We do not yet discuss
the question of the relation of the spiritual authority to the
temporal, though it must be remembered that this was always
present to men's minds.
the question of the relation of the spiritual authority to the
temporal, though it must be remembered that this was always
present to men's minds.
Thomas Carlyle
"
in se exercendse tyrannidis facultatem 3 Berthold of Constance, 'Annales,'
concedat, sed ut a tyrannide ceterorum 1077 A. D. (p. 297): "Recte igitur
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, 1ll. ] MORAL FUNCTION OP POLITICAL AUTHORITY. 113
demands put forward by the Saxons and Thuringians, in the
rising of 1073 against Henry IV. , represents them as acknow-
ledging that they were indeed bound by their oath of allegiance
to Henry, but only if he used his authority for the building up,
and not the destruction of the Church of God, if he governed
justly and lawfully according to ancestral custom, if he main-
tained for every man his rank and dignity and law. 1
Again, in the twelfth century John of Salisbury asserts with
great emphasis that the Prince is entrusted with his great
authority, is even said to be "legis nexibus absolutus," not
because he may do unjust things, but because it is his essential
character to do justice and equity not out of fear but from love
of justice. Who would speak of the mere will of the prince in
regard to public matters, when he may not will anything but
that which law and equity and the public interest requires?
The prince is the minister of the public utility and the servant of
equity, and is the representative of the commonwealth, because
he punishes all injuries and crimes with equity. 2
We have been compelled to give some space to the con-
sideration of the questions discussed in these two chapters
faciendo nomen regis tenetur, alio-
quin amittitur, unde est hoc vetus
elogium: 'Rex eris, si recte facis; si
nun facis, non eris' . . . cur non
magis proprie tyranni in huiusmodi
fortissimi, quam abusive et absque rei
veritatis reges sint nuncupandi. "
1 Lambert of Hersfeld. 'Annales,'
1073 A. D. (p. 197): "Sacramento se ei
fidem dixiase; sed si ad sedificationem,
non ad destructionem ecclesise Dei, rex
esse vellet, si iuste, si legitime, si
more maiorum rebus moderaretur, si
suum cuique ordinem, suam dignitatem,
suas leges tutas inviolatasque manere
pateretur. "
2 John of Salisbury, 'Policraticus,'
iv. 2: "Princeps tamen legis nexibus
dicitur absolutus, non quia ei iniqua
liceant, sed quia is esse debet, qui non
timore pense sed amore iustitise
sequitatem colat, rei publicse procuret
VOL. HI.
utilitatem, et in omnibus aliorum com-
moda privatse prseferat voluntati,
Sed quis in negotiis publicis lo-
quitur de principis voluntate, cum in
eis nil sibi velle liceat, nisi quod lex
aut sequitas persuadet aut ratio
communis inducit? Eius namque
voluntas in his vim debet habere
iudicii; et rectissime quod ei placet
in talibus legis habet vigorem, eo
quod ab sequitatis mente eius sententia
non discordet. De vultu tuo, inquit,
iudicium meum prodeat, oculi tui
videant sequitatem; iudex etenim
incorruptus est cuius sententia ex
contemplatione assidua imago es
sequitatis. Publicse ergo utilitatis
minister et sequitatis servus est
princeps, et in eo personam publicam
gerit, quod omnium iniurias et
dampna sed et crimina omnia sequi-
tate media punit. "
? ? H
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 114 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTORIES. [part II.
only because there has been some uncertainty as to the
position of the political theorists of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, and this uncertainty has arisen owing to
the supposed influence of some aspects of St Augustine's
theories of Church and State. We shall have to consider
the nature of this influence more closely when, in our
? next volume, we deal with the theory of the relations of the
spiritual and temporal powers, and we hope that we shall then
be able to see more precisely what influence St Augustine may
have exercised. In the meanwhile it is, we hope, quite evident
that the conception that the political theorists of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries doubted or denied either the divine
origin of the State, or the principle that its end and purpose
was an ethical one, namely, the maintenance of justice, is a
complete mistake. No such doubt was seriously entertained,
and the theorists were all convinced that as temporal authority
came from God, so also its purpose or function was to maintain
the divine justice in the world.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAPTER IV.
THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. "
It is we hope now sufficiently clear that substantially there was
no doubt in the great formative period of the Middle Ages
which we are now considering--that is, in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries--that the State was a divine institution, that
political as well as ecclesiastical authority was derived from
God, and had an ethical or moral, as well as a material function.
We hope to consider the systematic theories of the thirteenth
century in a later volume, and cannot here anticipate our
discussion of them.
This conception, which, as we have shown, was fully admitted
even by the most determined papalists, found its most emphatic
expression in the title of the Vicar of God. The title was not
so far as we have seen used by any of the more strictly papalist
writers during this period, though it had been frequently used
by the Churchmen of the ninth century,1 but if the phrase was
not actually used by them, the conception which it expressed,
that the authority of the king is derived from God, was un-
reservedly admitted.
We have now to consider how far this principle may have
been interpreted, in the period which we are now considering,
as implying that the authority of the king or ruler was in such
a sense divine that resistance to him was under any and all
circumstances unlawful. We have endeavoured to set out the
origin of this conception in our first volume;2 as far as we can
judge, it seems to us clear that the conception was substantially
1 Cf. vol. i. pp. 149, 215, 216. 2 Cf. vol. i. pp. 30, 31, and chaps. 13 and 17.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 116 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENT0R1ES. [part II.
an oriental one, which came into the West in the main through
certain of the Fathers, and that it was derived by them, imme-
diately, from a one-sided study of certain passages in the
historical books of the Old Testament. It was St Gregory the
Great who formulated it, and as we shall presently see, it is to
his influence that we can generally trace the appearance of the
conception in the Middle Ages. We have also showed that
while St Gregory the Great drew out the conception with
great clearness, and while certain other Fathers may have
inclined towards it, yet others, and especially St Ambrose and
St Isidore, set out a fundamentally different principle, and that
St Isidore especially drew a very sharp distinction between the
king and the tyrant. 1
The writers of the ninth century inherited both traditions,
and they cited the phrases which belong to both, but it is clear
that while they might use the phrases of St Gregory, they were
governed rather by the tradition of St Ambrose and St Isidore,
and that while they looked upon the secular authority as a
divine institution, it was to them divine only so far as it
represented the principles of justice and the authority of
law. 2
These two principles were inherited by the men of the Middle
Ages. What did they make of them? How did they relate
them to each other? We have seen that both parties, in the
great conflict of the temporal and spiritual powers, maintained
that all authority, whether ecclesiastical or secular, came from
God, and that they were at one in maintaining that the function
of authority was to uphold justice and righteousness. But there
were some who maintained that while this was true, yet the
king was answerable only to God, that there was no authority
which could judge him, and that the subject must therefore
submit even to injustice and oppression, looking only to the
just judgment of God to punish the oppressor and to defend the
innocent. As we shall presently see, there are traces of this
view even before the outbreak of the great conflict between the
Papacy and the Empire, but, not unnaturally, in the great
conflict, the imperialists, in their anxiety to lay hold of every
1 Cf. vol. i. chap. 14. 2 Cf. vol. i. chaps. 18 and 19.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, 1v. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. " 117
instrument of defence against the Popes, tended to assert this
view with much greater emphasis.
