This article was downloaded by: [Ume University Library]

On: 06 September 2014, At: 02:56

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Medieval History

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmed20

The Injunction of Jeremiah: papal

politicking and power in the Middle
Ages
Kriston R. Rennie

School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, University of

Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia
Published online: 24 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Kriston R. Rennie (2014) The Injunction of Jeremiah: papal
politicking and power in the Middle Ages, Journal of Medieval History, 40:1, 108-122, DOI:
10.1080/03044181.2013.838907
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2013.838907

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Medieval History, 2014

Vol. 40, No. 1, 108122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2013.838907

The Injunction of Jeremiah: papal politicking and power in the Middle

Ages
Kriston R. Rennie*

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, University of Queensland, St Lucia,

Queensland 4072, Australia
(Received 3 December 2012; nal version received 25 March 2013)
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Injunction of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:10) was employed by
countless ecclesiastical writers. Building on an established tradition, medieval
contemporaries began applying the allegory of uprooting and destroying, building and
planting with an intentionally moral and political message. This article examines the Old
Testament call narrative with a view to understanding how and why it served medieval
popes and other high-ranked ecclesiastics as a political and rhetorical mechanism for
legitimising ecclesiastical authority. It argues for a noticeable and deliberate shift in textual
interpretation in the ninth century, after which period medieval popes and inuential church
gures alike marshalled the Injunction to help strengthen the centralising ideology of Rome
and her bishop. The effect, it is concluded, contributed ultimately to reinforcing the
papacys claims to govern spiritual and temporal matters throughout Christian society.
Keywords: Jeremiah; papal power; papal ideology; legitimacy; centralisation; medieval
papacy; Roman Church

I have set you over peoples and kingdoms to root up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to
build and to plant (Jer. 1:10).1

Throughout the Middle Ages, the Injunction of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:10) was employed by countless
ecclesiastical writers. Few invoked the authority of its message more forcefully than
contemporaries between the ninth and fourteenth centuries, whose interpretation of this Old
Testament call narrative introduced new vigour to the allegory of uprooting and destroying,
building and planting. Assuming an intentionally moral and political message, this Biblical
verse became a powerful and convincing rhetorical mechanism for legitimising ecclesiastical
authority and jurisdiction throughout western Christendom; medieval popes and high-ranked
ecclesiastics alike marshalled the Injunction to help strengthen the centralising ideology of

*Email: k.rennie@uq.edu.au
1
This article uses the following abbreviations: CCCM: Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis;
CCSL: Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina; CSEL: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum;
MGH: Monumenta Germaniae Historica; PL: Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina; PG:
Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca.
In Jeromes Vulgate: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna ut evellas et destruas et
disperdas et dissipes et aedices et plantes.
2013 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Medieval History

109

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

Rome and her bishop. This article examines the changing way in which the Injunction served to
validate ecclesiastical claims over secular authorities, arguing for an innovative shift in the last
quarter of the ninth century. The effect, it is concluded, contributed ultimately to reinforcing
the papacys claims to govern spiritual and temporal matters throughout Christian society.
The call narrative
The Book of Jeremiah is considered an historical witness to the last days of Judah and the
destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 587 BC. Its poetic reection makes a sweeping
claim for Gods free governance,2 relating his magisterial role in destroying and building the
holy city of Jerusalem, thereby re-describing the historical process by which Gods people go
into exile and surprisingly, come out of exile.3 As an integral part of this call narrative, the
Injunction of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:10) derives its moral and spiritual signicance from an historical
understanding of the past. God bestowed the plenitude of power directly upon his prophet, the
son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in Benjamin.4 Historically, according to this
narrative, Jeremiah received his prophetic call in 627 BC, in the thirteenth year of the reign of
Josiah son of Amon, king of Judah (640609 BC),5 though his spiritual mission spanned
approximately four decades, during the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah, until
the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah, king of Judah, was completed.6 While still in his
mothers womb, God consecrated Jeremiah and appointed him prophet to the nations (Jer.
1:5). This great inclusio is cited frequently in ecclesiastical writings, denoting Jeremiahs
consecration before emerging from his mothers womb; his qualication as mediator between
heaven and earth was bestowed upon him in utero, charged by God to go to whatever people
I send you and say whatever I tell you to say (Jer. 1:7).7 This theme follows the editorial
superscription in verses 13, after which comes the larger call narrative (verses 410) that is
considered to be the initial unit of material at the very beginning of the process of
collection8. That is to say that the Injunction forms the central text around which the
prophecy of Jeremiah revolves. The Biblical text thus presents an editorial conception of the
prophets career and message, forged under the conicting pressures of divine revelation and
popular rejection, and ultimately vindicated by the events of history.9 Jeremiahs prophetic
authority was broadcast through a public declaration to follow in the Mosaic lineage of
prophets and mediators for Israel.10
The call narrative itself which has some Old Testament comparison with Isaiah (Isa. 6),
Ezekiel (Ezek. 13), Moses (Exod. 34), Samuel (1 Sam. 3) and Elisha (I Kgs 19:1921) was
intended to justify Jeremiahs mission and credentials. It served to explain how the prophet
received his authority through divine initiative and intervention. And signicantly for the
historical context, the literary, poetic and theological traditions employed in this Old Testament
2
Walter Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down: a Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 125
(Edinburgh: Handsel Press, 1988), 25.
3
Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 22.
4
Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 22.
5
Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 22.
6
Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 22.
7
Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah: a Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, Dissertation Series no. 18 (Missoula,
Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1975), 28.
8
William L. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 120 (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1976), 27.
9
Ellen Davis Lewin, Arguing for Authority: a Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 1.419 and 20.718, Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament 10 (1985): 106.
10
Lewin, Arguing for Authority, 108.

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

110

K. Rennie

book transformed the politico-historical realities of the sixth century BC into predestined and
divinely ordained events. In other words, the book of Jeremiah reinterpreted the Babylonian
sacking of Judah, Jerusalem and the Temple in 587 BC under Nebuchadnezzar as a covenantal
obligation, an example of Gods right and power to dismantle and rebuild his own creation.11
The medieval notion of uprooting and destroying, building and planting was shaped by this
collective historical memory.12 An allegorical interpretation of Jeremiah 1:10 refers to the
prophets own people i.e. the overthrowing, pulling down and rebuilding of the kingdom of
Judah and the city of Jerusalem. Following the architectural style of Old Testament writing,
however, historical reality is supplanted by a moral and spiritual lesson; the literary
composition, meanwhile, juxtaposes the inevitable themes of judgement and renewal that
pervade the Old Testament. Gods omnipotence and omniscience are qualities on display,
calling to mind historical example and Gods corresponding power. Signicant, too, is the
deliberately negative verbal construction of rooting up, pulling down, destroying and
overthrowing, actions which one scholar has taken to suggest that no historical structure,
political policy, or defence scheme can secure a community against Yahweh when that
community is under the judgement of Yahweh.13 The last two positive verbs, by comparison
to build and to plant assert in parallel fashion that God can work newness, create
historical possibilities ex nihilo, precisely in situations that seem hopeless and closed.14
Early historical references to the Injunction evoke its Old Testament meaning, which concerns
the extirpation of vice and the acquisition of virtue.15 As antecedents to the Realpolitik employed
between the ninth and fourteenth centuries, traditional interpretations of Jeremiah provided a
moral foundation from which later ecclesiastical writers invoked their authoritative basis.16 For
inuential Latin writers like Jerome (c.345420), the Injunction related not to the person of
Christ or the church of God, but rather to the person of Jeremiah himself.17 His commentary
on the prophet treats the allegory of uprooting and destroying, building and planting within
the historical context of Jerusalems destruction, with no obvious political agenda.18

