Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 28: Whether Clerics Are Free from the Yoke of Civil Power
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
The last question remains, on ecclesiastical liberty, on which in this last edition I have determined to dispute a little more fully, because I have observed that in these recent years there have not been lacking those who wished to abuse the testimonies of this book to attack ecclesiastical liberty.
First, then, very many heretics contend that clerics, both major and minor, ought by right to be subject to the secular power, both in paying tributes and in judgments and causes. Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun taught that Christ Himself was not free from paying tributes, and that what He did (Matthew 17), when He paid the tribute, He did not by will but by necessity. So John of Torquemada relates (Book IV of the Summary On the Church, part 2, chapter 37). John Calvin (Book IV Institutes, chapter 11, section 15) teaches that all clerics, except in merely ecclesiastical causes, ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of the secular magistrates. The same teaches Peter Martyr (on Romans 13), where he also adds that princes could not grant clerics the privilege of not being subject to political magistrates, since this is against divine right; and therefore, notwithstanding the grant of princes, clerics ought to be subject to the secular magistrates. John Brentius (in the Prolegomena) and Melanchthon (in the Commonplaces, chapter on the magistrate) subject clerics to political tribunals even in ecclesiastical matters and causes.
Of the Catholics, some hold that by divine right clerics and their goods are free from the power of secular princes. So teaches the Gloss, and some of the canonists (on the canon Si Imperator, distinction 96, and on the chapter Quamquam, on taxes, in the Sext), and of the theologians John Driedo (Book I On Christian Liberty, chapter 9). But some hold that clerics are free partly by divine right, partly by human right — that is, in ecclesiastical and spiritual causes by divine right, in others by human right. In this opinion seem to be Francisco de Vitoria (On the Power of the Church, relection 1, last question), Domingo de Soto (on the fourth book, distinction 25, question 2, article 2), John of Medina (in the Code, On Restitution, question 15), and of the canonists Diego de Covarrubias (in the book Practical Questions, chapter 31).
Let this, then, be the first proposition: “In ecclesiastical causes, clerics are free by divine right from the power of secular princes.” Ecclesiastical causes are called those whose cognizance does not depend on the civil laws, but on the Gospel, or on the canons of the Pontiffs or Councils, such as are the controversies about faith, about the Sacraments, and others of that kind. It is proved, first, from the divine writings. For by the doctrine of the holy Scriptures the ecclesiastical government is distinct from the political, and even more sublime than it, as we demonstrated in the first book On the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 7, and Book V, chapter 7. Therefore ecclesiastical causes ought not to be judged by political magistrates. Besides, according to the Scriptures the whole authority of ruling the Church was committed by Christ to the Apostles, and chiefly to Peter; therefore in ecclesiastical matters all the laity, even princes, are sheep and subjects, not pastors and judges, as was demonstrated in the places noted. Secondly, it is proved from the Councils. For in the Council of Milevis (canon 13) and of Macon (canon 8) clerics are gravely punished if they bring a cause of the Church to the judgment of an earthly emperor. Thirdly, from the Fathers. Severus Sulpicius (in Book II of the sacred history) relates that Saint Martin once exclaimed that it was a new and unheard-of wickedness that a secular judge should judge a cause of the Church. Likewise Saint Ambrose (in letter 78 to Theophilus) and Saint Augustine (in letter 162) reprehend those who expose the causes of the Church to be judged by earthly judges. Fourthly, from the example of the Apostles. For the Apostles governed the Churches at a time when there were no Christian princes, and accordingly never brought a cause of the Church to them to be judged. And if the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 6) bids that even the civil suits of Christians not be brought to the judgment of the heathen, how would he have permitted ecclesiastical suits to be brought to them? Lastly, from Justinian the elder Emperor, who affirms the same (Novel 83).
The second proposition: “Clerics are not exempt from the obligation of civil laws which do not conflict with the sacred canons or the clerical office.” We speak here chiefly of political laws which direct human actions in temporal dealings — as when a prince or magistrate sets prices for saleable things, or bids that no one go about by night with arms, or without a light, or not carry grain outside the province, and the like. Nor do we mean that clerics are bound by these laws with a coercive obligation, but only a directive one, unless those laws have been approved by the Church. But if an ecclesiastical law had also disposed of the same temporal things, clerics would have to follow it, and then would not be bound even directively to observe the civil law. It is proved, then, that clerics are directively bound to observe the civil laws in default of an ecclesiastical law. For clerics, besides that they are clerics, are also citizens and certain parts of the political commonwealth; therefore, as such, they ought to live by the civil laws. And there are no others, as we now suppose, except those made by the political magistrate; therefore clerics ought to keep those, otherwise a great disturbance and confusion would arise in the commonwealth if clerics did not keep the civil laws in civil and human dealings. Secondly, it is proved from the confession of Pontiffs and Emperors. Nicholas I (in the letter to Michael, near the end) says that God divided the pontifical authority from the imperial, that both Christian Emperors should need the Pontiffs for eternal life, and the Pontiffs should use the imperial laws for the course of temporal things only. The Emperor Valentinian (in the letter to the bishops of Asia, which Theodoret relates, Book IV of the history, chapter 7) writes that upright bishops obey not only the laws of God but also those of kings. Finally Saint John Chrysostom (on Romans 13) says that political laws are not taken away by the Gospel of Christ, and therefore priests and monks too ought to obey them.
