The Holy Roman Empire embodies

mediæval

a state.

CHAPTER III.

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE PAPACY.

THE medieval notion of an ideal state is embodied in the theory of the Holy Roman Empire. The failure of events to give practical effect to the ideal of theory generated controversies, out of which was developed the root idea of the later doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. The dream was a noble one, of a perfect state with two elected heads, one temporal and one spiritual, working in harmony for the maintenance of peace and for the ordered conduct of life among Christians, in a polity that should combine all that was of lasting value in the system of the The theory Roman Empire with all that was essential to the realization of the City of God. But for the most part it remained but a dream, save for a few fitful intervals of brilliancy under Charles the Great or Otto III. or even Henry III. Yet the controversies of the seventeenth century took the shape they did, owing to the earlier struggles between Popes and Emperors. If there had been no Holy Roman Empire, or if there had been no failure to realize the ideal embodied in it, there would have

unwork

able.

?

versies

claims

been no theory of the Divine Right of Kings1. The whole standpoint of political thought during Controthe period of the Reformation is only explicable, about by being referred to its counterpart in the ideas Imperial and the methods of the men, who wrote on form exbehalf of the Papal or Imperial pretensions to planation of theory sovereignty. One, who has not entered into the of Divine Right. feelings of the earlier age, can scarcely fail be hard put to it to comprehend those of the later. A study of the controversies that raged around the claims of Pope and Emperor, will reveal the genesis of most of the notions embodied in later theories; and will bring us into contact with the mental atmosphere, in which alone such theories could take shape.

to

The Holy Roman Empire, however shadowy Connec

tion of

its power, was, so long as men made it an aim theology to work for, a testimony to the most important and politics. characteristic of political thought till the close of the seventeenth century-the belief in the intimate connection of politics and religion. The ideal of the Empire with Christ as its King and His two vicegèrents upon earth, was that of a theocracy. This is the explanation of the otherwise strange fact, that men should ever have believed in so unworkable a theory, as that of two equal heads of the State. Christ is the real head of the Empire, and Pope and Emperor are both conceived rather as executors armed from above with administrative powers than

1 The claim to Divine Right......was first put forward by Imperialist and Royalist opponents of the Papacy. Gardiner, History of England, vIII. 182.

as themselves ultimate authorities'. There is no difficulty in having two superior officials independent of one another, if they are both regarded as essentially subordinate to a single supreme governor. It was the vividness with which men realized the position of Christ as Lord of the Christian commonwealth, that could alone render possible as an ideal, a state in which temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdiction existed side by side, and each claimed 'coactive' power.

That the ideal State is the kingdom of God upon earth, and that no other can be an object of veneration to a Christian, is the notion that lies at the root of the Holy Roman Empire. It is only as the immediate character of Christ's Kingship is lost sight of, and the two subordinate authorities begin to claim, each for itself, perfect independence and supremacy, that there is revealed the insoluble character of the problem involved in the recognised positions of the Pope and the Emperor. As this process continues, first the Pope, as most plainly the depositary of Divine Authority, afterwards the Emperor, as called to his office by God's election and appointment, claims to be the true and supreme head of the Christian commonwealth, by Divine Right Lord of the world. But the notion of an earthly polity has for neither party disengaged itself as yet

1 66 'Opposition between two servants of the same king is inconceivable, each being bound to aid and foster the other: the cooperation of both being needed in all that concerns the welfare of Christendom at large.' Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, p. 102; and the whole of Chap. VII.

from that of the heavenly kingdom. Both Emperor and Pope are forced to claim Divine Right for their pretensions, for each believes himself to be head of something more than a temporal state founded/ from motives of human convenience. They are not merely the directors of an artificial contrivance for satisfying ephemeral needs; they conceive themselves the chosen captains of the divine organization revealed by Christ, as part of the eternal order of the universe.

And thus, whatever claims of supremacy are made for either Pope or Emperor, it remains that the theory upon which they were based is essentially religious. Neither side dreams for a moment of asserting, that the sphere of theology can be separated from that of politics, or that the source of political theory is to be found save in revelation. Neither side imagines that the views of its opponents can be discredited, unless their opinions as to religious duty and the drift of Christ's teaching can be shewn to be false. Those who deny the political supremacy of the Pope are heretics, says Boniface VIII. Those who affirm it are heretics, says Marsiglio of Padua. Theology can in some way teach men the true theory of government, the relations between various powers in the State, and the mutual duties of sovereign and subjects. No one doubts this, and it remains, with whatever admixture of philosophical and historical argument, the fundamental basis of political controversy, not only throughout the Middle Ages, but until the theory of Divine Right has passed away, and men have abandoned the attempt

national States.

to defend or controvert a doctrine, which has disappeared.

Position Further, the position of the Emperor as in theory, of Emperor bars lord of the world, must have had an influence, the way to however slight, in retarding the development of any theories of sovereign clear notions of sovereignty in the national states. ty in In England, with its belief in the Imperial position of English kings', this influence may have been small or virtually non-existent. Yet the fact that an ignorant writer in the fourteenth century can declare that a statute which he dislikes is invalid, because it has received no confirmation from the Emperor', is evidence not indeed of the truth of his statement, but of the existence in men's minds of some lingering belief, a relic from earlier times, in the Imperial claims to universal sovereignty. In regard to France the writings of William of Ockham are evidence of a belief equally untrue to actual fact, that the Emperor in the fourteenth century was still possessed of inalienable rights of sovereignty over the French kings3.

1 Cf. Freeman, Norman Conquest, 1. 132, 3, and Appendix B, 552-556.

2 Mirror of Justices, Lib. v. c. 5, p. 195: cf. also the passage: "Jurediccion est poer a dire droit. Cele poer dona deux a Moysen, e cel poer unt ceaux qi tenent ore son lu en terre, si com lapostoill e lempereur e de souz euz tient ore le Roi cele poer en son royaume." (L. iv. c. 3, p. 123.)

3 "Licet Imperator possit multas libertates concedere regi Franciae et aliis; tamen nullo modo potest regnum Franciae vel aliud totaliter ab Imperio separare, ut nullo modo subsit Imperio. Quia hoc esset destruere Imperium, quod non potest Imperator." (Dialogus, Pars III. Tr. 11. Lib. 11. c. 7; Goldast, II. 908.) In the ninth chapter Ockham declares all kings to be subject to