11

For a concise summary of these events, see Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 17.
Ernest W. Nicholson, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 125 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973), 26; cf. Holladay, Architecture of Jeremiah 120, 27.
13
Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 24.
14
Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, To Tear Down, 24.
15
See Iraeneus of Lyons, Adversus haereses, ed. N. Brox (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 1301 (V.XV.3); Clement
of Alexandria, Paedagogus, ed. D. Nicolai le Nourry. PG 8 (Paris: Migne, 1857), col. 322 (I.7); Tertullian,
Adversus Praxean, ed. H.-J. Sieben (Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 2067 (c.22.6); Origen of Alexandria, De
principiis, ed. C.V. Delarue. PG 11 (Paris: Migne, 1857), cols. 2515 (Book III, cc.35), and idem,
Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 184 (IV.I);
Hippolytus of Rome, Philosophumena, ed. C.V. Delarue. PG 16.3 (Paris: Migne, 1857), cols. 32089
(VI.IX); Cyprian of Carthage, De lapsis, in S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera omnia, ed. W. Hartel.
CSEL 3. 3 vols. (Vienna: apud Geroldi Filium Bibliopolam Academiae, 186871), 1: 251 (c.19);
Augustine of Hippo, De doctrina Christiana, eds. K.D. Daur and J. Martin. CCSL 32 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1962), 88 (Lib. 3, c.11, lines 202); Vigilius Thapsensis, Opus contra Varimadum,
eds. B. Schwank, D. De Bruyne and J. Fraipont. CCSL 90 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1961), 124 (Book 3, c.71,
line 3); Ambrosius Autpertus, Expositionis in Apocalypsin libri IV, ed. R. Weber. CCCM 27A
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1975), 539 (Lib. 6, c.14.8, lines 1416) and 661 (Lib. 8, c.17.14, lines 4851).
16
On this idea see Richard J. Goodrich, John Cassian, the Instituta Aegyptorium, and the Apostolic Church,
in Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity: Inheritance, Authority, and Change, ed. J.H.D. Scoureld (Swansea:
Classical Press of Wales, 2007), 32333.
17
Jerome, In Hieremiam prophetam libri VI, ed. S. Reiter. CCSL 74 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1960), 6 (Lib. I, c.6).
18
Jerome, In Hieremiam prophetam libri VI, 1901 (Lib. IV, c.22), 317 (Lib. VI, c.25); Jerome, In
Hieremiam prophetam libri sex, ed. S. Reiter. CSEL 59 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1913), 241 (Lib. IV, c.22, line
20) and 402 (Lib. VI, line 6).
12

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

Journal of Medieval History

111

Consideration is given rather to the necessity for substituting good for bad things, for destruction
before construction in order to establish a solid foundation of ecclesiastical truth a precursor for
exalting Gods knowledge. A more dominant reading of this verse followed in the early fthcentury writings of John Cassian (c.360435), whose interpretation of the call narrative and its
Injunction reveals elements of power-politics better suited to high and late medieval popes.
Writing about practical knowledge in his Conferences of the Fathers (c.428), he explained
how we must exert ourselves twice as hard to expel vice as to acquire virtue.19 The prophet
describes the process by which this could be accomplished, pointing out that four things are
necessary for expelling what is harmful namely, rooting up, pulling down, dispersing and
scattering.20 The more difcult task, according to Cassian, is to eliminate vices of the body
and soul before the gathering and planting of spiritual virtues can begin.
On occasion, early Christian apologists buttressed this dominant moral interpretation to
contested religious issues of the time. That is, its message gained considerable political
currency once applied to a practical ecclesiastical setting. Origen of Alexandrias Contra
Celsum (written c.2468), for example, harnesses the Injunction to suit a contemporary need to
root out ideas contrary to the truth from every soul which has been distressed by Celsus
treatise or by opinions like his.21 Like many early Christian thinkers, Origen was a staunch
defender of Christian doctrine and tradition, which often succumbed to the criticism of
Hellenistic philosophy. Celsus assault on Christianity, against which Origen offers his
considered and lengthy response, reveals many of the perceived dangers that a new religion
presented to the ancient customs of Roman society. In defending the Christian faith against
Celsus polemical assault, Origen summoned the collective memory of Jeremiah for ideas to
help destroy buildings of all false opinions and the arguments in Celsus treatise which are
like the building of those who said: Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower, of which
the top shall reach to heaven [Gen. 11:4].22 After the rst three books outlining Celsus
arguments, Origen emphasised at the beginning of Book IV the necessity for rooting out and
destroying the things just mentioned, but in place of the things rooted out [we] must plant a
planting which is of Gods husbandry [cf. 1 Cor. 3:9], and in place of what is destroyed must
construct a building of God and a temple of Gods glory. As Origen continued to relate, the
Lords assistance was necessary to build up the doctrines of Christ and plant the spiritual law
and the prophetic words corresponding to it.23
To Gregory the Great (590604), whose ponticate is often revealing for matters of early
medieval political governance, the Book of Jeremiah continued to be interpreted along purely
moral and spiritual grounds. Indeed, this popes only references to the Injunction are found in
his Moralia on Job (Part IV, Book XVIII, c.17) and Regula pastoralis (Book III, c.34) two
works of widespread circulation during and after his lifetime. In the former commentary,
Gregory wrote that spiritual teachers should rst aim to destroy what is wrong, and afterwards
to preach what is right. In justifying right action, Gregory declared lest the hearts that are full
of evil things should not contain the good seed of holy preaching, whence it is said to
Jeremiah, See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out

19
John Cassian, Conlationes XXIIII, ed. M. Petschenig. CSEL 13 (Vienna: apud C. Geroldi Filium
Bibliopolam Academiae, 1886), 400 (XIV.3.2): Sciendum tamen est, duplici nobis laboris intentione
sudandum, tam in expellendis vitiis quam in virtutibus acquirendis.
20
John Cassian, Conlationes XXIIII, 400 (XIV.3.2): In expulsione enim noxiarum rerum quatuor esse
necessaria designavit, id est, evellere, destruere, disperdere, dissipare.
21
Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, 184 (Book IV, c.1).
22
Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, 184 (Book IV, c.1).
23
Origen of Alexandria, Contra Celsum, 184 (Book IV, c.1).