The third proposition: “Clerics cannot be judged by a secular judge, even if they do not observe the civil laws.” It is proved, first, from the Council of Chalcedon (canon 9), where we read thus: “If a cleric has business against a cleric, let him not leave his bishop and have recourse to secular judgments.” The Council of Agde (canon 32) speaks still more clearly in these words: “Let no one presume to summon a cleric before a secular judge without the bishop permitting.” The same have the Third Council of Carthage (canon 9), the Third of Toledo (canon 13), the Council of Macon (canon 8), the Council of Constance (session 31). See also what is added a little below for the fifth proposition. Secondly, it is proved from the Constitutions of the Emperors. For Justinian exempts clerics and monks from secular judgment (in Novels 79, 83, and 123) — though he does not exempt them in criminal causes, but in civil only; but in criminal ones he wishes the cause to be examined by the praetor, yet the cleric not to be condemned unless first degraded by the bishop. But nonetheless the canon law simply exempted clerics in all causes, both civil and criminal, as is plain from the letter of Pope Caius to Bishop Felix, likewise from letter 2 of Marcellinus, and from Book XI of the Register of Saint Gregory, letter 54, to John the Defender. And the civil law ought to yield to the canon law, since the supreme Pontiff can command the Emperor, especially in those things which pertain to the Church. Thirdly, it is proved by reason. For it is altogether absurd that a sheep should presume in any way to judge its shepherd. And so not without great praise Rufinus relates (Book X of the history, chapter 2), and after him Blessed Gregory (Book IV, letter 75), that voice of Constantine to the bishops: “You are gods, constituted by the supreme God; it is not fitting that a man should judge gods.”
But Calvin objects (Book IV Institutes, chapter 11, section 15) the letter of the Emperor Constantine to the Nicomedians, which Theodoret relates (Book I of the history, chapter 20), where Constantine says that he cast Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia into exile, and subjoins: “If any of the bishops rashly makes a tumult, his audacity will be coerced by the minister of God, that is, by my execution.” I answer that, in his usual manner, Calvin imposes on the simple. For Constantine in that letter writes that he did indeed cast the bishop Eusebius into exile, but adds that he had before been deposed from the episcopate by the Council of Nicaea for heresy. But we do not deny that the secular magistrate ought to punish clerics when they are condemned by the Church, and degraded, and handed over to the secular judges. And the words of Constantine which Calvin subjoins are depraved by him. For in that place Constantine threatens punishment not to bishops but to laymen; for he says that he will gravely punish the people of Nicomedia if they wish again to return to the heretical bishops condemned by the general Council, and do not acquiesce in receiving an upright and Catholic prelate. For these are his words: “But if anyone” (he does not say “of the bishops,” as Calvin added) “kindled with rashness and audacity, attempt to celebrate those pests of the Church — that is, the Arian bishops — whether by memory or by praises, he shall at once, by the work and diligence of the minister of God, that is, mine, pay the penalties of his ignorance.”
Peter Martyr objects, secondly: “By divine right every soul is subject to the higher powers, that is, to kings, as is established from Romans 13. Therefore kings could not exempt any Christians from their power. And the argument is confirmed from the doctrine of the Catholics, who prove by this reasoning that no one can be exempt from the power of the Pope, because by divine right all men are subject to the Pope.” I answer that nothing is concluded by that reasoning. For although by divine right every soul is subject to the higher powers, and by this also to kings while they are the higher powers, yet it can happen that he who is now the higher power be not so a little after — as if he himself subject a part of his kingdom to another, or by the right of war or another just title lose his kingdom, or a part of his kingdom. Since therefore the princes themselves partly subjected the clerics in all causes, even temporal and civil, to their bishops, and at last the supreme Pontiff exempted all clerics from the subjection of secular princes, it follows that, in respect of clerics, princes are not the higher powers, and accordingly clerics are not bound to obey princes, neither by human right nor by divine right, except as to certain directive laws, as we said. To the confirmation I answer that the reasoning of the pontificate and of kingdoms is not the same. For kingdoms are not immediately instituted by God, but by men, and therefore can be changed by men into other forms of government; but the pontificate is immediately instituted by God, and therefore cannot be changed by men.
The fourth proposition: “The goods of clerics, both ecclesiastical and secular, are free, and deservedly ought to be, from the tributes of secular princes.” That they are free in fact is plain from the Lateran Council under Alexander III (part 1, chapter 19), from the Lateran Council under Innocent III (chapter 46), likewise from the chapter Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae (on constitutions), from the chapter Quamquam (on taxes, in the Sext), from the Extravagant Quod olim (on ecclesiastical immunity), likewise from the chapters Quia nonnulli and Clericis (on ecclesiastical immunity, in the Sext); besides, from the laws of princes, which are had in the Theodosian Code (Book XVI, title 2, laws 16 and 26), and in the Code of Justinian (law Sancimus, on the most sacred Churches), and in Book X of the history of Eusebius (chapter 7, in the version of Christopherson). Where however it must be observed that before the times of Justinian, by the laws of earlier princes clerics were immune from personal tributes, as Saint Jerome too indicates (in the commentary on Matthew 17); yet they were not free from tributes which are wont to be paid by reason of possessions, as is gathered from Saint Ambrose (in the oration on the handing over of the basilicas), where he says: “The fields of the Church pay tribute”; and from Theodoret (Book IV of the history, chapter 7), where he writes that Valentinian the elder in the letter to the bishops of Asia put those words: “Good bishops pay tributes to kings.” But that this exemption was made by right, and by what right — whether only human, or also divine — we will explain in the following propositions.
