Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic HistoryClayton, Joseph
History
Leaders of the People: Studies in Democratic History
Clayton, Joseph
Democracy; Great Britain -- History
Both Henry and Anselm recognized the gravity of the issue. Were the
bishops and abbots to continue to receive investiture from the king
they were “his men,” and his autocracy was established over all. Stop
the investiture and the bishops were first and chiefly the servants of
the Most High, acknowledging a sovereignty higher than that exercised
by the princes of this world, and preferring loyalty to the Church
Catholic and its Father at Rome, to blind obedience to the crown.
In brief, the question in dispute really was--Was there, or was there
not, any power on earth greater than the English crown?--a question
which no English king before Henry VIII. answered successfully in the
negative. In contending for the freedom of the bishops of the Church
from vassalage to the crown, Anselm was contending for the existence
of an authority to which even kings should pay allegiance. It was
not the rights of the clergy that were at stake, for the terrors of
excommunication did not prevent bishops from receiving consecration
on Henry’s terms, and Anselm stood alone now, as in the days of the
Red King, in the resistance to despotism. It was the feeling and the
knowledge, which Anselm shared with the best churchmen of his day, that
great as the power of the king must be, it was a bad thing for such
power to exist unchecked, and that it were well for the world that its
mightiest monarchs should know there was a spiritual dominion given to
the successor of St. Peter, and to his children, a dominion of divine
foundation that claimed obedience even from kings.
Anselm put it to the king that the canons of the Church, and the
decrees of a great council had forbidden the “customs” of investiture
which the king claimed; and he pleaded that he was an old man, and that
unless he could work with the king on the acceptance of the Church
canons, it was no use his remaining in England, “for he could not
hold communion with those who broke these laws”: Henry, for his part,
was much disturbed. It was a grave matter to lose the investiture of
churches, and the homage of prelates; it was a grave matter, too, to
let Anselm leave the country while he himself was hardly established
in the kingdom. “On the one side it seemed to him that he should be
losing, as it were, half of his kingdom; on the other, he feared lest
Anselm should make his brother Robert King of England,”--for Robert
might easily be brought to submit to the Apostolic See if he could be
made king on such terms.
Henry suggested an appeal to the pope on the question of the right
of the crown to “invest” the bishops, and Anselm, who all along was
anxious for peace--if peace could be obtained without acknowledgment
of royal absolutism--at once agreed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account