must deal uprightly, govern well and justly, maintain peace and concord, and not misuse his power by oppression. The kingly power was never looked upon as absolute and unlimited; the rights of the people were quite as important as those of the prince, and he was put in mind of his duties, as they of theirs.3 The people were not to exist for the benefit of the prince; and his power was to be employed, not for his own ends, but for the welfare of the nation.4

In the appendix to the Capitularies,5 following the words of the Councils held in Paris (829) and at Aix (836), it is said: 'Rex (king) is derived from recte agendo (dealing justly); he may truly be called king who acts piously, uprightly, and mercifully; the ruler who acts otherwise is a tyrant. The duty of a king is to rule his people with righteousness and justice, and to maintain peace and harmony.' The same was said by Pope Nicholas I., by Hincmar of Rheims, and by the Council of Mainz (888).7 The following words were written by a French duchess to Count Theobald: The sovereign who declines from the path of just judgment deserves to lose his title, especially as God has appointed princes on earth, that after a just trial they may decide and pass judgment.'8 Thus there was, if not an explicit, at least an implied, covenant between prince and people, such as is mentioned in Holy Scripture between David and the people of Israel (2 Kings v. 3). In a conference held November 7, 1405, Gerson opposed the error of those who maintained that a ruler has no obligations towards his subjects, and he even declared that these obligations once violated, he was no longer to be considered as ruler. The conditions upon which a king was to be acknowledged were laid down beforehand, and when these were disregarded, his reign itself was to come to an end. Transactions often took place respecting the accession of this or that prince to the throne much resembling the 'capitulations,' that is, the conditions to which the German emperors even in later times had to swear, before being elected.

1 Cf. Phillips, 1.c. § 120, p. 66.

* Guizot, 1.c. pp. 223-226. Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Méthode pour étudier l'Histoire, P. iv. c. v. a. 1, t. iv. p. 333.

VOL. I.

S

3 Walter, Kirchenrecht, book viii. § 343, p. 608, 11th ed.

• Vide Seneca, i. de Clem. c. xix.: Rempublicam non esse principis, sed principem reipublicae.' Aug. de Civ. Dei, 1. v. c. xii.: ‘Rex dicitur a regendo et consulendo, non a regnando atque imperando.'

5 Capitul. Addit. t. i. p. 1146, ed. Baluz; Add. ii. n. 24, 25.

Conc. Paris. vi. l. ii. c. i. Asquisgr. ii. Hefele, Conc. iv. 61 seq. 87.

Nicol. I. Ep. 4, ad Advent. Meteus.: 'Videte, utrum reges isti et principes, quibus vos subjectos esse dicitis, veraciter reges et principes sint. Videte si primum bene se regunt, deinde subditum populum.... Videte si jure principantur; alioquin potius tyranni credendi sint, quam reges habendi,' &c. Hincmar, Opusc. de Divortio Lotharii (Opp. i. 693). Conc. Mogunt, 888, c. 2 (Hefele, iv. p. 527).

8 Petr. Bles. Ep. 184, p. 476.

9 Cf. Schwab Gerson, pp. 240 seq. 428.

$4.

In the medieval States, as in those of antiquity,1 religion. was the foundation and mainstay of society, and the first and most important duty of princes was its care and defence. A ruler was to be, above all, the servant of God, the defender of the Church, of the weak, and of the needy.2 In the words of Scripture he was the representative and servant of God for the people of God (1 Chron. xxviii. 5, xxix. 11, 23; Eccles. xvii. 14, 15; Rom. xiii. 4); bound to render strict account3 (Wisd. vi. 2-11; Ezech. xxxiv. 10, 11); by justice alone could his throne be firmly established (Prov. xvi. 12; Ps. Ixxi. 2 seq.). He who has not a truly religious mind, said Gerson (Jan. 6, 1391), cannot in truth be called a king; firm trust in God is the highest praise bestowed in Scripture upon a prince. The words of Leo the Great, 'to reign is to serve God,' were in use throughout the Middle Ages 5 likewise those of St. Augustine, The wicked man is a slave, even though he be a ruler; and this not to a single individual, but to as many masters as he has vices.' The first and most important duties of princes were those due to God and the Church, and in discharging them they were to set an example to all their subjects.7