Against this proposition Marsilius of Padua objects the example of Christ, who paid tribute, as we have in Matthew 17. But the answer is easy. For Christ paid tribute because He willed, not because He owed it. Which can be understood from that same passage. For when it had been said to Peter by those who exacted the tribute, “Does not your master pay the didrachma?” the Lord said to Peter: “What is thy opinion, Simon? The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or tax? Of their own children, or of strangers? Simon answered, Of strangers. The Lord said, Then the children are free. But that we may not scandalize them, go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and, opening its mouth, thou shalt find a stater; take that and give it them for me and thee.” Now there are two interpretations of that passage, “Then the children are free”; and according to both the Lord most rightly shows that He was free from paying tribute. The former exposition is Saint Hilary’s, who teaches that this passage treats of the tribute which God had imposed on all the children of Israel (Exodus 30) for the use of the temple, which tribute was properly a didrachma. And according to this exposition, which seems to us most true, the force of the argument is this: the kings of the earth do not exact tribute from their own children, but from strangers; therefore neither will the King of heaven exact tribute from me, who am His own and natural Son. The latter interpretation is Saint Jerome’s, who expounds the Lord’s words of the tribute paid to Caesar; which opinion seems less probable, because the tribute paid to Caesar in Christ’s time was not a didrachma but a denarius, as is plain from Matthew 22: “Show me the coin of the tribute. And they offered Him a denarius.” Nor can it be shown by any solid reason that the didrachma tribute was wont to be paid to Caesar except after Christ’s ascension into heaven; for Josephus writes (Book VII On the Jewish War, chapter 26) that after the temple was overthrown, it was established by the Emperor Vespasian that the didrachma tribute, which all the Jews paid every year to the temple, should henceforth be carried to the Capitol. But yet even from this opinion it is rightly gathered that Christ was the debtor of no tribute; for although He was not the son of Caesar, who (according to this opinion) exacted the tribute, yet He was the Son of God, whose ministers are all the kings and princes of the earth (as we read in Wisdom 6 and Romans 13); nor ought the ministers of a king to ask tribute of the king’s son. Besides, tributes are paid to kings by reason of this bodily life, subject to fears and dangers, as Saint Thomas teaches (Second Part of the Second Part, question 104, article 6, reply 1). And therefore just men too, although as to the soul they are free from the servitude of sin, yet by reason of the body, whose redemption they still await (as the Apostle says, Romans 8), are subject to tributes and to the civil power. But Christ was free, not a servant, not only as to the soul but also as to the body; nor did He await redemption, but only the resurrection of the body; for He lacked all disease of concupiscence and all law of sin, nor was He subject to dangers or injuries except as far as He Himself permitted. “He was offered,” says Isaiah 53, “because it was His own will.” And so He owed tribute to no king, who needed the defense of no king; and deservedly the opinion of Marsilius of Padua was condemned as heretical by Pope John XXII (in the Extravagant Licet, which John of Torquemada relates, Book IV of the Summary On the Church, part 2, chapter 37).
The fifth proposition: “The exemption of clerics in political matters, both as to persons and as to goods, was introduced by human right and equally by divine.” And that it was introduced by human right is plain from the testimonies which we brought forward for proving the third and fourth propositions. But that it was also introduced by divine right must be proved in this place. But first it must be observed that by “divine right” we do not understand a precept of God properly so called, which stands expressly in the sacred writings, but that which can be deduced by a certain likeness from the examples or testimonies of the Old or New Testament. And hence perhaps the opinions of the theologians and the jurists can be reconciled. For the former, when they deny that the exemption of clerics is of divine right, deny that a divine precept properly so called stands expressly in the Scriptures; but the latter, when they affirm that the same exemption is of divine right, affirm only what the theologians by no means deny — that it is deduced by likeness from the examples and testimonies of sacred Scripture that God willed clerics and their goods to be free from the power and jurisdiction of laymen.
Certainly Geminianus, Ancharanus, and other notable Doctors, expounding the chapter Quamquam (on taxes, in the Sext), note that in that chapter is had an express text by which the immunity of ecclesiastics is said to be of divine right; but how this is to be understood, they warn, is to be sought from the Gloss. And the Gloss on the same chapter teaches that that immunity is of divine right because it is deduced from the example of Joseph the Patriarch, who exempted the priests of the Egyptians (Genesis 47), and of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, who exempted the Israelite priests (1 Esdras 7). For, as Pope Alexander rightly says in the Lateran Council (whence stands the chapter Non minus, on ecclesiastical immunity): “It does not befit the Church of God to be less free in the time of Christian princes than it was in the time of Pharaoh.”
These things being noted, then, our proposition is proved, first, by the testimonies of divine Scripture. For besides the passages already cited from Genesis and from the book of Esdras, we have two others no less illustrious. For in the book of Numbers (chapter 3) God repeats, not once but often, that the Levites are properly His own, and that He chose them for Himself out of all the people. And in the same place He bids all the Levites be given as a gift to Aaron and his sons — that is, to the high priest and his successors. For those whom He chose for Himself for the ministry of the temple and of sacred things He willed to be subject to the Pontiff alone, who represented the place of God on earth, and by this freed them from the jurisdiction of earthly princes. And it is established that clerics are now in the Church what the Levites were in the Old Testament, and that the Pontiff of the Christians is of no less authority — nay, of far greater — in the Church of Christ than Aaron was in the Synagogue of the Jews. “Now,” says Saint Leo (sermon 8 on the Passion of the Lord), “both the order of the Levites is clearer, and the dignity of the elders ampler, and the anointing of the priests more sacred.” It follows, then, that as in the Old Testament the Levites were free by divine right from the power of secular princes, so also are clerics in the New Testament.
Another passage is that which we treated above from Matthew 17, “Then the children are free.” For when the children of kings are exempted from tributes, not only their persons but also their servants and ministers, and even their households, are exempted from tributes. And it is certain that all clerics properly pertain to the household of Christ, who is the Son of the King of kings. And this the Lord seems to have wished to signify when He says to Peter, “But that we may not scandalize them, taking the stater give it them for me and thee” — as if He said that both He and His household, of which Peter was prefect, ought to be free from tributes. Which Saint Jerome too seems to have understood (in the commentary on that passage), when he says that clerics do not pay tributes on account of the honor of the Lord; and Saint Augustine (Book I Questions on the Gospel, question 23), when he writes that in every earthly kingdom the children of that kingdom, under which are all the kingdoms of the earth, are not tributary.