In the tenth century Atto of Vercelli, in one of his letters,
maintains very dogmatically that it is an impious thing to
resist the king, even though he is unjust and wicked. As St
Gregory the Great had done, he cites the example of David, his
veneration for the Lord's anointed, and his refusal to lift his hand
against him, and he alleges the example of the submissive tone
of St Gregory in writing to the Emperor Maurice. He also
quotes a passage, which he thinks comes from the writings of St
Chrysostom, in which it is said that while it is true that the
people elect the king, when he is once elected they cannot
depose him, and some canons of a Council of Toledo which
condemn revolt against the king, under penalty of excommunica-
tion. 1 And, in a passage from another treatise of which we have
already cited some words, he explains away a passage of Hosea
which seems to imply that there might be kings who had not
derived their authority from God, and maintains that even in
matters of religion a good man must not resist the king, but
must submit patiently to persecution however unjust. 2
1 Atto of Vercelli, Epistle I. : "Non
leve est regalem impugnare maies-
tatem, etsi iniusta in aliquo videatur.
Dei enim ordinatio est; Dei est dis-
pensatio. Profanum est enim violare
quod Deus ordinat. . . . Sane
sciendum, quia cum Deus omnipotens
utilem populo principem donare
dignatur, iustum est ut eius hoc
pietati ascribant, et grates exinde
dignas persolvant, si autem adversus
fuerit, suis hoc imputent peccatis,
ipsumque flagitare non desinant, ut
hoc secundem multitudinem misericor-
dise suse propitius disponat. Nam
deiiciendus vel impugnandus nullo
modo est a populo, qui iam ordinatus
est a Deo. . . . Venerabilis etiam
Ioannes Chrysostomus in quadam
homilia sua ait. 'Sicut enim videmus
in istis mundialibus regnis quomodo in
primis quidem nemo potest facere
se ipsum regem, sed populus eligit
sibi regem, quem vult: sed cum rex
ille fuerit factus et confirmatus iu
regno, iam habet potestatem in homi-
nibus, et non potest populus iugum de
cervice sua repellere. Nam primum
quidem in potestate populi est facere
sibi regem quem vult; factum autem
de regno repellere, iam non est in
potestate eius, et sic voluntas populi
postea in necessitatem convertitur. '"
The passage attributed to St
Chrysostom does not come from his
writings, but from a " Privilegium " of
Pope Leo VIII. Cf. M. G. H. , 'Libelli
de Lite,' vol. ii. p. 422, note 2.
2 Id. , 'Exp. in Ep. Pauli ad Ro-
manos,' xiii. 1: "Cur autem subditi
esse debeamus ostendit, subiungens;
'Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 118 POLITICAL THEORY: 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES. [PAETH.
In a commentary on the Psalms by St Bruno, who was
Bishop of Wiirzburg from 1034 to 1048, the words, "Against
Thee only have I sinned" (Ps. li. 4), are interpreted as mean-
ing that while a private person who commits an offence
transgresses against God and the king, the king transgresses
only against God, for there is no man who can judge his
actions. 1
The excommunication and deposition of Henry IV. by
Gregory VII. raised in its most acute form the question which
had already arisen with the great Saxon revolt of 1073, the
question how far revolt against the royal authority was a thing
legitimate, and more especially the question how far such a
revolt was consistent with the Christian conception of the
Sed cum in libro cuiusdam sapientis
scriptum sit: 'Reges regnaverunt, sed
non per me; principes exstiterunt, et
non cognovi' (Hosea viii. 4) quomodo
non est potestas, nisi a Deo? Sciendum
est ergo, quia sunt quse Deus propitius
ordinat, et disponit; sunt quse iratus
fieri permittit. . . . .
'Quse autem sunt a Deo ordinate
sunt;' a bono quippe ordinatore nihil
inordinatum relinquitur. Ostendit
ergo his verbis Apostolus manifeste,
quoniam omnis potestas, tam apud
paganos quam apud Christianos, a Deo
ordinata est, sive propitio sive irato.
Deerat enim timor Dei hominibus;
ideoque ne more piscium ab invicem
consumerentur, datse sunt potestates
etiam malis, ut boni patientia1 virtute
probarentur, et mali legibus mundanis
cccrcereutur, et punirentur. . . .
Verum, quia erant nonnulli dicentes:
'In secularibus negotiis nos subditos
esse oportet; in fide autem, et in his,
quse ad Deum pertinent, nullo modo ;'
idcirco volens apostolus ostendere,
quia in omnibus subditos esse oportet
propter Deum, adjecit: 'Qui autem
resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem ac-
quirant' Ac si aperte dicerit: Dum
ipsi persequendi occasionem tribuunt,
suos persecutores escusabiles, et se
improbabiles reddunt; ideoque dig-
nam causam mortis habeant, sed
dignum mortis prsemium accipiunt.
Cur autem principes dati sint mani-
festat, subiungens; 'Nam principes
non sunt timori boni operis, sed
mali;' non enim ideo principes dati
sunt, ut eos terreant qui bona operan-
tur, sed qui mala.
Igitur, ut ostenderit vim potestatis,
et quare potestas data sit, adjunxit:
'Vis ergo non timere potestatem?
bonum fac, et habebis laudem ex illa. '
Sed forte aliquis dicet: 'Nunquid
sancti apostoli potestatibus subditi
fuerunt, qui principibus usque ad
mortem restiterunt, ne Christi fidem
amitterent? ' Vere subditi fuerunt,
quoniam non propter mala opera, sed
propter bona persequendi occasionem
dederunt. "
1 Bruno of Wiirzburg, 'Expositio
Psalmorum,' 1. 6 (li. 4): "' Tibi soli
? ? peccavi. ". . . Si quis enim de populo
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. " 119
divine nature of secular authority.
We do not yet discuss
the question of the relation of the spiritual authority to the
temporal, though it must be remembered that this was always
present to men's minds.
The imperialist party did not necessarily or always take
up the position that the temporal power was in such a sense
sacred, that it could never under any circumstances be
justifiable to revolt against it, but it was natural enough
that they should have recourse to that tradition of the Church.
In Henry IV. 's reply to the bull of deposition of 1076, he
denounces Gregory VII. 's arrogance and audacity in venturing
to raise his hand against him who had been anointed to the
kingdom, while the tradition of the holy Fathers taught that
he could be judged by God alone, and could be deposed for
no crime, except for that of departing from the faith; the
Fathers indeed had not judged or deposed even the apostate
Julian, but had left him to the judgment of God. 1 Berthold
of Constance, in his Annals for the year 1077, relates how
some of the clergy were continually proclaiming that neither
the Pope nor any other authority could judge kings, whatever
might be the crimes of which they were guilty, even if they
were heretics. 2 Berthold himself holds this conception to be
absurd, but his evidence is only the more important.
