The-papacy-its-history-dogmas-genius-and-prospects-wylie

PRINCIPLES OF THE SUrREMACY. 59theless he had received the empire in a way which left itundecided whether he owed it more to his own merit or tothe pontiff's favour, and whether he held it solely in virtueof his own right, and not also, in good degree, as the giftof Leo. The Pope was nominally subject to the Emperor,but in many vital points the first was last ;and he who nowwrote himself " a servant of servants," was fulfilling in abad sense what our Lord intended in a good,— " Whosoeverwill be the greatest among you, let him be the servant ofall."The popes had not yet advanced a direct and formalclaim to dispose of crowns and kingdoms, but the germ ofsuch a claim was contained, first, in the acts which theynow performed. They had already taken it upon them tosanction the transference of the crown of France from theMerovingian to the Carlovingian famil}^ And on whatprinciple had they done so? Why did the Pope, ratherthan any other prince, profess to give validity to Pepin"'sright to the throne of France ? Why, seeing, as a temporalruler, he was the leastpowerful and independent sovereignin Europe, did he, of all men, interpose his prerogative inthe luatter? The principle on which he proceeded wasplainly this,—that in virtue of his spiritual character he wassuperior to earthly dignities, and had been vested in thepower of controlling and disposing of such dignities.* Thesame principle is yet more clearly involved in the bestowalof the imperial dignity on Charlemagne. That the popesthemselves held this principle to be implied in these proceedings,though as yet they kept the claim in the background,isplain from the fact that, at an after period, andin more favourable circumstances, they founded on theseacts in proof of the dependence of the emperors, and theirown right to confer the empire. It was the usual mannerof the Papacy to perform acts which, as they appeared to* It is still vmdecided among Romanist writers whether the Pope's rejectionof Childeric was a point of authority or a point of casuistry. TheUltra-raontanists maintain the former.