112

K. Rennie

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

and to pull down and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant [Jer. 1:10]. The Old
Testament example suited the moral lesson of Gregorys writing well, for it was memorably
written in Scripture that he should pull down, and afterwards that he should build, rst to
pluck up, and afterwards to plant; because the foundation of rightful truth is not laid, except
the edice of error be rst pulled down. Indeed, as Gregory expounded in relation to Job, he
might be plainly seen in those things which he added to plant what is right, but in those that
he premised to have plucked up what is wrong.24
The authority of Jeremiah ostensibly offered a good moral example. In his Regula pastoralis,
Gregory admonished
those who do not even begin good things, for them the rst need is, not to build up what they may
wholesomely love, but to demolish that wherein they are wrongly occupied. For they will not
follow the untried things they hear of, unless they rst come to feel how pernicious are the things
that they have tried; since neither does one desire to be lifted up who knows not the very fact that
he has fallen; nor does one who feels not the pain of a wound seek any healing remedy.25

This moral advice was tied directly to Jesus persecution, as an historical reminder of how St Peter
had reproved the Jews for what they had done26 in the rst century AD:
For hence it was said to Jeremiah when sent to preach, See, I have this day set you over the nations
and over the kingdoms, to pluck out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to scatter, and to build, and
to plant [Jer. 1:10]. Because, unless he rst destroyed wrong things, he could not protably build
right things; unless he plucked out of the hearts of his hearers the thorns of vain love, he would
certainly plant to no purpose the words of holy preaching.27

To be sure, the moral narrative of Jeremiahs prophecy populates the standard medieval
interpretation. With an established precedent in the early church writings of Origen, Jerome
and Cassian, it is recounted time and again throughout the Middle Ages by inuential gures
like John of Salisbury, Hugh of Saint-Victor, Peter Cantor, Peter Lombard, Peter the
Venerable, Rather of Verona, Stephen of Tournai, Thomas Kempis, Thomas Aquinas and
many others. For these mainstream Latin interpretations, no elaboration on the verses meaning
was ever deemed necessary. It is safe to assume, as Augustine of Hippo explicitly related in

24

Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, ed. M. Adriaen. CCSL 143A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1979), 897 (Lib. 18,
c.17, lines 911): Quia vero ut praediximus, esse ars docentium debet ut in auditorum suorum mentibus
prius studeant perversa destruere; et postmodum recta praedicare, ne bonum sanctae praedicationis semen
plena malis corda non capiant. Unde ad Ieremiam dicitur [Jer. 1:10] Prius itaque iubetur ut destruat et
postmodum aedicet; prius ut evellat et postmodum plantet, quia nequaquam rectae veritatis
fundamentum ponitur, nisi prius erroris fabrica destruatur.
25
Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis, eds. B. Judic, F. Rommel and C. Morel. Sources Chrtiennes,
3812. 2 vols. (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1992), 2: 5047 (Pars 3, c.34): Audiant ergo quod bona
praesentia et a delectatione citius transitura sint, et tamen eorum causa ad ultionem sine transitu sint, et
tamen eorum causa ad ultionem sine transitu permansura, quia et nunc quod libet inuitis subtrahitur, et
tunc quod dolet inuitis in supplicium reservatur. Itaque eisdem rebus terreantur salubriter, quibus noxie
delectantur, ut dum perculsa mens alta ruinae suae damna conspiciens, sese in praecipiti pervenisse
deprehendit, gressum post terga revocet, et perimescens quae amaverat, discat diligere quae contemnebat.
26
Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis, 2: 5047 (Pars 3, c.34).
27
Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis, 2: 5047 (Pars 3, c.34): Hinc est enim quod Hieremiae misso ad
praedicationem dicitur: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna, ut evellas et destruas, et disperdas
et dissipes, et aedices et plantes. Quia nisi prius perversa destrueret, aedicare utiliter recta non posset; nisi
ab auditorum suorum cordibus spinas vani amoris evelleret, nimirum frustra in eis sanctae praedictionis
verba plantaret.

Journal of Medieval History

113

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

his De doctrina Christiana (written 397426), that the Injunction was taken as an exercise of
gurative locution.28 Comparing it to scriptural examples in Romans (2:59) and Galatians
(1:524), passages that likewise portray Gods cruelty and powers of destruction, Augustine
said what many of his predecessors and successors took for granted that such a reading was
allegorical and never literal. Yet as the following examination suggests, this predominant view
underwent drastic change in the High and late Middle Ages, as both dimensions (i.e. moral
and political) to the Injunctions meaning were incorporated into a working formula for
ecclesiastical authority.

Medieval interpretations
Given this established ecclesiastical tradition, an interpretive shift occurred in the ninth century,
when the Injunction of Jeremiah gained a powerful church reforming value and a rhetorical outlet.
The moral authority of its message transcended the exclusively scriptural and patristic basis
summarised above, with its classical emphasis on vice and virtue; its political use became
increasingly recognised and applied to contemporary historical events within the Roman
Church and its papacy. Transitioning from a moral to political character did not supplant the
mainstream interpretations of Origen, Jerome or Cassian, but rather inspired a practical use for
the Injunction. The changing way in which the verse was applied is most pronounced in a
socio-political setting, where already by the rst half of the ninth century its moral imperative
carried additional weight, meaning and contemporary purpose. In the preface to a council held
in 82930 at the monastery of St Denis (in the ecclesiastical province of Rheims), for
example, the Injunction was cited in relation to reforming the lapsed practices of the
Benedictine rule.29 According to the extant conciliar account, vices were to be plucked out
before the planting of virtue could begin. Following what is now a familiar analogy, praise
was given for the Carolingian emperor, Louis the Pious (r.81440), who as the source relates
had always striven to accomplish these precise objectives: that is, he continually sought to
improve his kingdom by eradicating harm (noxius) and planting virtue (incrementa), all the
while representing the will of God and the Roman Church through his every action. While
reminiscent of Origens interpretation in the mid-third century, a novel element to the
Injunction was introduced here through the kings role as a moral reformer in Christian society.
This political dimension to Jeremiah served medieval ecclesiastical writers well. As a
monastery dedicated to the Franks, imperial authority played a central role in the discipline
and direction of this particular monastic house. The moral lesson of Jeremiah served as an
exemplary model of Carolingian monastic reform, in a recognised period of renewal or
Renaissance, where uniformity of religious practice and doctrine was being enforced
throughout the Frankish kingdom. While never shedding its gurative context, in the hands of
cunning ecclesiastical authorities the expression could also serve to admonish the intended
audience wherever necessary. Take, as a complementary example, Pope Nicholas Is lengthy
letter to the Byzantine emperor Michael in 866, which employed the Injunction in the ongoing Photian Schism a prolonged conict of succession to the patriarchate of
Constantinople for which the emperor was held accountable.30 Pleading with Michael to
28