The source of this opinion is obviously in the main the
tradition of some of the Christian Fathers, and especially of
St Gregory the Great. There is a very good example of this
in a treatise written about 1080 by Wenrich, the head of
the educational school at Trier, afterwards Bishop of Vercelli,
in the name of Theodoric, the Bishop of Verdun, who was at
1 M. Q. H. ,Legum, Sect. IV. Const. , 2 Berthold of Constance, 'Annales,'
vol. i. 62 (1076): "Me quoque, qui 1077 a. d. (p. 296): "Tunc vero quse
licet indignus inter christos ad regnum ha)resis et seminarium erat clericorum,
sum unctus, tetigisti, quem sanctorum pertinaces nonnulli passim concionati
patrum traditio soli Deo iudicandum sunt, in reges quamquam hereticos et
docuit, nec pro aliquo crimine, nisi a cunctis flagitiorum facinorumque reati-
fide quod absit exorbitaverim, deponen- bus exoletos, sanguinarins nefandissi-
dum asseruit; cum etian Iulianum 1nos, nec non omnifariam profanos et
apostatam prudentia sanctorum patrum sacrilegos, nec ipsius papse nec alicuius
non sibi sed soli Deo iudicandum de- magistratuum iudicium et sententiam
ponendumque commiserit. " cadere non debere. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 120 POLITICAL THEORY : 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part 11.
that time one of the supporters of Henry IV. It is a protest
against Gregory VII. 's action in deposing Henry IV. and
encouraging the German princes to revolt against him. He
maintains that such conduct was contrary to the law of God,1
and urges the example of the humility and courtesy of Gregory
the Great, who even when he reproved the authorities of the
State was careful to address them in terms befitting their
dignity, and protested that he recognised that he owed obedi-
ence to kings, and acted in this spirit even in regard to
actions of which he disapproved. When the emperor required
him to promulgate a law forbidding the reception of soldiers
into monasteries, he protested against it as contrary to the
law of God, but he carried out the imperial order for its
promulgation. 2
Another example will be found in the treatise 'De imitate
ecclesise conservanda. ' The author was a determined partisan
of the cause of Henry IV. against the Hildebrandine party, and
contrasts Hildebrand's conduct with that of Gregory the Great.
Hildebrand claimed to have authority over kings and kingdoms,
1 Wenricus, Scolasticus Treverensis,
Epistola, 1-3.
2 Id. id. , 4: "Hoc plane lacte nutri-
tus beatus papa Gregorius in verbis, in
moribus, in ipsis denique sum in-
crepationibus humilitatem et mansue-
tudinem ubique redolet. Hiuc est
quod in sublimi loco positas personas,
quacunque inutiles vel etiam infames,
dignitatum tamen vocabulis, appellat,
reverendis allocutionibus honorat, po-
testatem eorum qualibus potest verbis
attollere et exaltare non dissimulat.
Summus pontifex obcedientiam se regi-
bus debere protestatur et asserit, ea
debiti necessitate ad ea, quse mentis
iudicio ipse reprobat, pro tempore tole-
randa aliquando descendit, quse tamen
ipsa quantum sibi displiceant, adopta
oportunitate, salva in omnibus princi-
pis reverentia, aperte innotescit. Unde
cum legem de militibus ad conver-
eionem minime recipiendis imperator
promulgari iussisset, legem quidem
latam, quam Deo adversavi videbat,
statim exhorruit, sed tamen illam ex
iussione principis ad omnium notitiam
ipse, qui eam inprobabat, insinuare
non distulit. Expleta humiliter,
obcedientia ad eundem impera-
torem: 'Ego,' inquit, 'iussioni sub-
ditus eamdem legem per diversas
terrarum partes feci transmitti; et
quia lex ipsi omnipotenti Deo minime
concordet, ecce per suggestionis mese
paginam serenissimis dominis nuntiavi.
Utrobique ergo quse debui exsolvi, qui
et imperatori oboedientiam prsebui et
pro Deo quod sensi non tacui. '"
We have drawn attention to the
importance of these words of Gregory
the Great in vol. i. p. 155. The
influence of these words of Gregory
are again illustrated by the use made
of them by the author of the
'Tractatus Eboracenses,' iv. (M. G. H. ,
? ? 'Libelli de Lite,' vol. iii. p. 671).
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, 1v. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE EIGHT. " 121
while Gregory the Great, with true humility, called himself the
servant of servants, and in his book on "Pastoral Care" he set
out the conduct of David as an example to all good subjects
who have bad rulers. David would not take advantage of the
opportunity to slay his persecutor, but repented that he had even
cut off the skirt of his cloak; and the author cites the words of
Gregory the Great, in which he condemns even criticism of the
conduct of the ruler, lest men should transgress against God
who gave them their authority. 1 He looks upon the successive
deaths of Eudolph of Suabia and of Hermann of Luxemburg,
who had been set up against Henry IV. , as examples of the
judgment of God upon those who revolted against their lawful
king, who had received his authority from God, for neither the
princes nor the people of that party could destroy that authority. 2
The same principles were maintained by others of the im-
perialist party. In the work known as the 'Liber Ganonum
contra Henricum quartum,' which, as it is thought, was com-
piled in the year 1085, the supporters of Henry IV. are repre-
sented as bringing forward the authority of St Augustine and
1 'De Unitate Ecelesise Conser-
vanda,' ii. 1: "Unde et Gregorius papa
cum esset summus pontifex et virtu-
tum artifex, in tantum se infra omnes
humiliavit, ut primus ipse in epistolis
suis servum servorum Dei se appel-
averit et hoc humilitatis nomen ad
posteros quoque transmiserit. Qui in
libro pastoralis curse proposuit de
bonis subditis et malis rectoribus ex-
emplum Saulis et David, qui certe,
dum eum posset eundemque persecu-
torem suum occidere, noluit occidere,
eo quod esset christus Domini, in-
super et viros suos, ne cousurgerent
in eum legitur sermonibus confregisse
et, quia vel oram chlamydis suse ipse
prsecidisset, pcenituisse. 'Si quando,'
inquit, 'contra rectores vel in minimis
lingua labatur, per afflictionem pceni-
tentise cor prematur, et cum prse-
positre potestati aliquis detraxerit,
eius iudicium, a quo sibi prselata est,
perhorrescat; quia, cum in prseposi-
tos,' ait, 'delinquimus, eius ordina-
tioni, qui eos nobis prsetulit, obvi-
amus. '"
Cf. id. , ii. 15; cf. vol. i. p. 152,
153.
2 Id. , i. 13: "Duo enim reges, unus
post unum, substituti sunt uostris
temporibus a parte principum, et par-
tem regni tenueruut, et non totum;
quod scilicet 'totum* habet magnum
pietatis myxterium in unitate fidelium.
