Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 0: Preface
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus adversus Gulielmum Barclaium, a treatise of 1610. 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).
He who lately brought into the light the book of William Barclay on the Power of the Pope dared to give neither his own name, nor the printer's, nor even the place where the book was printed. For although in certain copies that book is said to have been published at Pont-à-Mousson, I hold it as certain that this was invented. He feared, namely, and not without cause, punishment or reproach; he did not look for reward or praise. The name of the author alone, which the author himself, if he were living, would perhaps gladly have concealed, he freely uncovered, because he knew that, called away and snatched to the supreme judge, he now had no business with mortals. These surely are not the marks of a good work; for he that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved; but he that doth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God, John 3. Barclay himself too, fearing perhaps to be charged with incredible arrogance and rashness if, like another Goliath, he alone should advance against the battle lines of all Catholic writers, dissembling the multitude of his adversaries, undertook of set purpose to attack my writings alone. But I am not of such account that I should think the cause of the universal Church to hang on me alone; I know my imperfection; I know that I am one of many, and I shall not allow the common cause to be prejudged, whether in disputing I stand or fall. For this reason I shall first bring forward the opinions of the most famous writers of every nation of the Christian world, that all may understand that Barclay's opinion is singular, and repugnant to all Catholic writers, both theologians and professors of the sacred canons and of the civil laws. It would be a wonder if Barclay were now living, and, brought into the theatre of so many most learned men, Italians, French, Spaniards, Germans and English, dared to look upon so many opposing lights, or open his mouth, or mutter at all. Then, so that no one may be able to doubt of the opinion of the Catholic Church, I shall gather the Fathers of many councils into one, as it were the greatest council; where some Supreme Pontiffs, not a few Patriarchs, very many Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, and other most learned men, who once sat gathered in various places and times, may now all come together again at once, and overwhelm with their opinions the one Barclay called into their midst. Last, when it is sufficiently established, both from the several writers and from the general councils, what the sense of the Catholic Church is on the power of the Supreme Pontiff in temporal matters, then at length I shall come to solving Barclay's objections and examining his arguments. And since Barclay denies the power of the Supreme Pontiff in temporal matters universally, I too shall assert the same power universally, not labouring much whether that power is absolute, or extends itself only in order to spiritual things. Being about to relate, then, the opinions of the illustrious writers of the Western Church on the power of the Pope in temporal matters, it seemed good to begin from the Italian nation, because I see the same observed in the Council of Constance, session 41.
Opinions of the illustrious writers of the Italian nation. First, then, from the Italian nation let Saint Gregory VII the Pope come forth, who in book 8 of his Register, epistle 2, to the bishop of Metz, teaches at length that Christian princes can be excommunicated by the Roman Pontiff, and deprived of their principality, and their subjects absolved from obedience to them: “Whereas,” he says, “you have asked to be helped and fortified by our writings against the infamy of those who with wicked mouth chatter that the authority of the holy and Apostolic See could not excommunicate King Henry, nor absolve anyone from the oath of fidelity to him,” and so on. Saint Thomas Aquinas, who not only flourished in excellent doctrine, but shone with such glory of holiness that it cannot be doubted he was very far from all flattery toward the Pontiff, in 2-2, question 10, article 10: “It must be considered,” he says, “that dominion or prelacy were introduced from human law; but the distinction of believers and unbelievers is of divine law; but the divine law, which is from grace, does not take away human law, which is from natural reason; therefore the distinction of believers and unbelievers, considered in itself, does not take away the dominion and prelacy of unbelievers over believers. Yet such right of dominion or prelacy can justly be taken away by the sentence or ordinance of the Church, having the authority of God; because unbelievers by the desert of their unbelief deserve to lose power over believers, who are transferred into sons of God; but this indeed the Church sometimes does, sometimes does not.” So Saint Thomas, who says two things against Barclay: one, that dominion and prelacy were introduced by human law, not by divine law, as Barclay frequently affirms; the other, that by the authority of the Church, which without doubt resides most fully in the Pope, unbelieving princes can be deprived of the dominion which they have over believers. Nor by unbelievers does Saint