Secondly, the same proposition is proved from the testimonies of the sacred canons. The general Council of Trent, celebrated in our times (session 25, chapter 20, on Reformation), speaks thus: “The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons was instituted by the ordinance of God and by canonical sanctions.” The Council of Cologne, celebrated a little before the Synod of Trent itself (part 9, chapter 20): “Ecclesiastical immunity is a most ancient thing, introduced by divine and human right equally, which consists chiefly in two things: first, that clerics and their possessions be free from taxes and tributes and other lay burdens; then, that those guilty of crime who flee to the Church be not dragged thence.” The Lateran Council celebrated under Leo X (session 9): “Since by right, both divine and human, no power over ecclesiastical persons has been attributed to laymen, we renew all and each of the constitutions”; and the Lateran Council under Innocent III (chapter 43): “Too much do certain laymen try to usurp of divine right, when they compel ecclesiastical men holding nothing temporal to render them oaths of fidelity.” Boniface VIII (in the chapter Quamquam, on taxes, in the Sext) speaks as of a known and ascertained thing, when he says that by divine and human right clerics and their goods are free from the power of secular persons. John VIII likewise (canon Si Imperator, distinction 96): “Not by the public laws, not by the powers of the world, but by Pontiffs and priests, Almighty God willed the clerics and priests of the Christian religion to be ordained and examined.” And what Pope John affirms of persons, Pope Symmachus with the whole third Roman Synod affirmed much before, of ecclesiastical goods: “To priests alone the care of disposing of the things of the Church has been committed by God without question.” To these can be added Pope Innocent IV, although he wrote on this matter not as Pontiff, but as a private Doctor. For in the commentary on chapter 2, On Majority and Obedience, after he had taught that clerics were exempted from the power of laymen by the supreme Pontiff, the Emperor consenting, he added that this is not the full exemption, and therefore it must be said that clerics were exempted by God Himself. This testimony of Innocent I thought must be added, because Covarrubias (in the book Practical Questions, chapter 31) writes that the aforesaid Pontiff, in the passage cited by us, affirmed that the exemption of clerics is not of divine right — which the cited words openly show to be false; and before us Panormitanus alleged Innocent for this same opinion (on the chapter Nimis, on oaths), where the same author also rightly refutes those who by “divine right” understand canon law. And perhaps to exclude such explanations the Council of Trent does not use the words “divine and human right,” which could be drawn to signify canon and civil law, but says: “The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons was instituted by divine ordinance and by ecclesiastical sanctions.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPOT XXVIII. An Clerici sint liberi a jugo potestatis scecularis. Postrema restat quaestio de libertate Ec¬ clesiastica , de qua in hac ultima editione paulo fusius disputare institui, quod animad¬ verterim his proximis annis non defuisse, qui testimoniis hujus libri abuti voluerint ad oppugnandum Ecclesiasticam liberta¬ tem. . Primum igitur Haeretici permulti conten¬ dunt , Clericos tum majores , tum minores, jure subjectos esse debere saeculari potestati tum in solvendis tributis, tum in judiciis et causis. Marsilius de Padua, et Joannes de Janduno docuerunt , ipsum etiam Christum non fuisse etiam liberum a solvendis tribu¬ tis, et quod fecit Matth.XVII. cum tributum solvit, id fecisse non voluntate, sed necessi¬ tate. Ita refert Joan. de Turrecrem. lib. IV Summ. de Eccles. par. 2, cap. 37. Joannes Calvinus lib. IY Instit. cap. 11, §. 15. docet, Clericos omnes, praeterquam in Causis mere Ecclesiasticis subjectos esse de¬ bere legibus, et tribunalibus saecularium Ma¬ gistratuum. Idem docet Petrus Martyr, in cap. XIII. ad Romanos, ubi etiam addit, Prin¬ cipes non potuisse concedere Clericis privi¬ legium , ut non subjicerentur Magistratibus politicis, cum id sit contra jus divinum. Et ideo non obstante concessione Principum, debere Clericos subjectos esse Magistratibus saecularibus. Joannes Brentius in Prolego- menis, et Melancthon in Locis cap. de Ma¬ gistratu, in rebus etiam et causis Ecclesias¬ ticis subjiciunt Clericos politicis tribunali¬ bus. Ex Catholicis nonnulli censent, jure divi¬ do liberos esse Clericos, et eorum bona a po¬ testate Principum saecularium. Ita docet Glossa, et nonnulli ex Canonistis in can. Si Imperator, dist. 96. et in cap. Quamquam, de Censibus in YI . et ex Theologis Joannes Driedo lib. I de libertate Christiana cap, 9. Nonnulli vero existimant, Clericos liberos esse partim jure divino, partim jure huma¬ no, id est, in causis ecclesiasticis , et spiri¬ tualibus jure divino ; in aliis, jure humano. In his videntur esse Franciscus Yictoria de potestate Ecclesiae, Relect. I, quaest. ult. Do¬ minicus a Soto in IY, distin. 25, quaest. 2, art. 2. Joannes Medina in Codice de Resti¬ tutione quaest. 