Sed quia hoc consilium et hoc opus
ex hominibus erat, dissolutum est,
quod ex Deo non erat, quoniam post
breve temporis spatium ipaam quoque
partem regni utrique amiserunt, et
unus in prselio, alter in expugnatione
unius castelli miserabiliter perierunt,
supers Lite eo cui potestas data est a
Deo, quam scilicet potestatem nee
principes nec populus partis illius
dissolvere potuerunt ullo modo, quando
quidem ipsi quoque regi possiut iam
donante Deo filii succedere in regnum,
sicut ipse patribus suis succeasit in
? ? regnum. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 122 POLITICAL THEORY: llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
St John Chrysostom to prove the impropriety of the action of
Hildebrand in excommunicating Henry IV. The passage cited
from St Augustine affirms the divine origin of the temporal
authority, and the duty of obedience by Christian men even
to an unbelieving emperor such as Julian. The passage attri-
buted to St John Chrysostom is the same as that quoted by
Atto of Vercelli, and sets out the principle that, while no man
can make himself king but only the people, when the king has
once been elected and confirmed the people cannot depose
him. 1 These words are again substantially reproduced in the
collection of Epistles, &c, of the Cardinals who were in opposi-
tion to Hildebrand and Urban II. 2
Again, Sigebert of Gembloux, in a letter written in the name
of the clergy of Liege about the year 1103 against Pope
Paschal II. , urges that even if the emperor were such as the
papal party represented him to be, his subjects must submit,
for it is their sins which merited such a ruler. 8
The most complete statement, perhaps, of the doctrine of
non-resistance, and of tbe conception that the king is respon-
sible only to God for his conduct, which is to be found in the
literature of this period, is contained in the treatise written by
Gregory of Catino in the name of the monks of Farfa, prob-
ably in the year 1111. He maintains very emphatically that
the royal or imperial authority could not be condemned or
overthrown by any man. The authority of the saints both of
the Old and New Testaments showed that rulers must be
endured rather than condemned; no one of the saints and
prophets and other orthodox Christians had ever ventured to
condemn or depose a king or emperor, even though he had
been unjust or impious or heretical. That wisdom which is
Christ said, " By Me kings reign," and by Him therefore alone
can they be condemned. Saul and David sinned, but neither
1 M. G. H. , 'Libelli de Lite,' vo1 . i.
p. 491, 2; cf. p. 117.
2 Id. id. , vol. ii. p. 422.
3 'Leodicensium Epistola Adversus
Paschalem Papam,' 9: "Nihil modo
pro imperatore nostro dicimus. Sed
hoc dicimus, quod, etiamsi talis esset,
tamen eura principari nobis pateremur;
quia, ut talis nobis principetur, pec-
can do meremur. Esto, concedimus
vobis inviti eum talem esse, qualem
dicitis. Nec talis a nobis repellendug
esset armis contra eum sumptis, sed
precibus ad Deum fusis. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. " 123
Samuel nor Nathan ventured to condemn them. Many kings
and emperors both before and after the coming of Christ were
wicked and heretical, but none of the prophets, or apostles, or
saints condemned them or attempted to take from them the
obedience and dignity which was their due, but left this to
God, and endured their persecutions for Christ's sake; even
Christ Himself, while He lived in the flesh, condemned no man.
Gregory then relates a number of examples of the conduct
of the Christian Fathers, as illustrating this principle, and it
is noteworthy that he points out quite correctly that Pope
Gregory II. restrained the Italians when they wished to revolt
against Leo the Iconoclast and to set up another emperor.
Finally, summing up the whole matter, he urges that it is God
only, the Almighty creator of kingdoms and empires, who can
grant them or take them away, and that he who resists the
powers that have been ordained by God resists the ordinance
of God. 1
1 Gregorii Catinensis, 'Orthodoxa
defensio imperialis. ' 7. "Sublimiores
vero potestates, id est regia vel im-
perialis magnitudo, a Deo aut permissa
aut constituta, aut a nullo contemna-
tur aut condemnetur sive destruatur.
Sanctorum habemus auctoritates pluri-
morum et in testamento veteri et in
nova gratia evangelii, qui magis huius-
modi sufferentes portarunt quam con-
demnare presumpserunt. . . . Quod
si ita habetur, certissime in omnium
auctoritatibus sanctorum, prophetarum,
apostolorum ac reliquorum orthodoxo-
rum, quorum nullus potestatem regiam
vel imperialem, licet iniquam, licet
impiam, licet hereticam condemnare vel
deponere ausus est nec aliquo modo
presumpsit; . . .
8. Veteris enim et novi actus histori-
as relegentes et bonos principes inveni-
mus et malos, sed nunquam repperimus
conscripto iudicio ab aliquo sanctorum
fuisse condempnatos. De ipsis enim
sapientia, quse Christus est, dicit:
'Per me reges regnant. ' Per ipsum
ergo solum condemnandi sunt, per
quem solum regnarenoscuntur. Si quia
vero id, quod soli Deo reservandum est,
voluerit condemnare, nunquam evadit
punitionem. Denique Saul peccavit et
a Deo recessit et Deus ab eo, et tamen
propheta Samuel non illum condemnare
a se ausus est. David quoque regem
tribus pessimis criminibus delinquen-
tem propheta Natan non condemnavit,
sed magis penitentem recepit. . . .
Itaque si omnes discuciantur histories
vel leges, contra hoc notissimum dictum
non invenies proposiuionem. Nam
multi regum vel imperatorum et ante
et post adyentum Christi pessimi vel
heretici fuerunt, quos prophetse vel
apostoli sanctique patres et reliqui
doctores ecclesise ad mortem non con-
demnarunt nec debitum obsequium vel
decus ipsis proprium abstulerunt, sed
soli hoc Deo reliquerunt et eorum
nephandas malicias vel persecuciones
ad tempus Christi amore substiuu-
erunt, quia eius omnitnodis membra
? ? extiterunt. De quo dicit apostolus
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 124 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part n.
ambulare. ' Christum enim, qui legem
? non venit solvere, sed adimplere, nemi-
nem legimus condemnasse adhuc in
came vivens. . . . Gregorius eciam
papa Moundui Roman os omnesque
Italicos Constantinopoli pergere
atque Leonem augustum volentes in-
terficere et aliam imperatorem eligere
compescuit. Iusserat enim idem im-
perator sacras imagines deponi et impie
concremari et prefatum pontificem sibi
in hoc non obedientem crudeliter
occidi. . . .
10. Hsec idcirco omnia prsenotavim-
us, ut Deum solummodo omnipotentem
regnorum et imperii omniumque potes-
tatum ordinatorem, concessorem trans-
latoremque evideutissimis sanctorum
catholicorum documentis ostenderemus.
Ordinatas autem a Deo potestates qui
condemnare vel secundum apostolum eis
resistere presumit, Deo eiusque ordi-
nationi resistit, quia non est potestas
nisi a Deo, et licet mala sit potestas,
sicut Saul vel sicut Nabuchodonosor et
multi alii ante adventum Domini in
diebus prophetarum, et post adventum
Domini temporibus apostolorum eorum-
que successorum orthodoxorum f uerunt,
nullus tamen eam condemnare vel ei
vectigal vel censum sive debitum hon-
orem contemnere debet, maxime cum
dominus Christus et magister noster pro
se tributum reddere est dignatus. Si
enim ipse reddidit, qui pro nobis pauper
eztitit nihilque in hoc seculo possedit,
quis demens, quis vecors, quis stultus
Christo religiosior aut sublimior vel esse
temptet sanctior? Et quis prsepotens
sine gravi offensione in Deum condem-
nare potest eum, quem Deus omnipo-
tens, qui celestia simul et terrena mode-
ratur, inextimabili providentia 6ufifert?