Thomas understand only heathen, as Barclay seems to think, but all unbelievers, whether they be pagans, Jews or heretics; for in article 6 of the same question he enumerates and compares among themselves the species of unbelief, and says that heretics are unbelievers absolutely and simply worse than pagans and Jews; then in article 10 he expressly pronounces of all unbelievers that they can be deprived of the dominion which they have over believers, if the Church judges it expedient. He repeats the same in question 12, article 2, and adds that on account of other crimes too lords can be deprived by the Church of the dominion which they have over others. The same in the same 2-2, question 60, article 6: “To the third: the secular power,” he says, “is subject to the spiritual as the body to the soul, and therefore it is not a usurped judgment if the spiritual prelate concerns himself with temporal matters.” The same Saint Thomas, on the second book of the Sentences, distinction 44, at the end, says that in the Pope is the summit of both powers, spiritual and temporal. The same, if it is indeed the same, book 3 on the government of princes, chapter 10: “But if it be said,” he writes, “that this (the fullness namely of the pontifical power) is referred to the spiritual power alone, this cannot be, because the bodily and temporal depends on the spiritual, and perpetually.” And chapter 19: “The like happens in the prince of a whole kingdom, because for the preservation of the government over his subjects his power is enlarged by imposing taxes, destroying cities and castles for the preservation of the whole kingdom. Much more, then, will it befit the highest and supreme prince, that is, the Pope, for the good of all Christendom.” So he. Concerning whom, although there is some doubt whether it is Saint Thomas, since in the following chapter 20 he mentions the emperor Albert, whose times Saint Thomas did not reach in his life, and because in chapter 10 cited he more than once calls Saint Peter the successor of Christ, a word, successor namely, which those who speak properly, as Saint Thomas above all does, are not accustomed to use; yet the author is ancient and learned, whom Barclay cannot despise. Saint Bonaventure, a most learned and most holy man, Bishop and Cardinal of Albano, was so far from flattery of the Pontiff that not even a light suspicion of so great a crime ever clung to him. He nevertheless, in the book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, part 2, chapter 1, speaks thus: “Now priests and pontiffs can for cause remove kings and depose emperors, as has often happened and been seen, when namely their wickedness demands it and the necessity of the commonwealth so requires. But the Supreme Pontiff, with whom the first authority on earth resides, is judged not by a king, not by a secular prince, not by a man, but is reserved to the judgment of God alone.” Giles of Rome, of the order of Saint Augustine, archbishop of Bourges, in the tract on ecclesiastical power, part 1, chapter 30: “But,” he says, “someone might say that kings and princes are subject to the Church spiritually, not temporally; but those who say this do not grasp the force of the argument; for if kings and princes were subject to the Church only spiritually, there would not be sword under sword; temporal things would not be under spiritual; there would be no order among the powers; the lowest would not be brought back to the highest through the middle”; so he, who in that whole tract proves that the power of the Church, which is most full in the Supreme Pontiff, extends not only to spiritual but also to temporal things. Blessed Augustine Triumphus, otherwise of Ancona, was a man so pious and learned that on his tomb we see the title of blessed engraved. He, in the book on the power of the Church, question 22, article 3: “Who will deny,” he says, “that the emperor can be deposed by the Pope? for it belongs to him to depose the emperor whose it is to constitute him, which the examples themselves declare.” See many other things in the whole fortieth question. Blessed John of Capistrano, who adorned the Catholic Church with doctrine and miracles, in the book on the power of the Pope, part 2 of the second principal part, in the eighteenth argument, page 54 of the Venice edition of 1588: “The Pope,” he says, “who is over princes in spiritual things, ought likewise to be eminent in temporal, so that as worthier on account of eminence he may be held supreme in all.” Saint Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, a man equally holy and learned, and most alien from every appearance of flattery, in his Summa, part 3, title 22, chapter 3, paragraph 7: “Such,” he says, “is the power of emperors, kings and princes, that it has to be instituted, regulated and confirmed by the Pope, if it is good; and to be judged and condemned by him, if it is not good.” Likewise chapter 5, paragraph 7: “He can,” he says, “for a reasonable cause depose kings themselves.” Isidore of Milan, of the order of Preachers, book 2 on the dignity of the empire of the Church militant, title 8, conclusion 3: “The Pope,” he says, “can, their demerits requiring it, depose an emperor and a king.” Gabriel Biel, a notable theologian, lecture 23 on the canon of the Mass: “He rules and guards,” he says, “who on account of the government of the Church herself set one (the Pope namely) over all, so that