Augustine of Hippo, De doctrina Christiana, eds. Daur and Martin, 88 (Lib.3, c.11, lines 202).
A. Werminghoff, ed., Concilia aevi Karolini. MGH Concilia 2, part 2 (Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii
Hahniani, 1908), 6834.
30
Pope Nicholas I, Epistolae, ed. E. Perels. MGH Epistolae 6 (Berlin: apud Weidmannos, 1925), 509 (Ep.
90).
29

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

114

K. Rennie

resolve the dispute once and for all, and recommending that he put matters of the Church above all
else, the pope strongly urged the emperor to heed the words spoken to Jeremiah (1:10). According
to Nicholas, it fell within the emperors ministry of power (imperio vestro ministerio) to destroy
and pull down the arguments of the devil and the machinations of all his members, because that
which is derived from Photius germinates evil buds, whereas the deposed and papal-supported
patriarch (Ignatius) presented more honourable virtues.31 This exing of papal muscle was
presumably a deliberate political manoeuvre, an example of Romes capacity to exercise its
authority over the eastern half of the Roman Empire.
Providing more than a reminder of moral and reforming responsibilities, however, the
Injunction also helped validate the papacys reach to the threshold of Christendom. Writing to
Emperor Basil in 878, Pope John VIII (87282) commended his legates, Bishops Paul and
Eugenius, as counsellors of the Roman Church, agents of representation replete with manifest
faith and knowledge.32 Excusing his absence from attending to the matter personally, the pope
relied wholeheartedly on these men as his direct representatives from Rome, papal legates
whom he entrusted in writing with mandates for peace and an end to on-going scandals
(scandala) in the Constantinopolitan church. Signicantly, Johns description of the troubles
between eastern and western churches described the burden (onera) of protection that formed
part of St Peters solicitude i.e. his jurisdiction over both spiritual and temporal matters
throughout Christendom. To justify, clarify and emphasise the root of such powers and their
scriptural foundation, he cited the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah on the matter of uprooting
and destroying, building and planting (1:10). Taking the theme of mediator between heaven
and earth one step further, however, John described a causal transference of Gods authority to
his legates e latere (that is, from the popes side), to these hand-picked men commissioned to
deal with troubles where they might exist. The reason impelling this direct connection between
prophet-pope-legate was stated simply: in order to destroy, scatter and break down the roots of
evil before initiating the process of rebuilding.33
This literal interpretation of Jeremiah 1:10 marks a fundamental shift in medieval political
thought. As a novel expression of universal Roman authority, its innovation must be attributed
to John VIII, who translated it into a formal expression of papal power. Building on scriptural
and early church foundations, the historical, moral and spiritual meaning of this Old Testament
passage was cultivated for its political claims to Roman supremacy and authority. The inherent
themes of destruction and renewal lent themselves well to contemporary political and
reforming ambitions of the Roman Church and its government from the ninth century onward.
Thereafter, the Injunction became a modied theorem to suit the papacys growing political
interests and needs throughout Christendom an imprimatur that inspired medieval popes and
church ofcials over subsequent centuries. That John VIII equated this Biblical verse with
papal powers was seemingly unprecedented, a strategy that supports Walter Ullmanns long-

Pope Nicholas I, Epistolae, ed. Perels, 510 (Ep. 90): omnes argumentationes diabolicas et omnia
membrorum eius machinamenta et praecipue illa, quae per Photium a orta sunt, male pullulantia germina;
aedices autem et plantes cunctarum virtutum raoenia et honestorum odoriua morum aromata, immo
quaecumque per vos de fratris et coepiscopi nostri Ignatii sunt dignitate destructa et de his, quae ad
ofcium patriarchale pertinent, a persona qualibet irreverenter evulsa.
32
Pope John VIII, Registrum, ed. P. Kehr. MGH Epistolae 7 (Berlin: apud Weidmannos, 1928), 645
(Ep. 69).
33
A canon attributed to Pope Boniface VIII in the Liber Sextus (1.15.2), in Corpus iuris canonici,
ed. E. Friedberg. 2 vols. (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 187981), vol. 2, repeats the papal legates duty embodied
in this Injunction, which near the turn of the fourteenth century served to extend papal power over
various Christian provinces.
31

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

Journal of Medieval History

115

established view of the ninth century as experiencing a considerable deepening of the papalhierocratic theme.34 While many of Ullmanns views are open to criticism and revision, much
truth remains in his visionary portrait of papal government in the Middle Ages as one body
corporate and politic.35 The fact is that under John VIII, the respublica Christiana was truly
born, in no small part due to conscious assertions about Romes centralised role in governing
the community of Christian faithful. What emerged after centuries of internal development was
thus a universal Roman Church, a principatus over all nations of the world36 that formed
the unifying principle of the many nations which acknowledge it as their mother and head.37
And signicantly for medieval debates between church and state, the burden of responsibility
in both spiritual and temporal matters was entrusted to the care of the pope,38 whose
rhetorical ammunition for asserting pre-eminence throughout Christian society was gaining
traction.
Overall, the development of this political idea in the High Middle Ages helped furnish a
deeper justication for the popes claims to centralised and legitimate authority throughout
Christendom. Forming a new part of the ecclesiastical arsenal, the Injunction of Jeremiah
offered medieval popes a partial solution to the increasingly complex rhetoric of debate
between ecclesiastical and secular authorities. The asserted connection between medieval
popes and Jeremiah helps explain this broader political and reforming framework. According
to Ullmann, the prophet Jeremiah became the spiritual as well as temporal overlord39 an
historical interpretation that differs signicantly from the traditional Old Testament and early
church understanding provided above. For Ullmann, the same plenitude of power must be
conceded to the pope since he is the summus sacerdos. Here, the ofce of bishop
(sacerdos) is understood as equivalent to prophet (propheta), an assumption of rank that is
nowhere explicitly dened in Christian Scripture or early ecclesiastical writings. Nevertheless,
a creative leap was taken in the ninth century whereby the idea of mediation between God and
Jeremiah was likened to the Roman bishops authority over the entire Church. This theory of
power and governance helped strengthen the Churchs position in the long-standing debate
surrounding papal (i.e. Roman) primacy, which experienced a revival in the second half of the
ninth century.
The direct transference of authority was vital to this interpretation. Jeremiah 1:10 presented
yet another example of delegated spiritual powers, on this occasion from God to his prophet,
from Jeremiah to the Apostle Peter, from Peter to successive Roman bishops, and when
necessary from these popes to their representatives throughout Christendom. The concept
rst applied by John VIII had ostensibly matured by the second half of the eleventh century,
when Pope Gregory VII (107385) articulated the Injunction of Jeremiah with more nesse,
strength and apparent understanding of its power than his papal predecessor. This marked
development suggests considerable ideological advancement since the texts introduction as a
political and reforming tool in the second half of the ninth century. On one occasion in March
1075, when addressing Archbishop Werner of Magdeburg, Gregory cited the Injunction in
relation to the on-going problem of clerical chastity in Germany;

