THE ANDOVER REVIEW: A RELIGIOUS AND THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY. VOL. VIII.—JULY, 1887.- No. XLIII. THE LEGAL STATUS OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE MODERN STATES. ONE of the chiefest sources of confusion of thought in regard to any subject is the employment of the language of the past to express the relations of the present. Human ideas and institutions are, by the law of development, subject to perpetual modification and adjustment. The words and phrases which represent them correctly at one period of their growth are faulty and delusive when applied to another. As a general principle the terminology every subject is behind the actual status. This is especially true in reference to the relations which constitute the problem of this essay. The current phrase employed to give title to the subject is "Relation of State to Church." This is misleading in at least two respects: of church." 1st. There is no such institution known to modern law as “the The phrase, "the church," is now only a collective name. It denotes a variety of separate and independent organizations having a common purpose. If the Platonians object to this will grant them, for the sake of argument, that the church is an idea. In either case it has no legal status as an institution. The law takes cognizance only of the separate and independent organizations, and addresses itself wholly to them. statement we 2d. The word "state" conveys no certain and distinct idea to the common mind. It is used sometimes to designate territory, sometimes government, and sometimes members of a political union. More rarely is it employed in its true scientific meaning to denote the sovereign, independent and ultimate organization of the people, upon which rests the constitution both of government and of liberty. Most frequently is it intended for government in the discussion of the relations which form the subject of this paper. Copyright, 1887, by HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & Co. We seldom meet the phrase, "relation of the government to the church," although in nine cases out of ten this is what is meant, either exclusively or most largely, by the expression, "relation of state to church." Moreover the phrase, "the state," is subject, in some degree, to the same criticism which we have applied to the phrase," the church." It is no concrete existence in the modern political world. There are states, but no universal state. "The state" is either a collective name or the symbol of an abstract idea. The truth is that this nomenclature comes to us from the Middle Ages, when the state was the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, whose boundaries were, in theory if not in fact, the limits of civilization, and when the European church was one consolidated institution. We must discard its employment at the outset, if we would gain any clear and distinct idea of the relations of the present, either in practice or principle. The title which we have chosen is not subject to any of the objections to which we have just referred: "The Legal Status of Religious Organizations in the Modern States." It requires, however, a word of explanation. We should indicate what we intend by the phrase "modern states." Briefly, we employ the expression to designate a definite system, of fundamental political principles rather than a period of political chronology. Not all the states of the present are, from our standpoint, modern states, not even the greater number. Only those which rest upon a national foundation, and have developed constitutional government and a popular "politique," can be strictly so termed. These conditions and principles have been attained chiefly during the most modern era, and therefore political science has borrowed from chronology the adjective in the phrase. The discussion of our subject divides itself naturally under two heads, viz.: The relation of the religious organizations within the territory of a state to the state, and Their relation to the government. Modern public law distinguishes sharply the state from the government. It recognizes sovereign and absolute power as inherent in the state, and views the government as the creature of the state, deriving all its powers therefrom and subject to limitations thereby. Against the state there are no immunities, no rights, no liberties. Against the government, on the other hand, the state marks out a sphere of freedom and autonomy for the individual |