all may be governed by one, as the body by the head.” And near the end: “The Pope transfers the supreme secular power from nation to nation, and can depose the emperor,” and so on. Thomas Cajetan, of the order of Preachers, Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, notable for doctrine and integrity of life, in the Apology on the compared authority of Pope and Council, part 2, chapter 13, to the eighth, teaches the same; for the adversary's eighth argument being proposed in these words: Eighth, because some Supreme Pontiffs are found to have defined that they have supreme power in temporal matters, but others the opposite; he answers in these words: “To the eighth it is said that because the power of the Pope is directly with respect to spiritual things, to the simply supreme end of the human race, therefore two things belong to his power: first, that it is not directly with respect to temporal things; second, that it is with respect to temporal things in order to spiritual; for this it has from the fact that all things ought to be ordered to the supreme end, even temporal things, by him, without doubt, whose business it is to direct all to that end, as he is the Vicar of Christ; but the first follows from the nature of his power. From these it follows that he can truly determine both, as Pope: both that he has supreme power in temporal matters, and that he does not have supreme power in temporal matters; since both are true to a sound understanding, for the affirmation is true in order to spiritual things, the negation is true directly, temporal things taken in themselves. Whence no error arises from either decision.” Alexander of Sant'Elpidio, of the order of Hermits of Saint Augustine, in the book on the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and the jurisdiction of the empire, chapter 9: “He is not subject to God,” he says, “who is not subject to the Vicar of God and the ecclesiastical power; no king, then, no temporal prince, of whatever condition he be, can be excepted, if he wishes to confess himself a Christian in name and in deed; because even in temporal things they ought to be subject to the supreme spiritual power.” Peter de Monte, a Venetian, and bishop of Brescia, in the Monarchy, part 2, question 4, at the end: “The Pope,” he says, “has great power over the emperor, because for a crime he deposes him.” Peter of Ancarano, on the chapter Canonum statuta, number 6, on constitutions: “The Pope,” he says, “has both swords, and superiority over the empire, and hence it is that he crowns and anoints the emperor, and sometimes deposes him.” Sylvester Prierias, of the order of Preachers, a most learned theologian and canonist, in the Summa, under the word Pope, number 10: “The Pope,” he says, “can elect the emperor by himself immediately, when for a just and reasonable cause it is expedient; because it belongs to the principal agent, who has to direct all believers to peace and the spiritual end, to choose ministers.” And below: “He can excommunicate (the emperor) if worthy of excommunication, and depose him if worthy of deposition.” And number 11: “He has (over all Christian kings and princes) universal jurisdiction of spiritual and temporal things.” And below: “He can for a reasonable cause depose.” Astensis in the Summa, part 1, book 2, title 64, article 4, page 201: “From the foregoing,” he says, “gather notably that secular princes and temporal lords, not only on account of their own heresy, but also on account of negligence in rooting out the heresy of others, are to be excommunicated, deposed by the Church, expelled from their lands, and their lands can be exposed to Catholics to be occupied; and the same if a prince is found negligent, insufficient and unfit about his kingdom and the doing of justice: whence Zachary deposed Childeric, and Innocent Otto.” Nicholas, Abbot of Palermo, on the chapter Solitae, on majority and obedience, number 7: “The Pope,” he says, “can reasonably rebuke the emperor and other secular princes, and no wonder, for he can depose them for cause”; he teaches the same on the chapter Per venerabilem, which children are legitimate. John of Anagni, archdeacon of Bologna, on the chapter Licet, on vows, number 10: “The Pope,” he says, “deprives a layman of the order of birthright, because he has power over kings and kingdoms. Whence he deposes the emperor.” Bartolus on the law Si imperator, Codex on laws, number 4: “The right,” he says, “of electing the emperor the princes of Germany have, and the right of deposing him the Pope alone has.” Baldus in the proem of the Digest: “The Pope alone,” he says, “deprives the emperor.” Peter Andrew Gambara, in the tract on the office and power of a Legate, book 2, title on the various names of ordinaries, number 220: “The Pope alone,” he says, “deposes the emperor and kings, their demerits persuading it.” Restaurus Castaldus, in the book on the Emperor, question 81: “The Pope alone,” he says, “without a Council deposes the emperor, because the tribunal of the Pope and of Christ is one.” And below: “The Pope punishes and deposes a prince, however exempt, if it is expedient.” Dominic Cardinal Toschi, a most learned man, who is still living, and a few years ago published a great work, in the sixth volume of the Practical Conclusions, under the word Pope, cites many authors to this very purpose; to him, if anyone wishes more authors, I refer the reader.
