The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-01-30

f of he power Of the Pope FASTENED
Italy made submission, saved himself from dethronemsat
returned 10 hs German home fourod more child or the
devil than be had been dsposed and died miserable
outc4st Though those events TOOK place al time and
under circumstances when tIs regard was Paa 70 shs
did not claim that his action in deposng the Emperor Was
by divine right because be knew and all knew that by
Law ii empire Henry had forfeited the imperial throne
and that tie Pope much authorized depose him
Tor violating LAW OF the empire he excommuni
eaie him for open violation Of the commands Of God
III 4 letter from Gregory VII 10 the German lords he,
the Pope expressly declares that be did pretend 10
ground himself merely the divine power o. binding and
Tossing but the laws of acntai Is the constitution
laws Of the empire, well the laws Of God and ac
oordng 70 the asnaed code well as the requirement.
Of the former Henry deserved not only 10 be excommnnl
Gated bat also 10 be teposed OF his imperial dignity.
The distinguished writer Of the time OF Gregory
VII Peter Daimler shows that Gregory cid cot depend
alone upon his spiritual power but acted upon the author
It's OF The constitution Of the empire If Gregory had
cai1aed and Others had admitted divine right alone TO
depcse emperor bis apoogst would scarcely ~ saon
time have presented the smaller right OF human authority
The following from work on the temporal power OF
the Pope by Mr. Gossen is directly TO the point and VIII
Illustrate this part Of my remarks;
Prom these IL follows, in fact, first, that
Gregory VII, the first that pronounced sentence Of
deposition against sovereign, did not pretend 70 ground his
nan divine. Secondly that in the opinion Of Gregory
VII and Of his well Of all their contempt
rares deposition communicated prince was not
consequence OF excommuncation and did not
follow from the divine power Of binding and ioesng alone
from The laws OF the empire which declared deposed
throne ANY prince remaining obsnaeiy under exeommun
These important proved there diealty
Ia understanding how the Popes could naturally cite sup
port their OF accommodation and deposition
against princes the divine OF binding and loosng
though considering ii the sole title OF that deposng
power which they claimed. 1t is iaet evident that
time when constitutional law attached the penalty of dpo
ton 10 exconunication or heresy the Pope sentence
against such heretcal prince ground
ed both the divine right and human law. 1t found
ed oa right merely far declared the
the conscience of his subjects the and
limits Il the obligation arising from the oath OF allegiance
which they had taken lin. 1t founded
also in declared the prince deprived OF his rights
in puuisment Of Remaining obstnaiey heresy
Communication obvious also, why tbs Pope sentence
mentioned only the divine Of binding and loopg Tor
grounded, considered IN its principal direct and
date object the deposition effected by excommu
ncation natural result according to the constitutional
law then in force"
While have asserted and with the little time allowed
me referred you the authorities upon which my
tons that the Pope OF the middle age did declare
that their interference with the temporal p wes OF kings
and emperors authorized BY their spiritual commits
son Bishops OF Rome and that their antagonsc and
summary proceedings towards offending soyereigns with
regard the temporal powers of the latter author
lied by constitution formed BY these soveregns their
predecessors do pretend assert that the power
alwas rightly used do not deny ambitious or yengeul
motives TO the Popes. Nothing in my creed theirs
presents such conclusion, and nothing in their
duet renders such conclusion unreasonable only say
that the spiritual power Acre is not IN question, and
there and at that time the power to deposepower human
" conerredwas called in question by the deposed
rnonarchs They admitted the constitutional right and
power, though they may have called in question the
justice of the With the justice of the proceeding
nave nothing 10 do here though may be allowed
that the Pope may have ransgressed the
justice between him and the deposed monarch 1t prob
able THAI AS between the monarch and the people there
was little occasion TO suppose that injustice had been
done to the Prince, much likelihood of hearing
plants from the latter The Pope has struggled sometimes
with soyereisn but never with the Sovereignty He has
kng and invoked by the people and he has dethroned
tho monarch, but mathematical the subject The
Pope in the fuimen of what the of kings and
the confidence OF the people have made duty have
leased subjects from the oath of allegiance the
en bat have they released the sovereign from his
coronation oath respect guard and rightly govern the
Because neither space for such an nqui-
no as y a asse IN he Of dspoh
onarehswhich is called the power of releasing sub
jectsand have shown that the Pope did not rely upon
the general spiritual power head of the Christian church
for authority depose the Emperor but that he rested
and sustained by the constitution, which authorized
the election of Emperor, and made orthodoxy
dition of holding the Crown And it would have been
equally easy generally less difficult to have shown that
every instance of such exercise of power by the Pope
authorized by the admitted constitution acknowledged
compact provided that the offences of the prince had
brought him within the operation OF the laws, which a
admitted exist and for the execution of which all turned
to the Pope
Now, this kind OF secular power had its origin the
consent of the sovereigns particular time and long
after the apostolic age it follows that not only could il
not have carried with it the JHrs drno which belongs
the spiritual of the Bishop of Rome but that the
proof of the existence of the real spiritual power would
haze been weakened by attempts to prove the right Of de
posing TO be divine At that time, iher-at time when
men the most willing TO yield assent to such species
Of usurpaton released kings from bad emperor and
relieved subjects from bad kngsat that time the divine
right not claimed and the whole power of deposing
rested the consent not merely Of the kings but
the deposed princes themselves
Bat ii charged that Roman Catholics admit
the right Of the Pope interfere between subjects and
their allegiance and between citizens and their duties
the republic IN other FORM since the power depose
kings Is longer possible deny it have denied for
myself plainly, clearly specifically But in this House.
is said that though may be excepted from the general
censure OF harbong the seeds and of
this government in my breast apd warming them into
termination by devotion, yet Others liable the
charge, and especially the church the Roman Catholic
Church itself.
But the Roman Catholic Church il represented by her
bishops, and therefore the statements of those
having the means of knowing and the right TO make
known the doctrines Of that church. and the attention
OF the committee to the following remarks of the Right
Rev DR. England;
God gave To ST Peter any temporal power any
authority depose kings interfer. with
political concerns And rights which his nigh
claim, for OF those purposes be derived
other Roman Catholic has further
with the Pope than that be succeeds ST. Peter Peter
none OF these rightsas Roman Catholic. nothing
Of them in the Pope He is equally Pope with without
ihem."
In the early part Of my remarks took occasion to say
what wond be my IL by any remarkable fbut really
npossihlel concurrence Of circumstances the army and
navy OF the Pope should invade the country Hear now