Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/519

Rh necessary to discuss in passing the nature of theocracy (§ 55). The consideration of this matter was amplified by a critique of the doctrines of Pobědonoscev, Leont'ev, and Solov'ev.

A summary of principles is now requisite.

Sociologists have clearly demonstrated that in the earlier phases of civilisation the functions of priest and ruler are not differentiated; the power of religion over all the members of society secures the intellectual primacy of the priest as magician, censor of morals, prophet, teacher, philosopher, and man of learning. The chief owes his dominion to his functions as war-lord and administrator of economic and social conditions, but, just like the priest, he bases his right and his power upon the will of God or of the gods; from the earliest times down to the present day he has been ruler by divine right. The chief's command is more direct than that of the priest; the priest has moral and spiritual influence, the chief has force at his disposal; the priest leads and educates, the chief must have recourse to material acts; the influence of the priest is chronic, that of the chief is acute; the priest's power is mental, the chief's is physical, i.e. military.

The relationship between priest and ruler has in different places and-ages exhibited numerous variations, many vicissitudes of mutual dependence; priesthood and chieftainship have been perfected, their functions have been differentiated, state and church have developed, and down to our own day society has been dualistically organised and led by state and church. During the middle ages, theocracy matured as an intimate fusion of the two institutions in their most highly developed form. In the secular empire of Rome, the church presented itself as the city of God (Origen and Augustine), claiming spiritual supremacy; and it ultimately came to exercise this supremacy in the two forms of Roman papacy and Byzantine caesaropapism.

In the western half of the empire, through the establishment of the Papal States, the church was able to effect a materialisation of its spiritual supremacy. But this was of less importance than the exercise of supremacy over the kings and the emperor, the spiritual power of the church and its head being recognised as higher and more estimable.

Augustine, already, declared the state to be the work of the devil; and this conception was emphasised in set terms