15. et ex Canonistis Didacus Covarruvias in lib. practicarum quaestionem cap. 31. Sit igitur prima propositio : « In causis Ecclesiasticis liberi sint Clerici jure divino a saecularium Principum potestate. » Vocan¬ tur causae Ecclesiasticae , quarum cognitio non pendet a legibus civilibus, sed ab Evan- gelio, vel a Canonibus Pontificum, aut Con¬ ciliorum , quales sunt controversiae de fide, de Sacramentis, et aliae id genus. (1) Matth. X, 10; I. Cor. IX, 7. CAPUT XXVIII. 487 Probatur primum ex divinis litteris. Nam ex doctrina scripturarum sanctarum Regi- menEcclesiasticum est distinctum a politico, et illo etiam sublimius, ut a nobis demons¬ tratum est in lib. I de summo Pontifice cap. 7. et lib. V, cap. 7. Ergo causae Ecclesiasti¬ cae judicari non debent a Politicis Magistra¬ tibus. Praeterea secundum scripturas tota auctoritas regendi Ecclesiam a Christo com¬ missa est Apostolis, et praecipue Petro : er¬ go in rebus Ecclesiastis Laici omnes, etiam Principes, sunt oves, et subditi, non Pasto¬ res, et judices, ut locis notatis demonstratum est. Secundo probatur ex Conciliis. Nam in Milevitano , can. 13. et Matisconensi, can. 8, Clerici graviter puniuntur, si causam Ec¬ clesiae ad Imperatoris terreni judicium defe¬ rant. Tertio ex Patribus. Severus Sulpitius in lib. II. sacrae historiae refert S. Martinum aliquando exclamasse, novum esse, et inau¬ ditum nefas, ut causam Ecclesiae Judex sae¬ culi judicaret. Item S. Ambrosius in epist. 78. ad Theophilum, et S. Augustinus in ep. 162. reprehendunt eos, qui causas Ecclesiae terrenis Judicibus judicandas exponunt. Quarto ex Apostolorum exemplo. Apostoli enim Ecclesias gubernaverunt, quo tempore nulli erant Principes Christiani , proinde numquam ad eos causam Ecclesiae judican¬ dam detulerunt. Et si Apostolus Paulus I. Cor. VI. jubet lites etiam civiles Christiano¬ rum non deferri ad judicium Ethnicorum, quo modo permisisset ad eos deferri lites Ecclesiasticas? Ultimo ex Justiniano seniore Imperatore, qui idem affirmat Novella 83. Secunda propositio : « Non sunt exempti Clerici ab obligatione legum civilium , quae non repugnant sacris Canonibus, vel officio clericali. » Loquimur hic potissimum de le¬ gibus politicis, quae dirigunt actiones huma¬ nas in commerciis temporalibus, ut cum Prin¬ ceps, vel Magistratus constituit pretia rebus venalibus ; vel jubet noctu neminem incede¬ re cum armis, vel sine lumine , vel non as¬ portare frumentum extra provinciam, et his similia. Nec volumus dicere, his legibus te¬ neri Clericos obligatione coactiva, sed solum directiva, nisi eaedem leges ab Ecclesia ap¬ probatae fuerint. Quod si de iisdem tempo¬ ralibus rebus disposuissdf etiam lex Eccle¬ siastica, eam sequi deberent Clerici, et tunc legem civilem ne directive quidem observa¬ re tenerentur. Probatur igitur Clericos ad observationem legum civilium directive teneri in defectum legis Ecclesiasticae. Nam Clerici praeterquam quod Clerici sunt, sunt etiam cives, et partes quaedam Reipublicae politicae : igitur ut ta¬ les, vivere debent civilibus legibus. Non sunt autem aliae , ut nunc ponimus , nisi quae a politico Magistratu sunt latae : igitur illas Clerici servare debent , alioqui magna per¬ turbatio, et confusio in Republica oriretur, si Clerici non servarent civiles leges in com¬ merciis civilibus et humanis. Secundo probatur ex confessione Pontifi¬ cum, et Imperatorum. Nicolaus I. in epist. ad Michaelem prope finem dicit, Deum divi¬ sisse Pontificiam auctoritatem ab Imperiali, ut et Christiani Imperatores pro aeterna vita Pontificibus indigerent, et Pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodo rerum Im¬ perialibus legibus uterentur. Imperator Va¬ lentinianus in epist. ad Episcopos Asiae, quam refert Theodoretus lib. IV hist. cap. 7. scri¬ bit, probos Episcopos non solum Dei , sed etiam Regum legibus obtemperare. Denique S. Joannes Chrysostomusin cap. XIII. ad Ro¬ manos, dicit Christi Evangelio non tolli po¬ liticas leges, et ideo debere etiam sacerdotes et Monachos eis parere. Tertia propositio : «Non possunt Clerici a judice saeculari judicari, etiam si leges ci¬ viles non servent. » Probatur primo ex Con¬ cilio Chalcedonensi can. 9. ubi sic legimus : « Si Clericus adversus Clericum habet nego¬ tium, non relinquat Episcopum suum, et ad saecularia judicia non recurrat. » Concilium Agathense canon. 32. adhuc clarius in haec verba loquitur : « Clericum nullus praesu¬ mat apud saecularem Judicem, Episcopo non permittente, pulsare. » Idem habent Conci¬ lium Carthaginiense tertium can. 9. Toleta¬ num tertium can. 13. Matisconense can. 8. Constantiense sess. XXXI. vide etiam quae adduntur paulo infra pro quinta propositio¬ ne. Secundo probatur ex Imperatorum Consti¬ tutionibus. Nam eximit Justinianus Clericos et Monachos a saeculari judicio in Novellis 79, 83 et 123. quamquam non eximit in cau¬ sis criminalibus, sed incivilibus tantum : in criminalibus autem vult> a Praetore cognosci causam , non tamen condemnari Clericum, nisi prius ab Episcopo fuerit degradatus. At nihilominus lex Canonica simpliciter exemit Clericos in omnibus causis tum civilibus, tum criminalibus, et perspicuum est ex epis- 488 LIBER I. tola Caii Papae ad Felicem Episcopum, item ex epist. 