Bo Lindberg of this were three: 1, that the church should have no influence on temporal power—this implied the modern secularised state—2, that the state should not interfere in religious matters insofar as the political order was not concerned—this implied religious tolerance—and 3, that the church, being delivered fromits temporal commitments, could develop a new spirituality —this implied pietism. In Sweden, however, little attention was paid to these ideas in the 17th century. Only in the first decade of the 18th century did these questions begin to be touched upon in the academic teaching, and they did not develop fully until later in the 18th century, during the era of freedom. Instead, the most cherished point in Pufendorf’s theory of state and religion was the idea of the political use of religion, as mentioned above. This was, in a way, a product of the distinction between state and church as well, but not one that pointed forwards. The reason for this belated reception of Pufendorf’s doctrine in this field was the strong influence of Lutheran orthodoxy during the era of absolutism. The monarchy and the church, on the whole, had good relations, and supported each other. In Brandenburg, on the other hand, there was no such alliance between the state and the clergy. Instead they were opposed to each other, and the Brandenburg princes were friendly with progressive forces like Calvinist immigrants, pietists and rationalist jurists and philosophers in Halle. Thus, in Brandenburg there existed a rationalistic absolutism that was in even better harmony with the ethos of Pufendorf’s teaching than the more theologically and theocratically tempered absolutism of Caroline Sweden. Therefore, it is likely that Pufendorf felt better at ease, when, in 1688, he returned to Germany and settled down in Berlin. 80 References This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation Naturrätten i Uppsala 1655—1720 (The doctrine of natural law at Uppsala university 1655—1720; with a summary in German) 1976. For the argument on the concept of obligation, see A. Hägerström, Recht, Pflicht und bindende Kraft des Vertrags, 1965.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=