34

Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen, 1955), 219.
Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 224.
36
Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 219.
37
Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 219; cf. Pope John VIII, Registrum, ed. Kehr, 1589 (Ep. 198) for
the contemporary version of this vision.
38
Ullmann, Growth of Papal Government, 219; cf. Pope John VIII, Registrum, ed. Kehr, 323 (Ep. 8).
39
Walter Ullmann, A Medieval Document on Theories of Papal Government, English Historical Review 61
(1946): 187.
35

116

K. Rennie

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

In order to preach and more zealously to drive home the chastity of clerics, you sound more stridently
and more urgently with the priestly horn, until you shatter and undermine the walls of Jericho, that is,
the workings of revolts and the pollutions of lthy lust, as was said to the prophet, I have today set
you over peoples and over kingdoms, so that you may uproot and destroy and scatter, and build and
plant.40

In a letter commending Bishop Landulf of Pisa to the Corsicans (September 1077), moreover, the
political power of Jeremiah gains further contemporary perspective. Unable to visit the region
personally, the pope lamented the absence of his direct authority over the Mediterranean island.
Fearing negligence and the general welfare of Christian souls, Gregory sent Landulf as his legate,
to whom we have also committed power on our behalf among you, so that, duly pursuing the
things that belong to the order of sacred religion, he may, in the prophets words, uproot and
destroy, build and plant.41 While in practice the authority bestowed to Gregorys legate was
conditional on his reception by the Corsicans, it was inconceivable that the papal authority
enjoined on Landulf would ever be contested or ignored; this assumption rings even truer given
the legates explicitly established connection to the bishop of Rome, St Peter, the prophet
Jeremiah and God respectively. In this case, this Old Testament narrative reinforced the
foundational authority of papal representation, the full thrust of which relied on the transference
of powers from the divine to earthly realms and an implicit obedience to the centre in Rome.
The connection to ecclesiastical reform and renewal is clear in this application. For the last
quarter of the eleventh century, the papacys modus operandi for eliminating the abuses of
simony, nicolaitism and lay investiture suitably invoked the call narrative of Jeremiah as a
contemporary strategy for church and societal reform. Addressing the bishop-elect of Pisa
directly about his appointment to the episcopate, Gregory VII cited the Injunction of Jeremiah
one last time. On this occasion in November 1078, the popes detailed commissioning leaves
little to the imagination. Presiding over the island of Corsica, Landulf and his successors were
enjoined to instruct the bishops, clergy, and people of the island in all things that seem to
belong to the Christian religion and conrm them in purity of life, according to the prophetic
word that you should root up and destroy, build and plant.42 To protect and uphold the rights
and privileges of St Peter, which served as the basis for Landulfs appointment as the papal
vicariate over Corsica, Gregory called to mind the Book of Jeremiah as a main authority.43
This strategy certainly formed part of the papacys standing concern to secure obedience,

40

Pope Gregory VII, Das Register Gregors VII., ed. E. Caspar. MGH Epistolae Selectae 2 (Berlin:
Weidmannschen Buchhandlung, 19203); English translation by H.E.J. Cowdrey, The Register of Pope
Gregory VII (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 2.68: Quam ob rem fraternitati tu apostolica
auctoritate iniungimus atque precipimus, ut ad castitatem clericorum predicandam et studiosius
inculcandam bucina sacerdotali vehementius et instantius instrepas, donec Iericho muros, id est
defectionis opera et sordide libidinis pollutiones, dissipes et subvertas, sicut ad prophetam: Posui te
hodie super gentes et super regna, ut evellas et destruas et disperdas et dissipes et dices et plantes.
41
Pope Gregory VII, Das Register, ed. Caspar, 5.2: data primum oportunitate misimus ad vos hunc
fratrem nostrum Landolfum Pisan ecclesi electum episcopum, cui et vicem nostram in vobis
commisimus, ut ea, qu ad ordinem sacr religionis pertinent, rite exequens iuxta prophet dictum
evellat et destruat, dicet et plantet.
42
Pope Gregory VII, Das Register, ed. Caspar, 6.12: Preterea dei et religionis tu gratum in te fructum
exuberare cognoscentes committimus tibi tuisque successoribus vicem nostram in Corsica insula, si
tamen ipsi consensu Romani ponticis et electione Pisani populi ita canonice intraverint, sicut te constat
intrasse, ut, secundum quod Deus ibi tradidit, qu ad christianam religionem pertinere videntur, vigilanti
studio episcopos clericos populumque eiusdem insul doceas atque morum honestate conrmes, iuxta
propheticum sermonem ut evellas et destruas, edices et plantes.
43
Cf. H.E.J. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 10731085 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 2789.

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

Journal of Medieval History

117

reform and good order of the churches of Corsica and Sardinia.44 More broadly interpreted, it
could be argued that the papacy applied the Injunction to legitimise its right of interference
over this region.
The juridical dimension to this Injunction continued to develop in the twelfth century. Indeed,
its application can be witnessed rst hand in the tribulations of Archbishop Thomas Becket of
Canterbury (116270), whose constitutional dispute with King Henry II of England (r.115489)
famously disrupted the English government and ecclesiastical see of Canterbury. Reecting on
this subject to Archdeacon Baldwin of Totnes, the contemporary political theorist and secretary
to the archbishop of Canterbury, John of Salisbury (112080), lamented more generally on
the desolation of the Church in the English realm.45 Stressing the cause of liberty and
creed of religious life, John called to mind the Injunction of Jeremiah as justication for the
archbishop of Canterburys actions in his dispute with the king. Having rejected the judgement
seat (cf. Deut. 17:812), Thomas was said to have made no exception from the judgement of
the priests for any case or any person, even though the priests determine some themselves and
some by means of ministers, the Churchs vicars.46 While the Old Testament in general
provided ample testimony for his position, John recalled the narrative of Jeremiah in particular
as representing the priesthood for this the doctors of the Church have reliably handed down.47
The Injunctions political dimension ran parallel to such an argument. In his Policraticus
(written c.1159), the theme of uprooting and destroying assailed tyranny, whose origin is
iniquity and it sprouts forth from the poisonous and pernicious root of evil and its tree is to be
cut down by an axe anywhere it grows.48 Turning his exposition from the prince to the priest
of the episcopate (i.e. the pope), John of Salisbury here presented an untainted portrait of the
Roman Church, which he deemed cannot be judged and censured by men.49 The tyranny of
priests, however a problem all too familiar for the Middle Ages is linked with the
character of a thief: he who walks through the door opened by Christ, that is, one who is
called to the Church, and who thereafter is made into a persecutor under the pretext of a
shepherd, that is, plunders, destroys, kills and corrupts 50 Those who are promoted to the
Church in this contrary fashion, the treatise continued, strive to pull up what they nd planted,
so that they may build the house of the Lord themselves by means of the presents offered

44

Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 278.

W.J. Millor and C.N.L. Brooke, eds., The Letters of John of Salisbury, vol. 2, The Later Letters (1163
1180) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 231 (Ep. 187); cf. J.P. Migne, ed., Joannis Saresberiensis
episcopi Carnotensis Epistolae. PL 199 (Paris: Garnier, 1855), col. 206 (Ep. 193): Amicis ergo
compatimur, et Ecclesiae desolationem in regno Anglorum ingemiscimus.
46
Millor and Brooke, eds., Letters of John of Salisbury, 2: 2423; cf. Migne, ed., Joannis Saresberiensis
episcopi Carnotensis Epistolae. PL 199, col. 210 (Ep. 193): Ecce quod a judicio sacerdotum nec causam
excipit, nec personam, licet alias per se ipsos, alias per ministros vicarios Ecclesiae decidant sacerdotes.
47
Millor and Brooke, eds., Letters of John of Salisbury, 2: 2423; cf. Migne, ed., Joannis Saresberiensis
episcopi Carnotensis Epistolae. PL 199, col. 210 (Ep. 193): Nonne in persona sacerdotum, sicut
Ecclesiae doctores deliter tradunt, Jeremiae dictum est: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna, ut
evellas, et disperdas, et dissipes, et aedices, et plantes.
48
John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. C.C.J. Webb. 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), 2: 345 (Lib. 8,
c.17): Origo tiranni iniquitas est et de radice toxicata mala et pestifera germinat et pullulat arbor securi
qualibet succidenda.
49
John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. Webb, 2: 354 (Lib. 8, c.17): Ecclesiam Romanam, quae parens
auctore Deo et nutricula dei et morum est et non potest ab homine iudicari et argui celesti privilegio
munita, relinquo intactam
50
John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. Webb, 2: 357 (Lib. 8, c.17): Qui vero Christo aperiente ostium, id est
Ecclesia vocante, ingreditur, et postmodum sub umbra pastoris efcitur persecutor, id est spoliat mactat
occidit et perdit, fur indubitatus est.
45

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

118

K. Rennie

from the hand or the tongue of obedience; or they substitute the uprooted plants for those which
they select out of carnal affection, that is, either their offspring or the offspring of the esh of
someone other than themselves.51 Just as Pope Gregory VII exploited the Injunction to
combat rampant clerical abuses, so too did John of Salisbury apply it as a reforming dictum
with direct relevance to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of his day.
As a reforming device, the Injunction of Jeremiah functioned also as a mirror onto medieval society.
In his treatise Adversus Iudeorum, the esteemed Abbot Peter the Venerable of Cluny (c.10921156)
expounded from the Old Testament text in detail, aiming to reveal messages within Christian
Scripture that Jews were either refusing or ignoring.52 Addressing Pope Eugenius III (114553) on
another occasion, the abbot recognised the strength and weaknesses of churches and prelates under
Romes sollicitudo, making particular reference to the popes possessing the material (i.e. temporal)
sword, which gave the Church its powers over secular rulers.53 Elaborating on Jeremiah 1:10,
which is cited explicitly in this context as justication for the Roman Churchs right to use coercive
force over individuals and churches, Peter went on to say that whatever he is unable to kill, he is
able to root out. And furthermore, if he is not able to kill, he is able to destroy.54 In other words,
according to Peter the Venerables position, the Roman Church and its papacy were empowered and
obligated through divine Scripture, prophecy and historical precedent to act forcefully and in
good measure in all matters affecting the welfare of Christendom. The duties and responsibilities of
papal ofce, in matters of political and spiritual relevance, were captured in this Old Testament
metaphor and its contemporary twelfth-century meaning.
That medieval society needed constant planting, weeding and sowing is a familiar theme in
the Churchs institutional history. In the hierocratic theme of descending ecclesiastical
government, it is a truism that select individuals were more responsible than others for
maintaining right order in society. As the summus sacerdos, the pope naturally carried the
heaviest burden of all and was consequently held under closer scrutiny. Following Peter
Abelards show trial at the council of Sens and subsequent appeal to Rome in 1140, Bernard
of Clairvaux (10901153) asked Pope Innocent II rhetorically: Did not God set you up over
nations and kingdoms when you were yet small in your own eyes? And for what other
purpose than that you should pull up and destroy, build and plant?55 In a truly provocative
address, the Cistercian abbot emphasised the popes primary obligation in cases of heresy and
schism, tasked by God to exterminate the foxes that are destroying the vine of the Lord, while
they are yet young.56 Indeed, as the abbot went on to explain in more detail, Innocents very
purpose as successor to St Peter was measured by his ability to protect the Christian faithful:

John of Salisbury, Policraticus, ed. Webb, 2: 357 (Lib. 8, c.17): Quae ergo plantata invenerunt, nituntur
avellere, ut edicent sibi domum Domini in muneribus manus aut linguae aut obsequii, aut eos substituant
explantatis quos eligit affectio carnis, id est aut genitos a se aut sibi ab aliis carnaliter genitos.
52
Peter the Venerable, Adversus Iudeorum inveteratam duritiem, ed. Y. Friedman. CCCM 58 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 1985), 184 (c.5).
53
Giles Constable, ed., The Letters of Peter the Venerable. 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1967), 2: 415 (Ep. 174).
54
Constable, ed., Letters of Peter the Venerable, 2: 415 (Ep. 174).
55
Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae, in S. Bernardi abbatis primi Clarae-Vallensis, Opera omnia, ed. J.-P.
Migne. PL 182 (Paris: Garnier, 1854), col. 356 (Ep. 189, par. 5): Nonne cum esses parvulus in oculis tuis,
ipse te constituit super gentes et regna? Ad quid, nisi ut evellas, et destruas, et aedices et plantes?
56
Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae, ed. Migne. PL 182, col. 356 (Ep. 189, par. 5): Itaque ad
consummationem virtutum, et ne quid minus fecisse inveniamini a magnis episcopis antecessoribus
vestris, capite nobis, Pater amantissime, vulpes quae demoliuntur vineam Domini, donec parvulae sunt:
ne, si crescant et multiplicentur, quidquid talium per vos non fuerit exterminatum, a posteris desperetur.
51

