1. The Holy Empire, or ideal theory, united the

Church and the state, the cross and the sceptre, to attain their legitimate boundaries, namely, the world. Hence the Papacy and the Empire were but two sides of the same thing and their two heads co-operated to rule the same regions and peoples, but in different spheres. The Pope ruled the souls of men; the Emperor their bodies; but both were necessary, equal, and established by God. It was a confusion of these two powers and ideas that produced such mediæval anachronisms as churchmen who were worldly princes with large estates, who led their flocks to war, and who became the prime ministers of kings; and secular rulers who appointed Church officials and called and presided over councils. This was the theory held by dreamers and theorists, but it was never realised.

2. The papal theory made the Pope alone God's representative on earth and maintained that the Emperor received his right to rule from St. Peter's successor. For historical proof of the genuineness of this position attention was called to the power of the keys, the Donation of Constantine, the coronation of Pepin, the restoration of the Empire in the West. Such figures as the sun and the moon, the body and the soul, etc., were used with telling effect by the clerical party who advanced this theory. It was upheld by Nicholas I., Hildebrand, Alexander III., Innocent III., and culminated with Boniface VIII. at the jubilee of 1300 when, seated on the throne of Constantine, girded with the imperial sword, wearing a crown, and waving a sceptre, he shouted to the throng of loyal pilgrims: "I am Cæsar—I am Emperor."

3. The imperial theory put the Emperor above the Pope as God's vice-regent on earth and reduced the Pope to the position of chief bishop in the Empire. It

was held that historical evidence to support this position could be found in the Jewish theocracy; the words of Jesus and the apostles about civil power; the seniority of the Empire over the Papacy; the attitude of Constantine and later Emperors; the work of Charles the Great, Otto the Great, and their illustrious successors. This theory was defended by the Emperors, kings, civil lawyers, and members of the imperial party.

So far as the Papacy was concerned the Holy Roman Empire created a rival world-ruler with whom for five hundred years the Popes were in almost endless strife. Under powerful rulers like Otto the Great the Papacy was subjected to the Empire more absolutely than in the day of Charles the Great. Under the great German Emperors much was done to reform the Church and to advance its interests and influence in the world. Each Emperor took a coronation oath to defend and protect the Church against heretics, schismatics, infidels, pagans, and all other enemies, and that obligation was as a rule faithfully and loyally kept. But all things considered was the Papacy stronger or weaker, better or worse, for the creation of the Holy Roman Empire? Does the fact that the Papacy declined with the decay and death of the Empire suggest a necessary dependence of the former on the latter?

Sources

FOOTNOTES: