rather than positive. Their peoples were merely encouraged to resist the Church and absolutism. Perhaps for this reason such countries are apt to be more radical and revolutionary in politics and religion than Protestant countries—a result of the deep antagonism between ecclesiastical doctrine and modern science and lay morality. Moreover, the antithesis between Catholicism and Protestantism has led to striking differences in the evolution of political parties. The prevailing tendency in England and America has hitherto been for political opinions to be represented by two great parties, and religious opinions by a large number of Churches and sects, that is to say, for individualism and subjective independence to be expressed religiously, ecclesiastically; whereas, in Catholic and semi-Catholic countries, including Germany, ecclesiastical unity is maintained by the help of the State, while individualism and subjective independence find expression in a variety of political parties.
Another effect of the religious and political revolution through which the world has passed in the modern era, with its recognition of the rights of men and citizens, has been the growth of international relations and of international law. Even in ancient times, intercourse between States was regulated by treaties which were the origin of international law. Of this organized internationalism only the germs were to be found in the Roman Empire; but, under the medieval theocracy it gained strength in marked degree by reason of the Catholicity and centralized organization of the Christian world. In its legal aspects, however, internationalism has made the greatest strides in the modern era, of which international law is really a product. During the past century, as I have said, a whole series of important international institutions and conventions have been established and, since the Great War, this tendency has been accentuated. President Wilson, indeed, looked upon the League of Nations as the main feature of the Peace.
Readers will find historical evidence for what I have said in Jellinek’s book on “The State.” Though, as a jurisconsult and authority on political science, he often fails adequately to express the unifying concept that informs his work, it emerges nevertheless, in substance and method, from his comprehension of the rise and fall of theocracy, of the gradual emancipation of the State from the Church, of law, and of modern civilization. The democratic State is a new State. The whole of its purpose and organization are based upon a new, non-theocratical outlook. Hence its newness. The old