Journal of Medieval History

119

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

Consider, I beg you, how much he has done for you who took you from your fathers house and
anointed you with the oil of mercy; how much for his Church, by means of you; how many things
in the eld of the Lord, heaven and earth being witnesses, have been powerfully and wholesomely
pulled up and destroyed; how many things have been well and truly built, planted, and propagated
57

In his De consideratione, written between 1149 and 1153, Bernard ruminated on why
Eugenius III had been elected to the supreme ponticate. Examining the Roman ofces
main purpose, the abbot explicitly concluded: not, in my opinion, to rule. For the prophet
[Jeremiah], when he was raised to a similar position, heard, So that you can root up and
destroy, plunder and put to ight, build and plant.58 As the abbot explained, the pontiffs
role was to follow the prophets example directly, to preside not so much in order to
command as to do what the time requires. Learn that you need a hoe, not a sceptre, to do the
work of the prophet. Indeed, he did not rise up to reign, but to root out.59 The argument
presented here was presumably intended to remind the pope about his inherited spiritual
responsibility and labour, distinguishing clearly between his ministry through the episcopal
ofce and the concept of dominion, which is forbidden for Apostles.60
This veiled critique of the papal ofce and its incumbent ostensibly suited the abbots more
immediate purpose. He employed a similar stratagem concerning the old quarrel between the
archbishops of Canterbury and York. Reminding Pope Eugenius about his spiritual obligations,
the need for courage and strength, and summoning the collective memory of the men who
preceded him to the apostolic see, Bernard drew once again from the Injunction of Jeremiah to
deliver his message forcefully and clearly. Employing the language of reform by calling for a
return to the ideal apostolic Church, Bernard hoped that Eugenius would live up to the
universal task:
This is what the sons of your mother, both young and old, hope and sigh for, so that every tree your
father has not planted may be torn down with your own hands. You have been set up over peoples and
kingdoms for this purpose, to pull up and to destroy. Many said when they heard of your election:
Now the axe is laid to the tree. Many said in their hearts: At home the owers have begun to
blossom, the pruning time has come; the dead branches will be cut away so that those which are
left may bear more abundant fruit.61

Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae, ed. Migne. PL 182, col. 356 (Ep. 189, par. 5): Qui ergo tulit te de domo
patris tui, et unxit te unctione misericordiae suae, attende, quaeso, ex tunc et deinceps, quanta fecit animae
tuae; quanta per te Ecclesiae suae, quanta in agro dominico, coelo et terra testibus, tam potenter quam
salubriter evulsa sunt et destructa; quanta rursum bene aedicata, plantata, propagata.
58
Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione libri quinque ad Eugenium tertium, in S. Bernardi abbatis primi
Clarae-Vallensis, Opera omnia, ed. Migne. PL 182, col. 747 (Lib. 2, c.VI.9): Non enim ad dominandum
opinor. Nam et propheta, cum similiter levaretur, audivit: Ut evellas et destruas, et disperdas et dissipes,
et aedices et plantes.
59
Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione, ed. Migne. PL 182, col. 747 (Lib. 2, c.VI.9): Disce exemplo
prophetico praesidere non tam ad imperitandum, quam ad factitandum quod tempus requirit. Disce sarculo
tibi opus esse, non sceptro, ut opus facias prophetae. Et quidem ille non regnaturus ascendit, sed
exstirpaturus.
60
Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione, ed. Migne. PL 182, col. 748 (Lib. 2, c.VI.10).
61
Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistolae, ed. Migne. PL 182, col. 430 (Ep. 238, par. 6): hoc lii matris tuae,
pusilli cum majoribus desiderant, hoc suspirant: ut omnis plantatio, quam non plantavit Pater coelestis,
tuis manibus eradicetur. Ad hoc enim constitutus es super gentes et regna, ut evellas, et destruas; et
aedices, et plantes. Multi audito hoc verbo dixerunt apud se: Jam securis ad radicem arborum posita est.
Multi dicunt in corde suo: Flores apparuerunt in terra nostra, tempus putationis advenit, in quo sarmenta
sterilia recidentur, ut ea quae praevalent, uberius fructum afferant.
57

120

K. Rennie

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

These few examples notwithstanding, it was seldom necessary to remind medieval popes about
the obligations of their ofce. Building on a precedent established in the canonical collections
of Anselm of Lucca (Collectio canonum, c.1083), Ivo of Chartres (Decretum, c.1093) and
Gratian (c.1140), Pope Innocent III (11981216) understood well his election as summum
ecclesiae sacerdotium.62 On the day of his inauguration (22 February 1198), he preached to
those who had gathered for his consecration at St Peters basilica. In reference to his new
position, the pope described himself as patriarch over the family, referring here to the
individuals comprising the growing body politic of the Roman Church. It is to the great praise
of the powerful Lord that he does his will through a vile servant, he continued,
so that nothing is ascribed to human virtue but everything is attributed to divine power. For who am I,
or what was the house of my father, that I should sit above kings and occupy the throne of glory? For
me it is said to the prophet, I have instituted you over peoples and kingdoms to root up and pull down,
to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant. [Jer. 1:10] For me it is said to the apostle, I will
give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in
heaven, and whatever you bind in heaven shall be bound also on earth But when he spoke to Peter
alone he said universally, Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you bind
in heaven will be bound on earth [Matt. 16:19-20], since Peter is able to bind others, but he cannot be
bound by others. He said, I will call you Cephas [John 1:42], which means head, since the plenitude
of all the sense is concentrated in the head while in the other members there is some part of the
plenitude. So others have been called to a share of the solicitude, but only Peter has been assumed
to the plenitude of power.63

Notwithstanding their deceptively subtle assertions, the ideas found in this consecratory sermon
epitomise papal power for the Middle Ages. Reference to the Roman bishops plena potestas
illustrates a thoroughly considered legal opinion for governing Christendom, a formula based
on Roman law with wider implications for procedural and jurisdictional privileges.64 Going
beyond an explicit connection between the apostolic see and the prophet Jeremiah, moreover,
Innocent linked the Injunction with the long-standing foundation of papal authority derived
from Matthew 16:1920. He then connected these Old and New Testament passages with a
further allusion to John 1:42, which was intended to declare the popes plenitude of power
(plenitudo potestatis) as inherent in the papal ofce. Although deriving from heaven, the
fundamental basis of such authority was appreciated as owing nothing to human virtue.