Denique ipse solus ordinator et sibi
tempore placito cuiuscunque potestatis
interemptor est et translator, quia in
manu eius sunt omnes fines terrss
et ipse omnium flatum viventium
continet. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust.
in se exercendse tyrannidis facultatem 3 Berthold of Constance, 'Annales,'
concedat, sed ut a tyrannide ceterorum 1077 A. D. (p. 297): "Recte igitur
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, 1ll. ] MORAL FUNCTION OP POLITICAL AUTHORITY. 113
demands put forward by the Saxons and Thuringians, in the
rising of 1073 against Henry IV. , represents them as acknow-
ledging that they were indeed bound by their oath of allegiance
to Henry, but only if he used his authority for the building up,
and not the destruction of the Church of God, if he governed
justly and lawfully according to ancestral custom, if he main-
tained for every man his rank and dignity and law. 1
Again, in the twelfth century John of Salisbury asserts with
great emphasis that the Prince is entrusted with his great
authority, is even said to be "legis nexibus absolutus," not
because he may do unjust things, but because it is his essential
character to do justice and equity not out of fear but from love
of justice. Who would speak of the mere will of the prince in
regard to public matters, when he may not will anything but
that which law and equity and the public interest requires?
The prince is the minister of the public utility and the servant of
equity, and is the representative of the commonwealth, because
he punishes all injuries and crimes with equity. 2
We have been compelled to give some space to the con-
sideration of the questions discussed in these two chapters
faciendo nomen regis tenetur, alio-
quin amittitur, unde est hoc vetus
elogium: 'Rex eris, si recte facis; si
nun facis, non eris' . . . cur non
magis proprie tyranni in huiusmodi
fortissimi, quam abusive et absque rei
veritatis reges sint nuncupandi. "
1 Lambert of Hersfeld. 'Annales,'
1073 A. D. (p. 197): "Sacramento se ei
fidem dixiase; sed si ad sedificationem,
non ad destructionem ecclesise Dei, rex
esse vellet, si iuste, si legitime, si
more maiorum rebus moderaretur, si
suum cuique ordinem, suam dignitatem,
suas leges tutas inviolatasque manere
pateretur. "
2 John of Salisbury, 'Policraticus,'
iv. 2: "Princeps tamen legis nexibus
dicitur absolutus, non quia ei iniqua
liceant, sed quia is esse debet, qui non
timore pense sed amore iustitise
sequitatem colat, rei publicse procuret
VOL. HI.
utilitatem, et in omnibus aliorum com-
moda privatse prseferat voluntati,
Sed quis in negotiis publicis lo-
quitur de principis voluntate, cum in
eis nil sibi velle liceat, nisi quod lex
aut sequitas persuadet aut ratio
communis inducit? Eius namque
voluntas in his vim debet habere
iudicii; et rectissime quod ei placet
in talibus legis habet vigorem, eo
quod ab sequitatis mente eius sententia
non discordet. De vultu tuo, inquit,
iudicium meum prodeat, oculi tui
videant sequitatem; iudex etenim
incorruptus est cuius sententia ex
contemplatione assidua imago es
sequitatis. Publicse ergo utilitatis
minister et sequitatis servus est
princeps, et in eo personam publicam
gerit, quod omnium iniurias et
dampna sed et crimina omnia sequi-
tate media punit. "
? ? H
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 114 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTORIES. [part II.
only because there has been some uncertainty as to the
position of the political theorists of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, and this uncertainty has arisen owing to
the supposed influence of some aspects of St Augustine's
theories of Church and State. We shall have to consider
the nature of this influence more closely when, in our
? next volume, we deal with the theory of the relations of the
spiritual and temporal powers, and we hope that we shall then
be able to see more precisely what influence St Augustine may
have exercised. In the meanwhile it is, we hope, quite evident
that the conception that the political theorists of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries doubted or denied either the divine
origin of the State, or the principle that its end and purpose
was an ethical one, namely, the maintenance of justice, is a
complete mistake. No such doubt was seriously entertained,
and the theorists were all convinced that as temporal authority
came from God, so also its purpose or function was to maintain
the divine justice in the world.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAPTER IV.
THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. "
It is we hope now sufficiently clear that substantially there was
no doubt in the great formative period of the Middle Ages
which we are now considering--that is, in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries--that the State was a divine institution, that
political as well as ecclesiastical authority was derived from
God, and had an ethical or moral, as well as a material function.
We hope to consider the systematic theories of the thirteenth
century in a later volume, and cannot here anticipate our
discussion of them.
This conception, which, as we have shown, was fully admitted
even by the most determined papalists, found its most emphatic
expression in the title of the Vicar of God. The title was not
so far as we have seen used by any of the more strictly papalist
writers during this period, though it had been frequently used
by the Churchmen of the ninth century,1 but if the phrase was
not actually used by them, the conception which it expressed,
that the authority of the king is derived from God, was un-
reservedly admitted.
We have now to consider how far this principle may have
been interpreted, in the period which we are now considering,
as implying that the authority of the king or ruler was in such
a sense divine that resistance to him was under any and all
circumstances unlawful. We have endeavoured to set out the
origin of this conception in our first volume;2 as far as we can
judge, it seems to us clear that the conception was substantially
1 Cf. vol. i. pp. 149, 215, 216. 2 Cf. vol. i. pp. 30, 31, and chaps. 13 and 17.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 116 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENT0R1ES. [part II.
an oriental one, which came into the West in the main through
certain of the Fathers, and that it was derived by them, imme-
diately, from a one-sided study of certain passages in the
historical books of the Old Testament. It was St Gregory the
Great who formulated it, and as we shall presently see, it is to
his influence that we can generally trace the appearance of the
conception in the Middle Ages. We have also showed that
while St Gregory the Great drew out the conception with
great clearness, and while certain other Fathers may have
inclined towards it, yet others, and especially St Ambrose and
St Isidore, set out a fundamentally different principle, and that
St Isidore especially drew a very sharp distinction between the
king and the tyrant. 1
The writers of the ninth century inherited both traditions,
and they cited the phrases which belong to both, but it is clear
that while they might use the phrases of St Gregory, they were
governed rather by the tradition of St Ambrose and St Isidore,
and that while they looked upon the secular authority as a
divine institution, it was to them divine only so far as it
represented the principles of justice and the authority of
law. 2
These two principles were inherited by the men of the Middle
Ages. What did they make of them? How did they relate
them to each other? We have seen that both parties, in the
great conflict of the temporal and spiritual powers, maintained
that all authority, whether ecclesiastical or secular, came from
God, and that they were at one in maintaining that the function
of authority was to uphold justice and righteousness. But there
were some who maintained that while this was true, yet the
king was answerable only to God, that there was no authority
which could judge him, and that the subject must therefore
submit even to injustice and oppression, looking only to the
just judgment of God to punish the oppressor and to defend the
innocent. As we shall presently see, there are traces of this
view even before the outbreak of the great conflict between the
Papacy and the Empire, but, not unnaturally, in the great
conflict, the imperialists, in their anxiety to lay hold of every
1 Cf. vol. i. chap. 14. 2 Cf. vol. i. chaps. 18 and 19.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, 1v. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. " 117
instrument of defence against the Popes, tended to assert this
view with much greater emphasis.