2. Marcellini. et ex lib. XI Registri S. Gregorii epist. -54. ad Joannem Defenso¬ rem. Debet autem lex Civilis cedere legi Ca¬ nonicae, cum possit summus Pontifex Impe¬ ratori praecipere in iis praesertim , quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent. Tertio probatur ratione. Nam omnino ab¬ surdum est, ut ovis Pastorem suum quocum¬ que modo judicare praesumat. Itaque non sine magna laude refert Ruffinus lib. X hist. cap. 2. et post eum B. Gregorius lib. 1Y, epist. 75. vocem illam Constantini ad Episco¬ pos : aVos Dii istis a summo Deo constituti, aequum non est, ut homo judicet Deos. » At objicit Calvinus lib. IY Instifc. cap. 11 , §. 15. epistolam Constantini Imperat. adNi- comedienses , quam refert Theodoretus lib. I histor. cap. 20. ubi dicit Constantinus se EusebiumEpiscopum Nicomediensem in exi¬ lium ejecisse, et subjungit : a Si quis Epis¬ coporum inconsulte tumultuatus sit, ministri Dei, hoc est , mea executione illius audaoia coercebitur. » Respondeo, more solito Calvinum impone¬ re simplicibus. Nam Constantinus in illa epistola scribit, se quidem ejecisse in exilium Eusebium Episcopum, sed addit , eum ante fuisse a Nicaeno Concilio depositum ab Epis¬ copatu propter haeresim. Nos autem non ne¬ gamus , quin debeat Magistratus saecularis punire Clericos , quando ab Ecclesia dam¬ nantur, et degradantur, et Judicibus saecu¬ laribus traduntur. Yerb a autem Constantini, quae Calvinus subjungit , ab ipso depravata sunt. Non enim minatur eo loco p cenam Con¬ stantinus Episcopis , sed Laicis ; dicit enim se graviter animadversurum in plebem Ni¬ comediensem, si iterum redire velit ad Episcopos Haereticos, a Concilio generali damnatos, et non acquiescat suscipere pro¬ bum et Catholicum Antistem. Haec enim sunt verba ejus : « Sin autem quisquam (non dicit, Episcoporum , ut Calvinus addi¬ dit) temeritate et audacia accensus, eas Ecclesiae pestes , id est, Episcopos Arianos, vel memoria , vel laudibus celebrare aggre¬ diatur, confestim opera ac diligentia Minis¬ tri Dei , hoc est , mea, poenas suae inscitiae dabit. » « Objicit secundo Petrus Martyr. : « Jure divino subjecta est omnis anima sublimiori¬ bus potestatibus, id est, Regibus, ut constat ex epist. ad Rom. cap. XIII. Ergo non po¬ tuerunt Reges eximere ullos Christianos a sua potestate. Et confirmatur argumentum ex doctrina Catholicorum , qui ea ratione probant, non posse ullum eximf a potestate Papae, quia jure divino omnes homines sub¬ jiciuntur Papae. » Respondeo, nihil ea ratiocinatione conclu¬ di, quamvis enim jure divino sit omnis ani¬ ma potestatibus sublimioribus subjecta , ac per hoc etiam Regibus dum sublimiores po¬ testates sunt : tamen fieri non potest ut qui nunc est sublimior potestas, paulo post non sit, ut si ipse subjiciat alteri partem sui regni, vel jure belli, aut alio justo titulo Regnum, vel Regni partem amittat. Quoniam ergo Clericos partim ipsi Principes subjecerunt in omnibus causis, etiam temporalibus et civilibus Epis¬ copis suis : et postremo summus Pontifex Cle¬ ricos omnes exemit a subjectione Principum ssecularium, sequitur , ut respectu clerico¬ rum non sint Principes, superiores potesta¬ tes, ac proinde non teneantur Clerici Princi¬ pibus parere neque jure humano, neque ju¬ re divino , nisi quantum ad leges quasdam directivas ut diximus. Ad confirmationem respondeo , non esse eamdem rationem Pontificatus, etRegnorum. Nam Regna non sunt immediate a Deo ins¬ tituta , sed ab hominibus, et ideo ab homi¬ nibus mutari possunt in alias regiminis for¬ mas : Pontificatus autem a Deo immediate est institutus, et ideo non potest ab homini¬ bus immutari. Quarta propositio : « Bona Clericorum tam Ecclesiastica , quam saecularia libera sunt, ac merito esse debent a tributis Prin¬ cipum saecularium.» Quod libera sint de fac¬ to, perspicuum est ex Concilio Lateranensi sub Alexandro III. part. 1, cap. 19. ex Con¬ cilio Lateranensi sub InnocentioIII. cap. 46. Item ex cap. Ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, de constitut. ex cap. Quamquam, de cens. in VI. ex Extra vaganti , Quod olim, de immu¬ nit. Eccles. Item ex cap. Quia nonnulli, et cap. Clericis, de Immunit. Eccles. in 6. Prae¬ terea, ex legibus Principum , quae habentur in Codice Theodosiano, lib. XYI, tit. 2, lege 16 et 26. et in Codice Justiniani, lege sanci¬ mus, de sacrosanctis Ecclesiis , et in lib. X hist. Eusebii cap. 7. ex versione Christophor- soni. Ubi tamen est observandum, ante Jus¬ tiniani tempora legibus priorum Principum immunes fuisse Clericos a tributis personali¬ bus, ut etiam indicat S. Hieronymus in com¬ mentario ad cap . XVII Matthaei : non tamen fuisse liberos a tributis , quae pendi solent CAPUT XXVIII. 