The chief power of the Pontiff in civil affairs, consisted in the authoritative declaration of duties and obligations: it was the supremacy of religion, justice, and right, which he vindicated against brute force and lawless passion. Princes had not learned to respect his temporal power, since their hostile armies frequently invaded his dominions, and even offered violence to his person: yet when he hurled excommunication against the oppressor, the empire shook, and the tyrant trembled, because it was the solemn voice of religion against injustice and iniquity. It is quite a mistake to suppose that in the middle ages the temporal sovereignty of the Pope was universal. As a sovereign his rights are far better respected at this day. In those times he was often a prisoner, or a fugitive. Although he gave imperial and kingly titles, and had princes for his vassals, temporal supremacy was neither ascribed to him, nor claimed by him, save inasmuch as he was the highest judge in the Christian commonwealth, the authoritative expounder of law, rights and duties, and the leader and guide in what concerned the general interests of Christendom. At the head of armies he was feeble and powerless, but when he arose as the vindicator of justice and truth, he seemed invested with omnipotence. The advantages accruing to society from the exercise of pontifical authority over sovereigns, are proclaimed by those who regard it as an abuse. "It is known," says Michaud, "that the excommunication fulminated against Philip I., as well as others subsequently hurled against Louis VII. and Philip Augustus, were in a great measure grounded on the violation of the laws of marriage. It may then be observed that the power of the Popes served to maintain the sanctity of an institution which is the first basis of society. In barbarous ages what other barrier could be opposed to licentiousness, in a contract wherein the passions have so great share? The Popes, then, although abusing their authority, have rendered a great service to humanity."* * Michaud, Histoire des Croisades 1. i. n. 102. 23* 270 CHAPTER XVIII. DEPOSING POWER. It is plain to every reader of history, that in the eleventh century, and during some ages afterwards, a power was claimed by the Popes to depose unworthy princes, and release their subjects from the allegiance which they had sworn to them. It is important to explain this moral phenomenon in the history of the Pontiffs, how it happened that the successor of the fisherman became the judge of the princes of the earth, and hurled the mighty from their thrones, even at times when he himself was an exile from his own city. It is often accounted for by the proneness of the age to receive with superstitious veneration whatever was proposed by the bishops of the Church as the attribute of their office but it requires little acquaintance with history to know that the emperors were, for the most part, fierce opponents of the Pontiffs, and that the haughty barons of the middle ages did not treat the bishops, or the Pope, with any extravagant respect, especially when temporal interests were at stake, and that their vassals followed them without scruple to the battle field, in the contest against the prelates of the Church. To refer the claim to the ambition and usurpation of the Pontiffs, is not to explain the phenomenon, since without some disposition in the mass of the faithful to regard the exercise of the power with respect, it would have been futile, and utterly absurd to attempt it. "If the papal power," says Southey, "had not been adapted to the condition of Europe, it could not have existed."* Besides, the first Pope who formally claimed it is recognised as a Saint, and cannot without temerity be accused of ambition, and the same character of sanctity is acknowledged by the Church in Pius V., who was the last but one to exercise it. If I can obtain a calm and unbiassed examination of the documents and facts, I promise myself to abate much of the odium that has been heaped on the Popes on account of the exercise of this power in the middle ages. * See Fletcher, Comparative view, p. 157. St. Gregory VII. whose family name was Hildebrand, is the first Pope who claimed the right to depose kings. Philip I. of France, incurred his displeasure by his vices, and flagrant abuse of power. In a letter to the French bishops, written in 1074, the Pontiff complains that perjury, sacrilege, incest, and all crimes were committed with impunity, and that the pilgrims were cast into prison, and intolerable exactions practised on the poor. "Your king," he says, "is the author of these calamities: he is not a king, but a tyrant, who has passed his whole life in crimes and outrages; he holds in his hands the royal sceptre to no purpose, since he not only shamefully tolerates the disorders of his subjects, but incites them to evil by his example. He is not satisfied with having provoked divine vengeance by the plundering of Churches, by rapine, adultery, perjury, fraud, despite of all our efforts for his amendment: he has recently plundered of an immense amount of money merchants who had come from foreign countries to the French market." Gregory urged the bishops to remonstrate with the prince respectfully, and affectionately, but intrepidly: "If he will not hear you, and if he be unmoved by the fear of God, by a regard for his own honor, or by pity for the ruin of his people, tell the obstinate prince that he can no longer escape the sword of Apostolic justice. Imitate the Roman Church your mother, and separate yourselves altogether from the familiarity and communion of this prince, and forbid the public celebration of the divine office throughout all France. If this severity fail to produce repentance, let every one be assured that we will leave no means untried to free the kingdom of France from its unworthy ruler. . . . . God is our witness, that we act under no human influence, and with no worldly interest, but from deep sorrow of heart at seeing so illustrious a kingdom, and its vast population, ruined by the misconduct of one man."