528 HEBEDITY AND SELECTION IN SOCIOLOGY 



whicli she may exercise them," has been construed into meaning 

 that the Church claims to be completely independent of the 

 civil power. This, however, is by no means the case. The 

 Church claims the right to an independent existence within her 

 own sphere ; and the control of the Church by the State implies 

 clearly a negation of the fundamental principles on which the 

 Church is based — ^namely, that the Church is an organisation 

 sui generis, living her own life, possessing her own inalienable 

 rights. But though the Church most justly claims freedom 

 from State control or State interference, this does not imply that 

 she claims at the same time any domination over the State. 

 The sphere of the civil power is a sphere sui generis, just as the 

 sphere of the spiritual power is a sphere sui generis. With the 

 dogmas of the Church, with the rights of the Church to give 

 to her children the education she deems proper for them, the 

 State has nothing to do ; the rights of the Church, and the limits 

 within which she may exercise them are, in the sphere of the 

 spiritual organisation, things which can be subject only to the 

 rules of the Church. Here, again, we may cite Auguste Comte 

 as a witness in favour of the autonomy of the Church in every- 

 thing which concerns the spiritual life and spiritual organisation : 



" The spiritual power being essentially concerned with education and 

 the temporal power with action, taking these terms in their entire social 

 acceptation, the influence of each of these powers must, in every system 

 in which they are really separated, be supreme in its respective sphere; 

 and the rdle of each as regards the special mission of the other must be a 

 purely consultative one, in conformity with the natural co-ordiaation of 

 the corresponding functions. . . . AU the spiritual attributions being 

 thus judiciously systematised, thanks to the unique principle of educa- 

 tion . . . the reader is easily able to recognise that, far from our being 

 able to accuse the CathoUc Church of any serious usurpations on the 

 authority of the temporal power, the former has, on the contrary, been, 

 as a rule unable to obtain anything like the full measure of freedom 

 which is indispensable for the accomplishment of the daily duties of her 

 noble office, even during the epoch of her greatest political splendour, 

 from the middle of the eleventh up to the end of the thirteenth century." ' 



1 Gours de PhilosopMe positive, v. 265 ff. 