489 ratione possessionum, ut colligitur ex Sanc¬ to Ambrosio in oratione de tradendis Basili¬ cis , ubi dicit : « Agri Ecclesiae solvunt tri¬ butum; i) et ex Theodoreto lib. IV histor. cap. 7, ubi scribit, Valentinianum seniorem in epistola ad Episcopos Asiae illa verba po¬ suisse : « Boni Episcopi tributa pensitant Regibus. » Quod autem haec exemptio jure facta sit, et quo jure, humano ne solum, an etiam di¬ vino, in sequentibus propositionibus expone¬ mus. Objicit adversus hanc propositionem Mar- silius de Padua exemplum Christi, qui tribu¬ tum solvit, ut habemus Mat. XVII. Sed facilis est responsio. Christus enim solvit tributum, quia voluit, non quia debuit. Id quod ex eo¬ dem loco intelligi potest. Xfam cum dictum esset Petro ab iis , qui exigebant tributum. Magister vester non solvit didrachma? Domi¬ nus Petro ait : Quid tibi videtur Simon ? /te¬ ges terree a quibus aecipiunt tributum , vel cen¬ sum? a filiis suis , an ab alienis? Respondit Si¬ mon, ab alienis. AitDominus, ergo liberi sunt filii. Sed ut non scandalizemus eos , vade ad mare, et mitte hamum, et eum piscem, qui pri¬ mus ascenderit , tolle, et aperto ore ejus inve¬ nies staterem , illum sumens da eis pro me , et pro te (1). Duae sunt autem interpretationes ejus loci : Ergo liberi sunt filii ; et secundum utramque rectissime Dominus ostendit , se liberum fuisse a tributo solvendo. Prior ex¬ positio est Sancti Hilarii, qui docet, agi hoc loco de tributo , quod imposuerat Deus om¬ nibus filiis Israel Exod. XXX. in usum tem¬ pli , quod tributum proprie erat didrach¬ ma. Et secundum hanc expositionem, quae verissima nobis videtur, vis argumenti haec est : Reges terrae non exigunt tributum a fi¬ lis suis , sed ab alienis : igitur neque Rex coeli exiget tributum a me, qui sum ejus pro¬ prius et naturalis filius. Posterior interpre¬ tatio est S. Hieronymi, qui verba Domini de tributo, quod Caesari solvebatur, exponit; quae sententia minus probabilis esse videtur, quia tributum, quod solvebatur Caesari, tem¬ pore Christi, non erat didrachma, sed dena¬ rius, ut perspicuum est ex cap. XXII. Matth.: Ostendite mihi numisma Census. At illi obtule¬ runt ei denarium (2). Neque potest ulla soli¬ da ratione demonstrari, consuevisse didrach- mi tributum Caesari solvi , nisi post Christi Ascensionem in coelum; scribit enim Jose- phusinlib. VII de bello Judaico cap. 26. post eversum templum, a Vespesiano Impe¬ ratore , institutum fuisse , ut tributum di- drachmi , quod Judaei omnes templo solve¬ bant singulis annis , deinceps in Capitolium deferretur. Sed tamen ex hac etiam senten¬ tia recte colligitur , Christum non fuisse ul¬ lius tributi debitorem , quamvis enim non esset filius Caesaris, qui tributum juxta hanc sententiam, exigebat : erat tamen filius Dei, cujus Ministri sunt omnes Reges , et Princi¬ pes terrae, ut legimus Sap. VI. et Rom. XIII. neque debent Ministri Regis a Filio Regis tributum petere. Praeterea tributa solvuntur Regibus ratione vitae hujus corporalis, timo¬ ribus, et periculis obnoxiae , ut S. Thomas docet in 2. 2. q. CIV, art. 6. ad primum. Et ideo justi, etiam homines , licet secundum animam liberi sinta servitute peccati, tamen ratione corporis , cujus redemptione adhuc expectant, ut ait Apostolus ad Rom. VIII. sub¬ jecti sunttributis, et potestati civili. At Chris¬ tus non solum secundum animam, sed etiam secundum corpus liber erat, non servus; ne¬ que redemptionem , sed solam Resurrectio¬ nem corporis expectabat; carebat enim om¬ ni morbo concupiscentiae, et omni lege pec¬ cati, neque periculis , aut injuriis obnoxius erat, nisi quantum ipse permittebat. Oblatus est, inquit Isaias c. LIII. quia ipse voluit (3). Itaque nulli Regi tributum debebat, qui nul¬ lius Regis defensione indigebat ; et merito damnata est, ut haeretica, sententia Marsilii Paduania Joanne XXII, Pontifice, in Extra- vaganti, Licet, quam refert Joan. de Turre- cremata lib. IV Summae de Ecclesia, part. 2, cap. 37. Quinta propositio : « Exceptio Clericorum in rebus politicis tum quoad personas, tum quoad bona, introducta est jure humano pa¬ riter et divino. » Et quidem quod jure hu¬ mano introducta sit, patet ex iis testimoniis, quae attulimus in tertia , et quarta proposi¬ tione probanda. Quod autem sit etiam in¬ troducta jure divino, probandum est hoc lo¬ co. Sed antea tamen observandum est , nos per jus divinum non intelligere praeceptum Dei proprie dictum, quod exstet expresse in sacris litteris : sed quod ab exemplis vel testi¬ moniis testamenti veteris, vel novi per quam¬ dam similitudinem deduci possit. Atque hinc fortasse conciliari poterunt Theologorum, et Jurisperitorum sententiae. Illi enim cum ne- (1) Matth. XVII, 23, 24, 25 et 26. — (2) Matth. XXII, 19. — (3) Isai. LIII, 7. 490 LIBER IV. gant, exemptionem Clericorum esse juris divini , praeceptum divinum proprie dictum expresse in scripturis exstare negant : isti ve¬ ro cum affirmant, eamdem exemptionem es¬ se juris divini, id solum affirmant , quod Theologi minime negant, deduci per simili¬ tudinem ab exemplis , et testimoniis sacrae scripturae, Deum voluisse, ut Clerici, et ipso¬ rum bona libera essent a potestate,, et juris¬ dictione Laicorum. Certe Geminianus, Ancharanus, et alii in¬ signes Doctores, exponentes caput, Quam¬ quam, de Censibus in VI notant, in eo capi¬ tulo haberi textum expressum, quo immu¬ nitas Ecclesiasticorum dicatur esse juris di¬ vini. Sed quomodo id sit intelligendum, a Glossa petendum esse monent. Glossa vero in idem caput, docet, esse juris divini eam immunitatem, quia deducitur ab exemplo Josephi Patriarchae, qui exemit sacerdotes Aegyptiorum Gen. XLVII, et Artaxerxis Re¬ gis Persarum, qui exemit sacerdotes Israeli- ticos T. Esdrse VII. Nam ut recte ait Alexan¬ der Pontifex in Concilio Lateranensi, unde exstat cap. Non minus, de immunit. Eccles. a Non decet Ecclesiam Dei minus liberam esse tempore