62
Gratian, Decretum Magistri Gratiani, in Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1: D.36 c.2; cf. Anselm
of Lucca, Collectio canonum, ed. F. Thaner (Aalen: Scientia, 1965), 282 (6.28); Ivo of Chartres, Decretum,
ed. M. Brett, V.102, at http://project.knowledgeforge.net/ivo/decretum.html (Accessed 19 August 2013).
63
Pope Innocent III, Sermones de diversis, in Innocentii III Romani ponticis Opera omnia, ed. J.P.
Migne. PL 217 (Paris: Garnier, 1889), col. 657 (Sermo II): Verum ad magnam potentis Domini laudem
accedit, quod per vilem servum suum beneplacitum operatur, ut nihil ascribatur humanae virtuti, sed
totum attribuatur divinae potentiae. Quis autem sum ego, aut quae domus patris mei, ut sedeam
excellentior regibus et solium gloriae teneam Mihi namque dicitur in Propheta: Constitui te super gentes
et regna, ut evellas et destruas et disperdas et dissipes, et aedices et plantes. Mihi quoque dicitur in
Apostolo: Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum, et quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in
coelis, etc. Cum omnibus apostolis loqueretur, particulariter dixit: Quorum remiseritis peccata,
remittuntur eis, et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt. Cum autem soli Petro loqueretur, universaliter ait:
Quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, etc.; quia Petrus ligare potest caeteros, sed
ligari non potest a caeteris. Tu, inquit, vocaberis Cephas quod exponitur caput; quia sicut in capite
consistit omnium sensuum plenitudo, in caeteris autem membris pars est aliqua plenitudinis: ita caeteri
vocati sunt in partem sollicitudinis, solus autem Petrus assumptus est in plenitudinem potestatis.
64
See Gaines Post, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 11001322 (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964), 92102.

Journal of Medieval History

121

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

Whereas Matthew provided the familiar framework of apostolic inheritance, the Injunction of
Jeremiah translated its concept into practice. The legal elaboration achieved under Innocent III
effectively championed the popes power over secular rulers, establishing a potent legal
precedent reiterated very clearly in the early fourteenth century. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII
(12941303), who was engaged in an intense political dispute with King Philip IV of France
(r.12851314) that eventually led to the Babylonian Captivity of the popes in Avignon,
issued his famous bull Unam sanctam, which cited explicitly from the Injunction of Jeremiah
while offering one of the best elaborations on its contemporary interpretation to date.
Commenting on the right order of spiritual and temporal power, with clear references to the
papacys privileges of government and nance, Boniface declared that
it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been
good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical
power: Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms [Jer. 1:10] and the rest.
Therefore, if the terrestrial power errs, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor
spiritual power errs, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all
errs, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle:
The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man [1 Cor. 2:15]. This
authority, however, though it has been given to man and is exercised by man, is not human but
rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reafrmed to him [Peter] and his successors
by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, Whatsoever you shall bind
on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven etc., [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power
thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom. 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus
two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of
Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen.
1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we dene, we proclaim that it is absolutely necessary for salvation
that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.65

Few examples rival this pinnacle statement on medieval papal power. Evoking sovereign
claims of papal obedience and authority, Bonifaces ponticate marked what F. M. Powicke
has rightly dubbed the culmination of medieval papalism.66 In the execution of justice and
administering of Christian provinces, the ecclesiastical prevailed over the temporal world, an
assertion of explicit value owing directly to the inheritance of divine (i.e. Petrine) powers. The
combination in this papal letter of Old Testament (Jer. 1:10) and New Testament (Matt. 16:19)
passages served once again to reinforce the papacys ultimate responsibility for uprooting and
destroying, building and planting.

65
G. Digard, ed., Les registres de Boniface VIII. Bibliothque des coles franaises dAthnes et de Rome,
2nd series, 4. 4 vols. (Paris: E. Thorin and others, 18841939), 3: 88890, no. 5382: Nam veritate testante,
spiritualis potestas terrenem potestatem instituere habet et judicare, si bona non fuerit, sic de Ecclesia et
ecclesiastica potestate vericatur vaticinium Hieremiae, Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna, et
caetera quae sequuntur. Ergo si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali, sed si deviat
spiritualis minor a suo superiori: si vero suprema, a solo Deo, non ab homine poterit judicari, testante
Apostolo, Spiritualis homo judicat omnia, ipse autem a nemine judicatur. Est autem haec auctoritas,
etsi data sit homini et exerceatur per hominem, non humana, sed potius divina, ore divino Petro data,
sibique suisque successoribus in ipso, quem confessus fuit petra rmata, dicente Domino ipsi Petro,
Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatae resistit; Dei ordinationi
resistit, nisi duo sicut Manichaeus ngat esse principia: quod falsum et haereticum [esse] judicamus: quia
testante Moyse, non in principiis, sed in principio coelum Deus creavit et terram. Porro subesse Romano
Pontici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, denimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de
necessitate salutis.
66
F.M. Powicke, The Culmination of Medieval Papalism, in Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII: State vs.
Papacy, ed. Charles T. Wood (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), 102.

122

K. Rennie

Downloaded by [Ume University Library] at 02:56 06 September 2014

According to medieval arguments on papal supremacy, the prophecy of Jeremiah was fullled
in the fourteenth century. The spiritual and governmental power to institute (instituere) over
nations and kingdoms was considered to be of divine origin, a revelation of faith that through
repeated assertion helped explain the basis of divine powers from which the Roman bishop
ruled. By this argument, the authority to judge transcended to the temporal world through and
from Peter and his successors.67 A far cry from its early church meaning, therefore, the
Injunction of Jeremiah more than justied the foundations of papal authority; it distinguished
very clearly between spiritualia and temporalia, setting these two interwoven realms in sharp
relief while promoting the papacys right to exercise dominion over Christian society. The
derivation of this jurisdictional and administrative power was marshalled in contemporary
applications of the Old Testament Injunction, which from the ninth century onward had
developed into a leading idiom for medieval papal power and politics.
Acknowledgements
The bulk of this article was written during a Visiting Fellowship at Clare Hall, Cambridge, in the second half
of 2012. Its argument and focus was vastly improved thanks to the close reading of my colleague, Associate
Professor Rick Strelan, in addition to the two anonymous reviewers.

Kriston Rennie is a Senior Lecturer in Medieval History at the University of Queensland. He specialises in
church councils, canon law and the history of papal legation, with a particular interest in France during the
eleventh and twelfth centuries. He is the author of The Foundations of Medieval Papal Legation
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), The Collectio Burdegalensis: A Study and Register of an
Eleventh-Century Canon Law Collection (Toronto: Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2013) and
Law and Practice in the Age of Reform: the Legatine Work of Hugh of Die (10731106) (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2010).

67

See T.S.R. Boase, The Popes Political Dynamite, in Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII, ed. Wood, 58.