they minister. There is no question here of the political duties of the church.[1] It does not therefore concern us to linger over the long didactic exposition which John writes upon the supposed text of Plutarch, and of which our only complaint is that it takes no account, except by way of illustration, of any of the facts and conditions of medieval polity. The classical ground-work gives a sort of individuality to John's treatment. He writes like an inferior Roman moralist of the silver age; but few would trouble themselves with his delineation were it not for the incidental allusions to, and observations respecting, contemporary or recent history.
There is one particular in which John's system is distinguished from that of almost every other political writer of the middle ages. It has already been noticed that John guards his theory of kingship by a careful distinction so as to exclude tyrants from all its privileges. Though he does not commit himself to the 'contract' notion which we have found in Manegold, it is clear that the ethical proviso which John requires, amounts in practice to the same thing and allows a large enough field for the exercise of popular opinion. But John extends the application of this check on misrule in a remarkable way. He inculcates with peculiar energy the duty not only of deposing but of slaying tyrants. He wrote a book, now lost, On the End of Tyrants, devoted as it seems to this special subject, to which he a more than once recurs in the Policraticits. Tyrannicide is not only lawful, it is obligatory; we may resort to any means to effect this object except poison,
- ↑ I make this remark in order to guard against an inference which may naturally be drawn from Dr. Schaarschmidt's state- ment, p. 163, also Dr. Riezler's, l.c.,—that John explains the soul of the state as 'the priesthood.' His words are: 'Ea vero quae cultum religionis in nobis instituunt et informant et . . . Dei cerimonias tradunt, vicem animae in corpora rei publicae obtinent. Illos vero,' it is true he adds, 'qui religionis cultui praesunt, quasi animam corporis suspicere et venerari oportet. Quis enim sanctitatis ministros Dei ipsius vicarios esse ambigit?' Lib. v. 2 vol. 1. 282. But the reference to old Roman usages which immediately follows is sufficient to persuade us that he is speaking only of the priest as supreme in his own, that is, in the spiritual, field.
