contingent of forces for the conquest of Wales, and summoned him to his court.  In a secular matter like this, Anselm as a subject had no remedy.  Refusal to appear would be regarded as treason and rebellion.  Yet he neglected to obey the summons, perhaps fearing violence, and sought counsel from the Pope.  He asked permission to go to Rome.  The request was angrily refused.  Again he renewed his request, and again it was denied him, with threats if he departed without leave.  The barons, now against him, thought he had no right to leave his post; the bishops even urged him not to go.  To all of whom he replied:  “You wish me to swear that I will not appeal to Saint Peter.  To swear this is to forswear Saint Peter; to forswear Saint Peter is to forswear Christ.”  At last it seems that the King gave a reluctant consent, but with messages that were insulting; and Anselm, with a pilgrim’s staff, took leave of his monks, for the chapter of Canterbury was composed of monks, set out for Dover, and reached the continent in safety.

“Thus began,” says Church, “the system of appeals to Rome, and of inviting foreign interference in the home affairs of England; and Anselm was the beginning of it.”  But however unfortunate it ultimately proved, it was in accordance with the ideas and customs of the Middle Ages, without which the papal power could not have been so successfully established.  And I take the ground that the Papacy was an institution of which very much may be said in its favor in the dark ages of European society, especially in restraining the tyranny of kings and the turbulence of nobles.  Governments are based on expediencies and changing circumstances, not on immutable principles or divine rights.  If this be not true, we are driven to accept as the true form of government that which was recognized by Christ and his disciples.  The feudal kings of Europe claimed a “divine right,” and professed to reign by the “grace of God.”  Whence was this right derived?  If it can be substantiated, on what claim rests the sovereignty of the people?  Are not popes and kings and bishops alike the creation of circumstances, good or evil inventions, as they meet the wants of society?

Anselm felt himself to be the subject of the Pope as well as of the King, but that, as a priest, his supreme allegiance should be given to the Pope, as the spiritual head of the Church and vicegerent of Christ upon the earth.  We differ from him in his view of the claims of the Pope, which he regarded as based on immutable truth and the fiat of Almighty power,—­even as Richelieu looked upon the imbecile king whom he served as reigning by divine right.  The Protestant Reformation demolished the claims of the spiritual potentate, as the French Revolution swept away the claims of the temporal monarch.  The “logic of events” is the only logic which substantiates the claims of rulers; and this logic means, in our day, constitutional government in politics and private judgment in religion,—­the