In the tenth century Atto of Vercelli, in one of his letters,
maintains very dogmatically that it is an impious thing to
resist the king, even though he is unjust and wicked. As St
Gregory the Great had done, he cites the example of David, his
veneration for the Lord's anointed, and his refusal to lift his hand
against him, and he alleges the example of the submissive tone
of St Gregory in writing to the Emperor Maurice. He also
quotes a passage, which he thinks comes from the writings of St
Chrysostom, in which it is said that while it is true that the
people elect the king, when he is once elected they cannot
depose him, and some canons of a Council of Toledo which
condemn revolt against the king, under penalty of excommunica-
tion. 1 And, in a passage from another treatise of which we have
already cited some words, he explains away a passage of Hosea
which seems to imply that there might be kings who had not
derived their authority from God, and maintains that even in
matters of religion a good man must not resist the king, but
must submit patiently to persecution however unjust. 2
1 Atto of Vercelli, Epistle I. : "Non
leve est regalem impugnare maies-
tatem, etsi iniusta in aliquo videatur.
Dei enim ordinatio est; Dei est dis-
pensatio. Profanum est enim violare
quod Deus ordinat. . . . Sane
sciendum, quia cum Deus omnipotens
utilem populo principem donare
dignatur, iustum est ut eius hoc
pietati ascribant, et grates exinde
dignas persolvant, si autem adversus
fuerit, suis hoc imputent peccatis,
ipsumque flagitare non desinant, ut
hoc secundem multitudinem misericor-
dise suse propitius disponat. Nam
deiiciendus vel impugnandus nullo
modo est a populo, qui iam ordinatus
est a Deo. . . . Venerabilis etiam
Ioannes Chrysostomus in quadam
homilia sua ait. 'Sicut enim videmus
in istis mundialibus regnis quomodo in
primis quidem nemo potest facere
se ipsum regem, sed populus eligit
sibi regem, quem vult: sed cum rex
ille fuerit factus et confirmatus iu
regno, iam habet potestatem in homi-
nibus, et non potest populus iugum de
cervice sua repellere. Nam primum
quidem in potestate populi est facere
sibi regem quem vult; factum autem
de regno repellere, iam non est in
potestate eius, et sic voluntas populi
postea in necessitatem convertitur. '"
The passage attributed to St
Chrysostom does not come from his
writings, but from a " Privilegium " of
Pope Leo VIII. Cf. M. G. H. , 'Libelli
de Lite,' vol. ii. p. 422, note 2.
2 Id. , 'Exp. in Ep. Pauli ad Ro-
manos,' xiii. 1: "Cur autem subditi
esse debeamus ostendit, subiungens;
'Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 118 POLITICAL THEORY: 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES. [PAETH.
In a commentary on the Psalms by St Bruno, who was
Bishop of Wiirzburg from 1034 to 1048, the words, "Against
Thee only have I sinned" (Ps. li. 4), are interpreted as mean-
ing that while a private person who commits an offence
transgresses against God and the king, the king transgresses
only against God, for there is no man who can judge his
actions. 1
The excommunication and deposition of Henry IV. by
Gregory VII. raised in its most acute form the question which
had already arisen with the great Saxon revolt of 1073, the
question how far revolt against the royal authority was a thing
legitimate, and more especially the question how far such a
revolt was consistent with the Christian conception of the
Sed cum in libro cuiusdam sapientis
scriptum sit: 'Reges regnaverunt, sed
non per me; principes exstiterunt, et
non cognovi' (Hosea viii. 4) quomodo
non est potestas, nisi a Deo? Sciendum
est ergo, quia sunt quse Deus propitius
ordinat, et disponit; sunt quse iratus
fieri permittit. . . . .
'Quse autem sunt a Deo ordinate
sunt;' a bono quippe ordinatore nihil
inordinatum relinquitur. Ostendit
ergo his verbis Apostolus manifeste,
quoniam omnis potestas, tam apud
paganos quam apud Christianos, a Deo
ordinata est, sive propitio sive irato.
Deerat enim timor Dei hominibus;
ideoque ne more piscium ab invicem
consumerentur, datse sunt potestates
etiam malis, ut boni patientia1 virtute
probarentur, et mali legibus mundanis
cccrcereutur, et punirentur. . . .
Verum, quia erant nonnulli dicentes:
'In secularibus negotiis nos subditos
esse oportet; in fide autem, et in his,
quse ad Deum pertinent, nullo modo ;'
idcirco volens apostolus ostendere,
quia in omnibus subditos esse oportet
propter Deum, adjecit: 'Qui autem
resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem ac-
quirant' Ac si aperte dicerit: Dum
ipsi persequendi occasionem tribuunt,
suos persecutores escusabiles, et se
improbabiles reddunt; ideoque dig-
nam causam mortis habeant, sed
dignum mortis prsemium accipiunt.
Cur autem principes dati sint mani-
festat, subiungens; 'Nam principes
non sunt timori boni operis, sed
mali;' non enim ideo principes dati
sunt, ut eos terreant qui bona operan-
tur, sed qui mala.
Igitur, ut ostenderit vim potestatis,
et quare potestas data sit, adjunxit:
'Vis ergo non timere potestatem?
bonum fac, et habebis laudem ex illa. '
Sed forte aliquis dicet: 'Nunquid
sancti apostoli potestatibus subditi
fuerunt, qui principibus usque ad
mortem restiterunt, ne Christi fidem
amitterent? ' Vere subditi fuerunt,
quoniam non propter mala opera, sed
propter bona persequendi occasionem
dederunt. "
1 Bruno of Wiirzburg, 'Expositio
Psalmorum,' 1. 6 (li. 4): "' Tibi soli
? ? peccavi. ". . . Si quis enim de populo
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. " 119
divine nature of secular authority.
We do not yet discuss
the question of the relation of the spiritual authority to the
temporal, though it must be remembered that this was always
present to men's minds.
The imperialist party did not necessarily or always take
up the position that the temporal power was in such a sense
sacred, that it could never under any circumstances be
justifiable to revolt against it, but it was natural enough
that they should have recourse to that tradition of the Church.
In Henry IV. 's reply to the bull of deposition of 1076, he
denounces Gregory VII. 's arrogance and audacity in venturing
to raise his hand against him who had been anointed to the
kingdom, while the tradition of the holy Fathers taught that
he could be judged by God alone, and could be deposed for
no crime, except for that of departing from the faith; the
Fathers indeed had not judged or deposed even the apostate
Julian, but had left him to the judgment of God. 1 Berthold
of Constance, in his Annals for the year 1077, relates how
some of the clergy were continually proclaiming that neither
the Pope nor any other authority could judge kings, whatever
might be the crimes of which they were guilty, even if they
were heretics. 2 Berthold himself holds this conception to be
absurd, but his evidence is only the more important.
