The Church and the Empire | Page 4

and apart
from which the temporal authority has no efficacy and scarcely any
existence. An illustration equally common, but susceptible of more
diverse interpretation, was drawn from the two swords offered to our
Lord by His disciples just before the betrayal. It was St. Bernard who,
taking up the idea of previous writers that these represented the sword
of the flesh and the sword of the spirit respectively, first claimed that
they both belonged to the Church, but that, while the latter was wielded
immediately by St. Peter's successor, the injunction to the Apostle to
put up in its sheath the sword of the flesh which he had drawn in
defence of Christ, merely indicated that he was not to handle it himself.
Consequently he had entrusted to lay hands this sword which denotes
the temporal power. Both swords, however, still belonged to the Pope

and typified his universal control. By virtue of his possession of the
spiritual sword he can use spiritual means for supervising or correcting
all secular acts. But although he should render to Caesar what is
Caesar's, yet his material power over the temporal sword also justifies
the Pope in intervening in temporal matters when necessity demands.
This is the explanation of the much debated _Translatio Imperii,_ the
transference of the imperial authority in 800 A.D. from the Greeks to
the Franks. It is the Emperor to whom, in the first instance, the Pope
has entrusted the secular sword; he is, in feudal phraseology, merely the
chief vassal of the Pope. It is the unction and coronation of the Emperor
by the Pope which confer the imperial power upon the Emperor Elect.
The choice by the German nobles is a papal concession which may be
recalled at any time. Hence, if the imperial throne is vacant, if there is a
disputed election, or if the reigning Emperor is neglectful of his duties,
it is for the Pope to act as guardian or as judge; and, of course, the
powers which he can exercise in connection with the Empire he is still
more justified in using against any lesser temporal prince.
[Sidenote: Theory of Imperial party.]
To this very thorough presentation of the claims of the ecclesiastical
power the partisans of secular authority had only a half-hearted
doctrine to oppose. Ever since the days of Pope Gelasius I (492-6), the
Church herself had accepted the view of a strict dualism in the
organisation of society and, therefore, of the theoretical equality
between the ecclesiastical and the secular organs of government.
According to this doctrine Sacerdotium and Imperium are independent
spheres, each wielding the one of the two swords appropriate to itself,
and thus the Emperor no less than the Pope is Vicarius Dei. It is this
doctrine behind which the champions of the Empire entrench
themselves in their contest with the Papacy. It was asserted by the
Emperors themselves, notably by Frederick I and Frederick II, and it
has been enshrined in the writings of Dante.
[Sidenote: Its weakness.]
The weak point of this theory was that it was rather a thesis for
academic debate than a rallying cry for the field of battle. Popular
contests are for victory, not for delimitation of territory. And its
weakness was apparent in this, that while the thorough-going partisans
of the Church allowed to the Emperor practically no power except such

as he obtained by concession of or delegation from the Church, the
imperial theory granted to the ecclesiastical representative at least an
authority and independence equal to those claimed for itself, and
readily admitted that of the two powers the Church could claim the
greater respect as being entrusted with the conduct of matters that were
of more permanent importance.
Moreover, historical facts contradicted this idea of equality of powers.
The Church through her representatives often interfered with decisive
effect in the election and the rejection of secular potentates up to the
Emperor himself: she claimed that princes were as much subject to her
jurisdiction as other laymen, and she did not hesitate to make good that
claim even to the excommunication of a refractory ruler and--its
corollary--the release of his subjects from their oath of allegiance.
Finally, the Church awoke a responsive echo in the hearts of all those
liable to oppression or injustice, when she asserted a right of
interposing in purely secular matters for the sake of shielding them
from wrong; while she met a real need of the age in her exaltation of
the papal power as the general referee in all cases of difficult or
doubtful jurisdiction.
Thus the claims of each power as against the other were not at all
commensurate. For while the imperialists would agree that there was a
wide sphere of ecclesiastical rule with which the Emperor had no
concern at all,