* The menace of the Pontiff was not carried into execution; but it is clear that he proceeded on the principle that the welfare of the nation is not to be sacrificed to the caprice of an individual, and that when the royal power degenerates into tyranny, it loses its claim to respect. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, and Pope Nicholas, in the ninth century, considered the continuance of regal power to be dependant on its proper use. The measures which Gregory meant to adopt, are specified in his letter to the count of Poictiers: "If he continue in his perverseness, and according to his hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up for himself the wrath of God, and of St. Peter, we, with divine as *Apud Fleury. 1. lxii. §. xvi. ↑ See Guizot, t. III. p. 110, et 88. sistance, will beyond doubt, in a Roman synod, separate him, as his wickedness deserves, from the body and communion of the holy Church, as also whosoever shall give him royal honor and obedience, and his excommunication shall be daily confirmed on the altar of St. Peter." The right to excommunicate the king is unquestionable, and was exercised nearly six centuries before the age of Gregory, by Pope Symmachus, who cut off from the Church Anastasius, the heretical emperor of Constantinople, and subsequently by Urban II., who in the council of Clermont excommunicated Philip without opposition or surprise. Gregory the Great had attached to a charter granted to the monastery of Autun, a penalty of forfeiture of power against any king, priest, judge, or secular person, who should wilfully violate its provisions, t but the consent of queen Brunehaut, who sought the charter, is thought to have warranted the penalty.§ Zacharias had sanctioned the deposition of Childeric; having regard to the interests of the nation, and the wishes of the nobles. Gregory the Seventh was the first to threaten to hurl from his throne the king who had become a tyrant. The principle laid down by Gregory is highly popular in this age, which, nevertheless, indignantly rejects all idea of pontifical interference between princes and their subjects. In his day he was looked up to by all as their father and judge: to his tribunal they appealed: his influence was sought, his power was implored: and it was only through him popular rights could be effectually vindicated. The French nation had called for the interposition of Zacharias, three centuries before, to set aside the inert heir of royalty. We know not what measures had been employed to induce Gregory to rebuke Philip. Above two centuries before the age of Gregory, Charles the Bald, who sat on the throne of Pepin, admitted his own accountability for the exercise of the royal power, and his liability to be deposed by a council of French bishops, if he abused it. He complained, in 859, to the council of Savonieres, against Venilon, archbishop of Sens, for having passed to the side of Louis, his brother and rival, although he had pledged himself to Charles, at his coronation, that he would never depose him, except by the advice and judgment of a council of bishops. At that early period they were recognised as judges, to declare authoritatively when the misconduct of princes deserved deposition. They constituted a tribunal before which the French monarchs were liable * Greg. I. II. ep. xviii. apud Baron. an. 1074, p. 461. L. xiii. ep. viii. ix. x. § Pouvoir du Pape p. 141. to impeachment. "I should not," says Charles, "have been supplanted, or cast down by any one from the sublime station of king, at least without being heard and judged by bishops, by whose ministry I was anointed king; and who are styled the thrones of God, in whom God sits, and through whom He gives judgment, to whose paternal rebukes, and chastening judgments I was ready, and am still ready to subject myself."* It is idle for us to censure the jurisprudence and civil polity of past ages. They had maxims and laws, some of which are the foundation of the republican institutions under which we live: they acknowledged tribunals and officers different from ours. Ecclesiastics then possessed an influence which is now enjoyed chiefly by members of the bar. Bishops were councillors of kings, and in some instances their judges, and the chief Bishop, from the loftiness of his position, naturally came to exercise a power over sovereigns, who flagrantly abused their authority. When the people durst not resist the oppressors, when the bishops, his subjects, dared not sit on him in judgment, the head of the Christian confederacy rebuked and threatened him, and sometimes deposed him. The first instance of actual deposition took place in the person of Henry IV., king of Germany, and emperor elect. To judge of this act fairly, we must bear in mind that Leo III., less than three centuries before the time of Gregory, resuscitated the empire of the West. From that fact the usage and law of the empire were derived, whereby it belonged to the Pope to crown the emperor elect, which act supposed his acquiescence in the election. "The Germans elect the king. -When he is anointed, and enthroned at Aix-la-chapelle, at the desire of those who elected him, he receives the authority and title of king. When the Pope crowns him, he has full authority in the empire, and is styled emperor."+ Henry III., to secure the imperial throne for his son, had obtained the assent of the princes of Germany to his succession; but they added the condition that he should govern justly. The commencement of his career left no reason to hope that he would be a just prince, and the Saxons, disgusted at his vices, and weary of his oppression, repeatedly called on the Pope, in the most suppliant manner, to relieve them from his tyranny. They had applied to Alexander * L. procl. D. Caroli adv. Venilonem n. 3, vide et Fleury hist. Eccl. t. xiii. 3, Discours n. 10. † Juris Alamannici c. xiii. n. 1, 2, 3. "Si rector justus futurus esset." Herin. Contract. ad an. 1057. § "Quibus ut, vel per se, vel per nuntium, genti pene perditæ consolator esset, suppliciter oraverunt." Bruno, de bello Saxonico, apud Script. rerum Germ. t. i. p. 133. |