The source of this opinion is obviously in the main the
tradition of some of the Christian Fathers, and especially of
St Gregory the Great. There is a very good example of this
in a treatise written about 1080 by Wenrich, the head of
the educational school at Trier, afterwards Bishop of Vercelli,
in the name of Theodoric, the Bishop of Verdun, who was at
1 M. Q. H. ,Legum, Sect. IV. Const. , 2 Berthold of Constance, 'Annales,'
vol. i. 62 (1076): "Me quoque, qui 1077 a. d. (p. 296): "Tunc vero quse
licet indignus inter christos ad regnum ha)resis et seminarium erat clericorum,
sum unctus, tetigisti, quem sanctorum pertinaces nonnulli passim concionati
patrum traditio soli Deo iudicandum sunt, in reges quamquam hereticos et
docuit, nec pro aliquo crimine, nisi a cunctis flagitiorum facinorumque reati-
fide quod absit exorbitaverim, deponen- bus exoletos, sanguinarins nefandissi-
dum asseruit; cum etian Iulianum 1nos, nec non omnifariam profanos et
apostatam prudentia sanctorum patrum sacrilegos, nec ipsius papse nec alicuius
non sibi sed soli Deo iudicandum de- magistratuum iudicium et sententiam
ponendumque commiserit. " cadere non debere. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 120 POLITICAL THEORY : 11TH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part 11.
that time one of the supporters of Henry IV. It is a protest
against Gregory VII. 's action in deposing Henry IV. and
encouraging the German princes to revolt against him. He
maintains that such conduct was contrary to the law of God,1
and urges the example of the humility and courtesy of Gregory
the Great, who even when he reproved the authorities of the
State was careful to address them in terms befitting their
dignity, and protested that he recognised that he owed obedi-
ence to kings, and acted in this spirit even in regard to
actions of which he disapproved. When the emperor required
him to promulgate a law forbidding the reception of soldiers
into monasteries, he protested against it as contrary to the
law of God, but he carried out the imperial order for its
promulgation. 2
Another example will be found in the treatise 'De imitate
ecclesise conservanda. ' The author was a determined partisan
of the cause of Henry IV. against the Hildebrandine party, and
contrasts Hildebrand's conduct with that of Gregory the Great.
Hildebrand claimed to have authority over kings and kingdoms,
1 Wenricus, Scolasticus Treverensis,
Epistola, 1-3.
2 Id. id. , 4: "Hoc plane lacte nutri-
tus beatus papa Gregorius in verbis, in
moribus, in ipsis denique sum in-
crepationibus humilitatem et mansue-
tudinem ubique redolet. Hiuc est
quod in sublimi loco positas personas,
quacunque inutiles vel etiam infames,
dignitatum tamen vocabulis, appellat,
reverendis allocutionibus honorat, po-
testatem eorum qualibus potest verbis
attollere et exaltare non dissimulat.
Summus pontifex obcedientiam se regi-
bus debere protestatur et asserit, ea
debiti necessitate ad ea, quse mentis
iudicio ipse reprobat, pro tempore tole-
randa aliquando descendit, quse tamen
ipsa quantum sibi displiceant, adopta
oportunitate, salva in omnibus princi-
pis reverentia, aperte innotescit. Unde
cum legem de militibus ad conver-
eionem minime recipiendis imperator
promulgari iussisset, legem quidem
latam, quam Deo adversavi videbat,
statim exhorruit, sed tamen illam ex
iussione principis ad omnium notitiam
ipse, qui eam inprobabat, insinuare
non distulit. Expleta humiliter,
obcedientia ad eundem impera-
torem: 'Ego,' inquit, 'iussioni sub-
ditus eamdem legem per diversas
terrarum partes feci transmitti; et
quia lex ipsi omnipotenti Deo minime
concordet, ecce per suggestionis mese
paginam serenissimis dominis nuntiavi.
Utrobique ergo quse debui exsolvi, qui
et imperatori oboedientiam prsebui et
pro Deo quod sensi non tacui. '"
We have drawn attention to the
importance of these words of Gregory
the Great in vol. i. p. 155. The
influence of these words of Gregory
are again illustrated by the use made
of them by the author of the
'Tractatus Eboracenses,' iv. (M. G. H. ,
? ? 'Libelli de Lite,' vol. iii. p. 671).
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? chap, 1v. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE EIGHT. " 121
while Gregory the Great, with true humility, called himself the
servant of servants, and in his book on "Pastoral Care" he set
out the conduct of David as an example to all good subjects
who have bad rulers. David would not take advantage of the
opportunity to slay his persecutor, but repented that he had even
cut off the skirt of his cloak; and the author cites the words of
Gregory the Great, in which he condemns even criticism of the
conduct of the ruler, lest men should transgress against God
who gave them their authority. 1 He looks upon the successive
deaths of Eudolph of Suabia and of Hermann of Luxemburg,
who had been set up against Henry IV. , as examples of the
judgment of God upon those who revolted against their lawful
king, who had received his authority from God, for neither the
princes nor the people of that party could destroy that authority. 2
The same principles were maintained by others of the im-
perialist party. In the work known as the 'Liber Ganonum
contra Henricum quartum,' which, as it is thought, was com-
piled in the year 1085, the supporters of Henry IV. are repre-
sented as bringing forward the authority of St Augustine and
1 'De Unitate Ecelesise Conser-
vanda,' ii. 1: "Unde et Gregorius papa
cum esset summus pontifex et virtu-
tum artifex, in tantum se infra omnes
humiliavit, ut primus ipse in epistolis
suis servum servorum Dei se appel-
averit et hoc humilitatis nomen ad
posteros quoque transmiserit. Qui in
libro pastoralis curse proposuit de
bonis subditis et malis rectoribus ex-
emplum Saulis et David, qui certe,
dum eum posset eundemque persecu-
torem suum occidere, noluit occidere,
eo quod esset christus Domini, in-
super et viros suos, ne cousurgerent
in eum legitur sermonibus confregisse
et, quia vel oram chlamydis suse ipse
prsecidisset, pcenituisse. 'Si quando,'
inquit, 'contra rectores vel in minimis
lingua labatur, per afflictionem pceni-
tentise cor prematur, et cum prse-
positre potestati aliquis detraxerit,
eius iudicium, a quo sibi prselata est,
perhorrescat; quia, cum in prseposi-
tos,' ait, 'delinquimus, eius ordina-
tioni, qui eos nobis prsetulit, obvi-
amus. '"
Cf. id. , ii. 15; cf. vol. i. p. 152,
153.
2 Id. , i. 13: "Duo enim reges, unus
post unum, substituti sunt uostris
temporibus a parte principum, et par-
tem regni tenueruut, et non totum;
quod scilicet 'totum* habet magnum
pietatis myxterium in unitate fidelium.
Sed quia hoc consilium et hoc opus
ex hominibus erat, dissolutum est,
quod ex Deo non erat, quoniam post
breve temporis spatium ipaam quoque
partem regni utrique amiserunt, et
unus in prselio, alter in expugnatione
unius castelli miserabiliter perierunt,
supers Lite eo cui potestas data est a
Deo, quam scilicet potestatem nee
principes nec populus partis illius
dissolvere potuerunt ullo modo, quando
quidem ipsi quoque regi possiut iam
donante Deo filii succedere in regnum,
sicut ipse patribus suis succeasit in
? ? regnum. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 122 POLITICAL THEORY: llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part II.