Principum Christianorum, quam fuerit tempore Pliaraonis. » His igitur notatis, probatur nostra propo¬ sitio, primo testimoniis scripturae divinae. Nam praeter loca jam citata ex Genesi et ex libro Esdrae, habemus alia duo non minus illustria. Siquidem in lib. Numerorum cap. III, Deus non semel, sed saepius repetit, Le¬ vitas proprie suos esse, atque eos sibi ex omni populo delegisse. Et in eodem loco do¬ no dari jubet omnes Levitas Aaroni, et filiis ejus, id est, summo sacerdoti, et successo¬ ribus ejus. Quos enim sibi ipse delegit ad ministerium templi, rerumque sacrarum, soli Pontifici, qui locum Dei repraesentabat in terris, subjectos esse voluit, ac per hoc a jurisdictione terrenorum Principum libera¬ vit. Constat autem id esse nunc in Ecclesia Clericos, quod erant Levitae in testamento veteri, et Pontificem Christianorum non mi¬ noris esse auctoritatis, sed longe majoris in Ecclesia Christi, quam fuerit Aaron in Sy¬ nagoga Judaeorum. « Nunc ( inquit S. Leo serm. 8. de passione Domini) et ordo clarior Levitarum, et dignitas amplior Seniorum, et sacratior unctio Sacerdotum. » Sequitur igitur ut quemadmodum in tes¬ tamento veteri liberi erant Levit* jure divi¬ no a potestate Principum saecularium : ita sint etiam Clerici in testamento novo. Alius locus est is, quem supra tractavi¬ mus ex cap. XVII Matth. : Ergo liberi sunt filii . Nam cum filii Regum a tributis exi¬ muntur, non ipsorum personae tantum, sed etiam servi et Ministri, atque adeo ipsorum familiae a tributis eximuntur. Certum est au¬ tem Clericos omnes proprie ad familiam Christi, qui filius est Regis Regum, pertine¬ re. Atque id videtur Dominus significare vo¬ luisse, cum ait Petro : Ut autem non scanda¬ lizemus eos , sumens staterem da illis pro me, et pro te; quasi diceret, et se et familiam suam, cujus Praefectus erat Petrus, liberos a tribu¬ tis esse debere. Quod etiam intellexisse vi¬ detur S. Hieronymus in commentario ejus loci, cum dicit, Clericos propter honorem Domini tributa non solvere ; et S. Augusti¬ nus lib. I quaest. Evangel. quaest. 23. cum scribit, in omni Regno terreno non esse vec¬ tigales filios Regni illius, sub quo sunt om¬ nia Regna terrae. Secundo probatur eadem propositio ex testimoniis sacrorum Canonum. Concilium Tridentinum Generale nostris temporibtis celebratum sess. XXV, cap. 20. de Refor¬ matione, sic loquitur : « Ecclesiae et perso¬ narum Ecclesiasticarum immunitas Dei or¬ dinatione, et Canonicis sanctionibus insti¬ tuta est. » Concilium Coloniense paulo ante ipsam Tridentinam Synodum celebratum, part. IX, cap. 20 : o Immunitas, inquit, Ec¬ clesiastica vetustissima res est, jure pariter divino et humano introducta, quae in duo¬ bus potissimum sita est, primum ut Clerici eorumque possessiones a vectigalibus et tri¬ butis, aliisque muneribus laicis libera sint, deinde ne rei criminis ad Ecclesiam confu¬ gientes inde extrahantur. » Concilium Late¬ ranense sub Leone X celebratum, sess. IX : « Cum a jure, inquit, tam divino, quam hu¬ mano Laicis potestas nulla in Ecclesiasticas personas attributa sit, innovamus omnes, et singulas constitutiones ; » et Concilium La¬ teranense sub Innocentio III, cap. 43 : « Ni¬ mis (inquit) de jure divino quidam Laici usurpare conantur, cum vires Ecclesiasticas nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis ad prae¬ standa sibi fidelitatis juramenta compel¬ lunt. » Bonifacius VIII, in cap. Quamquam, de censibus in VI, tamquam de re nota et explorata loquitur, cum ait, jure divino et humano Clericos et eorum bona libera esse a saecularium potestate. Joannes item VIII, Can. si Imperator, dist. 96. : « Non a legi- • CAPUT XXIX. 491 bus (inquit) publicis, non a potestatibus sae- culi, sed a Pontificibus et Sacerdotibus Om¬ nipotens Deus Christianae Religionis Clericos et Sacerdotes voluit ordinari, et discuti. » Et quod de personis affirmat Joannes Ponti¬ fex, affirmavit multo ante Symmachus Papa cum tota Synodo tertia Romana de bonis Ecclesiasticis : « Solis (inquit) Sacerdotibus disponendi de rebus Ecclesiae indiscusse a Deo cura commissa est. » His addi potest Innocentius IV Pontifex, quamvis non ut Pontifex, sed ut Doctor particularis de hac re scripserit. In commentario enim ad cap. 2. de Majoritate et obedientia, posteaquam docuerat, Clericos exemptos fuisse a potes¬ tate Laicorum per summum Pontificem Im¬ peratore consentiente, addidit hanc non esse plenam exemptionem, et ideo dicendum es¬ se, clericos ab ipso Deo fuisse exemptos. Hoc testimonium Innocentii ea de causa adden¬ dum putavi, quoniam Covarruvias in lib. practicarum quaestionum cap. 31. scribit, praedictum Pontificem in loco a nobis citato affirmasse , exemptionem Clericorum non esse juris divini, quod falsum esse verba ci¬ tata palam ostendunt, et ante nos in hanc eamdem sententiam Innocentium allegavit Panormitanus in cap. Nimis, de jurejuran. ubi etiam idem auctor recte refellit eos, qui per jus divinum intellfgunt jus Canonicum. Et fortasse ad ejusmodi explicationes exclu¬ dendas Concilium Tridentinum non utitur vocibus juris divini et humani, quae possent trahi ad significandum jus Canonicum et ci¬ vile, sed ait : « Ordinatione divina, et Ec¬ clesiasticis sanctionibus immunitatem Eccle¬ siae, et personarum ecclesiasticarum fuisse institutam. »