theory for Moreover, in the notion that the Holy Roman Possibility Empire was but the continuation of the Empire of of such a the Caesars, the Flavii, and of Justinian, there was Emperor. the material for a theory of sovereignty, which the nations did not as yet possess. But, if the action of any power should operate to lower the prestige of the Emperor and to place kings upon a level with him, so that an English, or French king can speak of himself as Emperor1, it would be only natural for the pretensions asserted by the civilians on behalf of the Emperor to pass over to them, and to be regarded र as of the essence of all kingship that is real, i.e. imperial. The mere use in later times of the phrase imperial rights as equivalent to sovereignty is evidence of the source, from which the theory was derived3. the Emperor, even though he has not commanded it, and they are unaware of the fact. 1 Richard II. in legitimating the Beauforts speaks of himself as "Entier Emperour de son Roialme." (Rot. Parl. III. 343.) Raoul of Praelles declares, "Un chacun Roy est chief de son royaume, et Empereur de son Empire." (Goldast, 1. 51.) 2 Bishop Jewel asserts that what was the Emperor's right "is now a common right to all princes, for so much as kings are now possessed in the several parts of the whole Empire." Apology. Works, III. 98. 3 The Statute of Appeals in the well-known words of its preamble "this realm of England is an Empire" is an instance of this. Here it is plain that rights of empire are equivalent to rights of sovereignty. Phrases of this sort can only be explained by the fact that there was a belief, that true sovereignty, i.e. independence and unquestioned authority, had been derived from an appropriation by each kingdom of rights originally confined to the Empire. Papacy reduced Emperors to an equality This work was performed by that power in the Empire, which overshadowed and eventually destroyed for all practical purposes that of its temwith other poral head. It may indeed be doubted, whether Kings. the claims of the Emperor as lord of the world, to be universal sovereign and international arbiter1 could ever have been brought into effect, as the new peoples awoke to the consciousness of national life. As a fact, however, it is certain that this was prevented by the action of the Papacy. To establish their own claims to supremacy, the Popes were driven to minimize the prerogatives of the Emperor, and to recognise in him less instead of more authority, than they did in the case of other kings. Thus all monarchies were free to appropriate such rags and trappings of his ancient majesty, as still belonged to the 'ever august increaser of the Empire' in the shape of theories of power that was never exercised and claims of sovereignty that was never effective. In the contest of the Popes with the Emperors was evolved a theory that was destined to play an important part in future antipapal conflicts, and to perform during the period of the Reformation, the work, that was too hard for it, when Pope John XXII. crushed Lewis of Bavaria. This theory was the divine right of secular governments to be free from Papal control. It took shape Origin of theory of Divine Right of 1 See Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, Chap. xv. The Empire as an International Power. 2 Wyclif distinctly declares the division of the Empire to be due to the claim of the clergy to secular power. De Officio Regis, in the fourteenth century as the Divine Right of the Emperors. With various additions, of less importance · than is commonly supposed, it was to re-form itself in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as the Divine Right of Kings. It is in the gradual rise of Papal claims to Theory of Papal suuniversal supremacy, that are first put forth those premacy. notions which form the basis of all theories of Divine Right; the conception of sovereignty, of the absolute freedom from positive laws of some power in an organized human society; the claim that this sovereignty is vested in a single person by God, and that resistance to the sovereign is the worst of sins. With two powers within the State in the relative positions of Pope and Emperor, it was inevitable that sooner or later there should arise between them a struggle for supremacy. The condition of coordinate Need of unity in authority in two diverse but ill-defined spheres the state a could not be one of lasting duration. Sooner later the desire of power, coupled with a of the need of unity in the society, must either temporal or spiritual head to claim for itself absolute supremacy. There could not fail to be awakened the sense, that the unity of the Christian commonwealth, whether as an earthly state or as a reflection of the Divine order, could only be secured by the recognition of the ultimate authority as vested in one or other of the two powers. Nor was it doubtful which of them had, as a fact, the best claim to superiority. At the best of times, the Emperor was hard put to it to maintain his position even as king of Germany, against the disintegrating or source of conflict sense between Popes and Emperors. bring strong and versal Emperor tendencies of feudalism; while his authority over weak, Pope other nations as lord of the world, was, save possessed perhaps under Charles the Great, of the most of unishadowy kind. The Pope on the other hand could authority. allege that with some limitations his jurisdiction was admitted by all western nations; and was effectively exercised. In every nation there was a large class of men subject to his tribunals, and exempt from the ordinary law, while in a number of matters only constructively ecclesiastical, such as testamentary and matrimonial cases, the Canon law regulated the lives of the laity, and drove numbers of them to the curia to buy justice. It is not surprising that there was developed against the Imperial claims a complete theory of Papal sovereignty. Later ages might dispute as to whether this sovereignty was direct or indirect, immediate or constructive. But, from the days of Hildebrand to those of Boniface VIII. and John XXII., the theory goes on developing and it is of course a theory of sovereignty by Divine Right. The doctrine of the 'plenitudo potestatis' is an assertion of the Pope's claim to sovereign power, as a direct grant from God to S. Peter and his successors1. 1 The views of S. Thomas Aquinas on the subject are comparatively moderate. Yet he declares all kings to be subject to the Pope, and alleges the great authority of the Druids in secular politics as a proof of the natural superiority of sacerdotal power to royal. (De Regimine Principum, 1. 14.) The author, whoever he was, of the latter part of the treatise goes farther; he proclaims with emphasis the doctrine of the "plenitudo potestatis" as one of absolute monarchy, vested in the Pope, and quotes the stock instances of Papal jurisdiction over the Empire. S. Thomas, it is noticeable, carefully avoids all debateable ground in his com The canonist could allege the donation of Constantine Arguments as evidence of temporal dominion, and with good claims. show of justice point to the 'translation of the Empire' from east to west, as proof that from the time of Charles the Great, the Emperor's authority was derived from the Pope. mentary on Romans xiii.; but the position there taken up appears to differ widely from that afterwards assumed by Boniface VIII. (For a fuller account of the political theory of S. Thomas see Poole, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, Chap. VIII. The Hierarchical Doctrine of the State.) 1 A saeculari Potestate Pontifex prorsus nec solvi nec ligari valet. Decret. Dist. xcvI. c. 7. 2 Decret. Dist. x. c. 4. The usual method of argument is that of the next chapter, "Suscipitisne libertatem verbi? Libenter accipitis quod lex Christi sacerdotali vos subjicit |