national movements, her position de mands investigation. What does this Church claim? What is the basis of that claim? To these two questions the Catholic Church has given an answer which goes back very far. The answer is found in all the papal documents in which the popes have touched on this sub ject. The reply has been very diligently elabo rated by the great doctors and theologians and has introduced into what may be termed, with out any implied reproach, Catholic Casuistry, a series of discussions which contain minutia; of argumentation exceeding the posiibilities of this notice to compass. The following con densation will bring forward the very large out lines only. Civil power as Well as ecclesiastical authority are of divine origin. Both aim at the welfare of humanity, the one in a higher, the other in an inferior, degree. As both agencies are necessary :for the betterment of• the race, there must be union and not separation. Not only is union demanded by the nature of the common purpose, but subordination also, and in that subordination the place of supremacy must be ceded to the Church. Each power is distinct, yet each is to help the other. The duty of the state is to protect all the rights of every man, to provide for all a quiet and regulated ex istence, and, where necessary, to co-operate with the Church, whose divine character it is bound to recognize in the leading of all men to salva tion. The Church has the right to require from the secular ruler, as from the individual Catho lic, that he should receive from her hands the divine law and act in conformity with her in terpretation of its precepts. The Church strengthens civil authority by imposing upon all her subjects that state power is of divine right, that secular governors are the anointed of the Lord. According -to this view, in many Ages the Pope was looked upon as the head of the im mense, Christian family scattered throughout the earth. He cited before• his tribunal both sover eigns and subjects, composed quarrels, inflicted spiritual penalties upon scandalous princes and deprived of their dignities and rights those who refused obstinately to change their line, of con duct.' The Pope was then regarded as the nat ural head and father of Christendom. Kings stood in need of the Church for things religious and the Church was protected by the laws of the • state. If the warning voice of the Church failed to deter the evil-doer, the sword of the civil power was drawn in her behalf. The Church asserts her right, in virtue of her divine commission, to require of every one submission to her doctrine. °Each power remains sover eign in its own sphere, each is confined within limits perfectly defined and traced in conformity with 'its nature and special purpose. There is therefore a circumscribed sphere within which each of them exercises its own action, jure proprio, through its own right. Yet, as their authority is wielded over the same subject,• it may happen that one and the same thing, though from a different cause, may be under the judg ment and jurisdiction of both powers? This position the' Church bases on the fact that to Saint Peter, according to her view of Scripture and tradition, and to his successors, Jesus Christ confided the government of His Church; secondly, on the mdre exalted nature of her ap-, pointed -end; thirdly, on the conduct of Christ and the apostles who never asked leave from civil rulers to evangelize and whose principle (Acts v) was: °We ought to obey God rather than man? The Church declares that she pro claims the independence of secular power and she herself cannot interfere so long as state ac tion does not infringe upon the laws of God and the rights- of the Church and the spiritual in terests and chief end of man ate not endangered by legislation. In case of conflict, that is to say,, when in mixed questions the two authorities impose upon their subjects who are the same persons contradictory obligations, the state should yield to the Church. The foregoing are the principles affirmed by the Church and are the Catholic view of the relations which should exist between both. This doctrine is her doc trine to-day. A stand so peremptory and so unmistakable has not met with universal ap proval. Within the last 300 years it has been denied in toto. The opponents say the founda tion on Scripture and tradition is insecure, that such a relation as Rome calls for is inadmissi ble, because the history of the past proves that it was always controverted in theory and prac tice, that it led to the denationalizing of peo ples, that it incited to the worst of crimes, that it extinguished every spark of patriotism, that it called for the universal empire of the Church, that it spoke for greed and tyranny and self aggrandizement merely, that it crushed intelli gence and battered down all the propg of indi vidual and collective freedom, that it fettered thought and clipped the wings of science, that it deflected nations on their march toward ress and that it was a benighted doctrine and to be fought and execrated wherever it showed its head. Statesmen have scoffed at it and ex pelled its votaries as they would drive out an archists and criminals. Laws in the most en lightened countries have been made to prevent, if not its existence, at least its logical effects. The widespread theory held by the Rowers to-day is either: no Church or absorption of Church by state or the subserviency of the Church to the state. It has assuredly gone hard with the Church in many ages and under many governments. No one upholding Chris tian doctrines could be a citizen has been the ex pressed opinion of multitudes of people in many countries. The Catholic teaching on this point has angered governments because of two special questions, that of education and that of divorce. In recent times the Church has not been silent regarding the family and her protests have irritated many, while it has also been confirmed by the approval of men outside her pale. As the Pope is now an isolated indi vidual, stripped of all temporal power, the ques tion of Church and state has become purely academic. It must not be lost sight of that, though no civil ruler, his spiritual legislation ex tends over some 250,000,000 subjects, who are more or less obedient to his commands, and that therefore the states not only now but as long as the papacy lasts will have to reckon with his influence and cannot afford to consider him as at any, time a negligible quantity, and hence the question of Church and state is one which, concerning essential features, is not yet to be considered beyond discussion or likely to be closed. See FRANCE.
Bibliography.-- Hooker, 'Ecclesiastical Pol ity' • Balmer, 'European Civilization); Hallam, (Kiddie Ages) •, Gladstone, (Essays' ; Macau lay, 'History of England) • Taparelli, 'Diritto Naturale) • Philipps, (Kirclienrecht) ; papal en cyclicals. This question is treated in nearly all dogmatic theologies of any note, and they are many, as well as in ecclesiastical histories.