1 Aristot. Polit. vii. 8: Пpŵтov ǹ neρl tŵv deiwv èmiμéλeia. Plato, de Leg. 1. x. Xenophon, Memor. Socr. i. Cicero, de Leg. ii. 6, 7, de Natura Deor. 1. i.; de Finibus, 1. iv. Plutarch, who calls religion ovvektikdy náons Kowvwvías Kal voμobeσías épeioμa. Valerius Maximus, 1. i. c. i. de Rel., who

says: 'Omnia namque post religionem ponenda semper nostra civitas duxit etiam in quibus summae majestatis conspici decus voluit.' Cf. Hugo Grotius, de Jure Belli et Pacis, ii. 20, § 44, n. 3 seq.; Montesquieu, Esprit des Lois, iii. 9.

* Hieron. in Jerem. c. xxii. (Gratian, c. 23, c. xxiii. q. 5). Leg. Visigoth. 1. xii. tit. 2, n. 2. Leg. Angl. (Canciani, Barbarorum Leges, t. iv. pp. 185, 311, 337), Jur. Alaman. s. Suevici Specimen. n. 24 seq. Senkenburg, Corp. Jur. Germ. t. ii. p. seq.

Conc. Paris. vi. l. ii. c. ii.: Scire etiam debet (rex), quod causa, quam juxta ministerium sibi commissum administrat, non hominum, sed Dei causa existit, cui pro ministerio, quod suscepit, in examinis tremendi die rationem redditurus est;' c. v.: 'Nemo regum a progenitoribus regnum sibi administrari sed a Deo veraciter atque humiliter credere debet dari.'

Schwab Gerson, p. 411 seq. Cf. p. 456 seq.

* Deo servire regnare est. Leo M. Petrus Bles. Ep. 20, p. 74, ed. Migne; Ep. 139, p. 413.

Aug. de Civit. Dei, l. iv. c. iii.

Anselm. Cantuar. 1. iii. Ep. 132, ad Regem Scotiae; 1. i. Ep. 142, ad Reg. Hibern. Petrus Bles. Ep. 67, p. 211: Rex cui omne judicium in populo datum est, quomodo judicabit populum suum in lege domini, si legem domini non cognovit?' In the Tract. quales sunt, P. iv. c. xii. p. 1048, he calls Christ, regum omnium potentissimus, qui vices et jura sua regibus suis exsequenda commisit. Petrus Vener. 1. ii. Ep. 7, p. 197, ad Regem Norvegiae; Ep. 46, p. 269, ad Reg. Hieros. ; 1. iii. Ep. 3; 1. iv. 37, pp. 180, 369, ad Roger. Reg. Sicil.; Ep. 36, p. 366, ad Reg. Franc.

§ 5.

In many States the monarch was elected only on the express condition of professing the Catholic faith, defending it with all his might against attack, and thus best insuring the peace and welfare of his land.

In Spain, from the seventh to the fourteenth century, the king had to take such an oath; when it was no longer formally taken, a Spanish king was still understood to be ever bound by this obligation; the title Catholic king' was a title of honour and of responsibility. In the laws of Edward the Confessor, published by William the Conqueror and his successors, it was expressly said, that a king who did not fulfil his duties towards the Church was to forfeit his title of king; and that he was to be bound by oath to this before his coronation. Even supposing these laws do not come down from Edward, still there can be no doubt that they put before us the views and principles of

justice which prevailed under the early Norman kings.3 According to the purport of the words, a prince who was faithless in his religious duties not only deserved to forfeit his kingly title, but was in fact to forfeit it.

Perez Valiente, 1.c. t. xi. c. vii. n. 18.