St John Chrysostom to prove the impropriety of the action of
Hildebrand in excommunicating Henry IV. The passage cited
from St Augustine affirms the divine origin of the temporal
authority, and the duty of obedience by Christian men even
to an unbelieving emperor such as Julian. The passage attri-
buted to St John Chrysostom is the same as that quoted by
Atto of Vercelli, and sets out the principle that, while no man
can make himself king but only the people, when the king has
once been elected and confirmed the people cannot depose
him. 1 These words are again substantially reproduced in the
collection of Epistles, &c, of the Cardinals who were in opposi-
tion to Hildebrand and Urban II. 2
Again, Sigebert of Gembloux, in a letter written in the name
of the clergy of Liege about the year 1103 against Pope
Paschal II. , urges that even if the emperor were such as the
papal party represented him to be, his subjects must submit,
for it is their sins which merited such a ruler. 8
The most complete statement, perhaps, of the doctrine of
non-resistance, and of tbe conception that the king is respon-
sible only to God for his conduct, which is to be found in the
literature of this period, is contained in the treatise written by
Gregory of Catino in the name of the monks of Farfa, prob-
ably in the year 1111. He maintains very emphatically that
the royal or imperial authority could not be condemned or
overthrown by any man. The authority of the saints both of
the Old and New Testaments showed that rulers must be
endured rather than condemned; no one of the saints and
prophets and other orthodox Christians had ever ventured to
condemn or depose a king or emperor, even though he had
been unjust or impious or heretical. That wisdom which is
Christ said, " By Me kings reign," and by Him therefore alone
can they be condemned. Saul and David sinned, but neither
1 M. G. H. , 'Libelli de Lite,' vo1 . i.
p. 491, 2; cf. p. 117.
2 Id. id. , vol. ii. p. 422.
3 'Leodicensium Epistola Adversus
Paschalem Papam,' 9: "Nihil modo
pro imperatore nostro dicimus. Sed
hoc dicimus, quod, etiamsi talis esset,
tamen eura principari nobis pateremur;
quia, ut talis nobis principetur, pec-
can do meremur. Esto, concedimus
vobis inviti eum talem esse, qualem
dicitis. Nec talis a nobis repellendug
esset armis contra eum sumptis, sed
precibus ad Deum fusis. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. IV. ] THE THEORY OF THE "DIVINE RIGHT. " 123
Samuel nor Nathan ventured to condemn them. Many kings
and emperors both before and after the coming of Christ were
wicked and heretical, but none of the prophets, or apostles, or
saints condemned them or attempted to take from them the
obedience and dignity which was their due, but left this to
God, and endured their persecutions for Christ's sake; even
Christ Himself, while He lived in the flesh, condemned no man.
Gregory then relates a number of examples of the conduct
of the Christian Fathers, as illustrating this principle, and it
is noteworthy that he points out quite correctly that Pope
Gregory II. restrained the Italians when they wished to revolt
against Leo the Iconoclast and to set up another emperor.
Finally, summing up the whole matter, he urges that it is God
only, the Almighty creator of kingdoms and empires, who can
grant them or take them away, and that he who resists the
powers that have been ordained by God resists the ordinance
of God. 1
1 Gregorii Catinensis, 'Orthodoxa
defensio imperialis. ' 7. "Sublimiores
vero potestates, id est regia vel im-
perialis magnitudo, a Deo aut permissa
aut constituta, aut a nullo contemna-
tur aut condemnetur sive destruatur.
Sanctorum habemus auctoritates pluri-
morum et in testamento veteri et in
nova gratia evangelii, qui magis huius-
modi sufferentes portarunt quam con-
demnare presumpserunt. . . . Quod
si ita habetur, certissime in omnium
auctoritatibus sanctorum, prophetarum,
apostolorum ac reliquorum orthodoxo-
rum, quorum nullus potestatem regiam
vel imperialem, licet iniquam, licet
impiam, licet hereticam condemnare vel
deponere ausus est nec aliquo modo
presumpsit; . . .
8. Veteris enim et novi actus histori-
as relegentes et bonos principes inveni-
mus et malos, sed nunquam repperimus
conscripto iudicio ab aliquo sanctorum
fuisse condempnatos. De ipsis enim
sapientia, quse Christus est, dicit:
'Per me reges regnant. ' Per ipsum
ergo solum condemnandi sunt, per
quem solum regnarenoscuntur. Si quia
vero id, quod soli Deo reservandum est,
voluerit condemnare, nunquam evadit
punitionem. Denique Saul peccavit et
a Deo recessit et Deus ab eo, et tamen
propheta Samuel non illum condemnare
a se ausus est. David quoque regem
tribus pessimis criminibus delinquen-
tem propheta Natan non condemnavit,
sed magis penitentem recepit. . . .
Itaque si omnes discuciantur histories
vel leges, contra hoc notissimum dictum
non invenies proposiuionem. Nam
multi regum vel imperatorum et ante
et post adyentum Christi pessimi vel
heretici fuerunt, quos prophetse vel
apostoli sanctique patres et reliqui
doctores ecclesise ad mortem non con-
demnarunt nec debitum obsequium vel
decus ipsis proprium abstulerunt, sed
soli hoc Deo reliquerunt et eorum
nephandas malicias vel persecuciones
ad tempus Christi amore substiuu-
erunt, quia eius omnitnodis membra
? ? extiterunt. De quo dicit apostolus
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 124 POLITICAL THEORY : llTH & 12TH CENTURIES, [part n.
ambulare. ' Christum enim, qui legem
? non venit solvere, sed adimplere, nemi-
nem legimus condemnasse adhuc in
came vivens. . . . Gregorius eciam
papa Moundui Roman os omnesque
Italicos Constantinopoli pergere
atque Leonem augustum volentes in-
terficere et aliam imperatorem eligere
compescuit. Iusserat enim idem im-
perator sacras imagines deponi et impie
concremari et prefatum pontificem sibi
in hoc non obedientem crudeliter
occidi. . . .
10. Hsec idcirco omnia prsenotavim-
us, ut Deum solummodo omnipotentem
regnorum et imperii omniumque potes-
tatum ordinatorem, concessorem trans-
latoremque evideutissimis sanctorum
catholicorum documentis ostenderemus.
Ordinatas autem a Deo potestates qui
condemnare vel secundum apostolum eis
resistere presumit, Deo eiusque ordi-
nationi resistit, quia non est potestas
nisi a Deo, et licet mala sit potestas,
sicut Saul vel sicut Nabuchodonosor et
multi alii ante adventum Domini in
diebus prophetarum, et post adventum
Domini temporibus apostolorum eorum-
que successorum orthodoxorum f uerunt,
nullus tamen eam condemnare vel ei
vectigal vel censum sive debitum hon-
orem contemnere debet, maxime cum
dominus Christus et magister noster pro
se tributum reddere est dignatus. Si
enim ipse reddidit, qui pro nobis pauper
eztitit nihilque in hoc seculo possedit,
quis demens, quis vecors, quis stultus
Christo religiosior aut sublimior vel esse
temptet sanctior? Et quis prsepotens
sine gravi offensione in Deum condem-
nare potest eum, quem Deus omnipo-
tens, qui celestia simul et terrena mode-
ratur, inextimabili providentia 6ufifert?
Denique ipse solus ordinator et sibi
tempore placito cuiuscunque potestatis
interemptor est et translator, quia in
manu eius sunt omnes fines terrss
et ipse omnium flatum viventium
continet. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:42 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002403882 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust.
