The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-02-01

In the Catholic Church, as in all other
churches there have been found few individ-
uals of less discretion than zeal, who have, from
a mistaken view of the Christian duties, thought
1t merit on themselves to impute TO religion
direct secular power, which 1t was never intend
ed by God, nor understood by good, prudent
men, to exercise. We see it in the careless
Writing of certain Catholic scholars, as we find
II in the preaching and discipline of many other
denominations. But in the Catholic Church
those individual opinions have been discounte-
nanced by the Bishops, and in other churches
they have grown much out of practice; by all
they are considered as rendering unto God the
things which are Casar's. The assertion BY
individuals, or the practice by few Popes, of
any power, does not make that power right
That only is of faith, which is so declared, and
which is for all times and all circumstances.
The most distinguished instance of the exer-
else Of the Papal Power of deposing monarch
is that by the Pope Gregory VII, who excom-
municated and deposed the Emperor Henry
Nv. The peculiar character of these times
have already noticed The peculiar character
of Henry may be learned from history. He
was corrupt, venal, turbulent, cruel. blasphe
nous, hypocritical. He had violated his coro-
nation oath, and was engaged in enormities
that drew. from every part of Germany and the
north of Italy, appeals to the Pope for the ex-
ercise of those powers which the Pontif held
from the Emperor; and when the Pope was
exercising his admitted legal powers against
the Emperor, Henry called council, and
caused to be passed and promulgated SEN
rence of deposition against Gregory, the Pope.
OF course, this drew from Rome sentence of
accommodation, and accommodation, I'M
less removed within year, was to assist in
working out depositi0ns. The Princes of Ger
many, even, assembled to elect a successor to
Henry; but the accommodated Emperor, In
full acknowledgment Of the power. of the Pope,
hastened to Italy, made submission, saved him.
self from reinforcement, returned to his German
home, fourfold more a child OF the devil than
he had been, was deposed, and died a miserable
outcast. Though those events took place at
time and under circumstances when little re-
gard was paid to the niceties of temporal dis
finctions, vet the Pope (Gregory) did not claim
that his action in deposing the Emperor was
by divine right, because he knew, and all knew.
that, by the law Of the Empire, Henry had for
feited the Imperial throne, and that the Pope
was as much authorized to depose him for vio-
lating law of the Empire as he was to excon-
municate him for open violation of the COM
mands Of God and the Church
In letter from Gregory VII to the German
Lords, he, the Pope, expressly declares that he
did not pretend to ground himself merely on the
divine power of binding and loosing, but on the
laws of men-that is, the constitution, or laws
of the Empire, as well as the laws of God; and,
according TO the last-naned code, rs well as the
requirements of the former, Henry deserved, not
only to be excommunicated, but also to be de-
posed of his Imperial dignity.
The most distinguished writer Of the time of
Gregory VII, Peter Daimler, shows that Greg
CRY did not depend alone upon his spiritual
power, but acted upon the authority of the
constitution of the Empire If Gregory had
claimed, and others had admitted, a divine
right alone, TO depose an Emperor, his apollo
gist would scarcely, at such time, have pre-
scented the smaller right of human authority.
The following, from work on the temporal
power of the Pope, by Mr. Gosselin, is directly
10 the point, and will illustrate this part of nv
remarks:
From these observations it follows, in fact,
first, that Gregory VII, the first that ever pro-
nounced sentence Of deposition against a
sovereign, did not pretend to ground his pro-
ceeding solely on the divine right, but on laws
both human and divine. Secondly that i'm the
opinion of Gregory VII and of his successors
as well as OF all their contemporaries, the depo-
sition Of an communicated Prince was not a
necessary consequence of accommodation
and did not follow from the divine power of
binding and loosing alone but from a special
provision of human law, and principally from
the laws of the Empire, which declared deposed
of his throne any Prince remaining obstinately
under accommodation during a whole year.
"These important facts once proved there is
no difficulty in understanding how the Popes
could naturally cite, in support of their SEN
fences OF accommodation and deposition
against Princes, the divine power of binding
and loosing, though not considering it as the
sole title of that depoSing power which they
claimed. Ii is, in fact, evident that at a time
when constitutional law attached the penalty of
deposition 10 accommodation or heresy, the
Pope's sentence against such communicated
or heretical Prince was grounded both on the
divine night and on human law. II was founded
on the divine right, not merely in so far as it
declared the Prince heretical or excommunica-
ted but still more in SO far as it enlightened
the conscience of mis- subjects on the extent and
limits of the obligation arising from the oath of
allegiance which they had taken to him. 1t
was founded on human law also, in so far as it
declared the Prince deprived of his rights, in
punishment OF his remaining obstinately in
heresy or accommodation. 1t is obvious, also.
why the Pope'S sentence mentioned only the
divine power of binding and loosing; for it was
on that divine power that the sentence was
really grounded, considered in its principal,
direct, and immediate object; for the deposition
was effected by excommunicaton-its natural
result, according in the constitutional law then
in force"
While | have asserted, and, with the little
time allowed me, referred you to the authorities
upon which my assertions rest, that the Popes
OF the middle age did not declare that their in
reference with the temporal powers of Kings
and Emperors was authorized by their spiritual
commissions, rs Bishops of Rome and that
Their antagonistic and summary proceedings
towards offending soyereigns, with regard to
the temporal powers of the latter. were an.
thorized by constitution formed by these SOW
ereigns or their predecessors, / do not pretend
10 assert that the power was always rightly
used. j do not deny ambitious or vengefnl
motives TO the Popes. Nothing in nv creed or
theirs presents such conclusion, and nothing
in their conduct renders such a conclusion un-
reasonable. / only say that the spiritual power
here is not in question; and there, and at that
time, the power to depose-power humanity
conferred-was never called in question BY the
deposed monarchs- They admitted the consti-
tutional right and power, though they may have
called in question the justice of the act. With
the justice of the proceeding l have nothing to
do here, though / may be allowed to say that
however the Pope may have transgressed the
rules of justice as between him and the deposed
monarch, it is probable that as between the
monarch and the people, there was little occa-
sion to suppose that any injustice had been
done to the Prince, or much likelihood of hear
ing complaints from the latter. The Pope has
struggled sometimes with sovereigns, but never
with the sovereignty. He has exercised a power
voluntarily placed in his hands by Kings, and
invoked by the people and he has dethroned
the monarch, but not mathematical the sub
iect. The Popes, in the fal6llment of what
<1a r.,n oant of kinOs nd tho pnnf1dapca Of he