2 Leges Edwardi Regis, art. 17, al. 15 (Wilkins, Leg. Anglo-Saxon. Lond. 1721): Rex autem, qui vicarius summi regis est, ad hoc est constitutus, ut regnum terrenum et populum Domini, et super omnia sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus, et regat et ab injuriosis defendat et maleficos ab ea evellat et destruat, et penitus disperdat. Quod nisi fecerit, nec nomen regis in eo constabit, verum testante Papa Joanne nomen regis perdit.' Vide Cancian. 1.c. p. 337. Howard (Traité sur les Coutumes Anglo-Normandes, Paris, 1776, t. i. p. 167) omits the last words, contrary to all former editions (Spelman, Concilia, Decreta, Leges, Const. Orbis Britan. Lond. 1639 seq. p. 622; Wilkins, Conc. Brit. Lond. 1737, i. 312; Hard. Conc. vi. 988), and gives no reason for the omission. Vide Gosselin, ii. p. 303, n. 1. It is not certain whether Pope John has been confounded with Pope Zacharias, or whether the passage refers to John VIII. in c. xxvi. Administratores, c. xxiii. q. 5—in which, however, the words are not so strong— or to a lost writing by a Pope of this name.

3 Wilkins, Conc. M. Brit. i. 310. Canciani, 1.c. p. 224.

4 Cf. Receveur, Hist. de l'Eglise, t. v. p. 127.

§ 6.

The coronation of kings, which was in early times likened to the consecration of bishops,1 brought home to the people the loftiness of the royal dignity, and to the king the weight of his responsibilities.2 In the West, as in the East, where from the fifth century the emperor had been crowned by the Patriarch,3 the profession of faith, and the oath taken by the king, that he would rule with justice, defend the Church, &c., formed a part of the coronation. In the Arles Pontificale, a rite of anointing is given, in which the prince to be anointed is presented to the metropolitan by two eminent bishops with a petition that he may be raised to the kingly dignity upon which the metropolitan, precisely as at a consecration, inquires into his worth and fitness, and having received a satisfactory answer, replies 'Deo gratias.' Before the anointing came the taking of the oath. Most significant are the accompanying prayers and words. Many were of opinion that kings received full power only at

their coronation and anointing by the Church. The language of documents is in keeping with this view; the twelfth Council of Toledo (681) says, from the deeds laid before it, it is clear that Prince Erwig had attained the dignity of king and received the royal power through the sacred anointing. Charles the Bold, in his complaint against Archbishop Wenilo of Sens (859), laid stress on the fact that the archbishop had consecrated him and raised him to the throne.s

Although the king, either by election or by birth, might have a right to reign (jus ad rem), still, according to universal belief, his reign began (jus in re) through the anointing and blessing of the Church, or at the very least his power then received its solemn sanction.9

Petrus Damiani, sermo 69, in Dedicatione Ecclesiae, t. ii. p. 374. Petrus Bles. Ep. 10, ad G. Capell. In the East, the Patriarch Polyeuktus, in a synodal decree of 969 (Bever. Pand. can. p. 385; Balsam. in c. xii. Ancyr.), even compares this anointing in its effects to baptism.

2 Phillips, Kirchenrecht, iii. § 120, pp. 67, 68.

3 Theod. lect. ii. 65. Theophan. p. 170, ed. Bonn. Le Quien, Or. Christ. i. 133, § 22.

• Pontificale M. S. Eccl. Arelat. ap. Martene, de Antiquis Eccl. Ritibus, t. iii. 1. ii. c. x. p. 222: 'Reverende pater, postulat mater Ecclesia, ut praesentem militem ad dignitatem regalem sublevetis.'

Martene, 1.c. pp. 192-199. Cf. formula in Phillips, l.c. p. 72 seq., and that used at the coronation of Edward II. of England, Feb. 24, 1308, Rymer, iii. 63; also Lingard.

Martene, 1.c. pp. 203, 205, 214. Phillips, pp. 74-79. Walter, 1.c. p. 608, n. 2.

Aguirre, Conc. Hisp. ii. 683, c. i.: 'Regnandique per sacrosanctam unctionem susceperit potestatem.'

Libell. Proclam. Hard. v. 488.

› Bianchi, t. ii. l. v. § 12, n. 8, p. 381 seq. against the Defensio Declarat. Cleri. Gall. P. i. 1. ii. c. xliv. p. 269 seq. ed. Mogunt, 1788.

$ 7.

At the coronation of a king, the principle was expressly laid down that the temporal sword was to be borne for the honour of God. This applied more strictly indeed to kings, but also to the entire Germanic knighthood. As of old, in heathen times, weapons were laid on the altars of the gods and consecrated to sacred conflicts, in like manner the sword was delivered