Opinion of the illustrious writers of the French nation. Saint Bernard, book 4 on Consideration, chapter 4: “Why do you,” he says, “try again to usurp the sword which you were once commanded to put into the sheath? which yet, he who denies to be yours does not seem to me to attend enough to the word of the Lord saying thus: Put up thy sword into the sheath. It is yours, then, and it is to be drawn at your nod perhaps, though not by your hand; otherwise, if it in no way belonged to you, when the Apostles said, Behold, here are two swords, the Lord would not have answered, It is enough, but, It is too much. Both, then, are the Church's, the spiritual namely and the material sword. But the latter is to be drawn for the Church, the former also by the Church; the former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of the soldier, but surely at the nod of the priest and the command of the emperor.” So Saint Bernard, who certainly would not say that the material sword is the Church's, and not only to be drawn for the Church, but also to be drawn at the nod of the priest, if he thought with Barclay that power in temporal matters in no way belongs to the Church and her President. But of this passage we shall say more in its place. Peter Paludanus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, a most learned man, in the tract on the immediate cause of ecclesiastical power, article 4, which is on the power of the Pope, speaks thus: “Although the Pope does not have to confirm every king who from the beginning took up the kingdom by consent of the people, yet he can depose every such one, not only for heresy, or schism, or another crime intolerable in the people, but also for insufficiency, as if some fool, or one weak in strength, should preside over the kingdom, and on account of his insufficiency the kingdom of the faithful should be endangered.” And below, giving the reason, he says: “Because the Pope is superior in spiritual things, and consequently in temporal so far as is necessary for the spiritual good.” Durandus, bishop of Meaux, a notable theologian, in the book on the origin of jurisdictions, question 3: “Because,” he says, “both powers, temporal and spiritual, are necessary, therefore (Christ) conferred both powers on Peter.” And below: “These are the true limits of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction from the foundation of the Church, which it is not lawful to transgress; because temporal jurisdiction in no way extends to spiritual things, of which it knows nothing; but spiritual jurisdiction extends first and principally to spiritual things, and secondarily and by a certain consequence extends to the actions of men about temporal things, which are ordered to spiritual things as to their end.” Hervaeus Brito, of the order of Preachers, Master General, and a most acute theologian, tract on the power of the Pope, paragraph For the evidence of the second, speaks thus: “It belongs to the Pope to correct every abuse both of ecclesiastical and of earthly power in whoever exists of the Christian people.” James Almain, in the tract on the supreme ecclesiastical and temporal power, principal question 2, which is on the supreme lay power, chapter 5, to the third allegation: “The Pope,” he says, “can depose the emperor in two cases: the first, for a purely spiritual crime, such as heresy; the second, when those to whom it belongs by ordinary right are negligent to depose him.” In the same place, to the fourth allegation, he says thus: “If the nation of the empire should become heretical, or should transfer itself to another sect, leaving the Christian sect, the Pope could on this account deprive that nation of the imperial dignity, and so transfer it to another nation.” Henry, Cardinal of Ostia, in the Summa, title on heretics, paragraph With what punishment they are punished, number 11: “Note,” he says, “that temporal lords, not only on account of their own heresy, but also that of others, which, when they can, having been warned, they neglect to root out, can be excommunicated, and their lands exposed to Catholics to be occupied. The same if a prince is found negligent about government and the doing of justice. Whence Pope Zachary deposed Childeric, king of the Franks.” Peter Bertrand, Cardinal and bishop of Autun, in the tract on the origin of jurisdiction, question 4, number 5: “The spiritual power,” he says, “ought to rule over every human creature; and as Jesus Christ, while he was in this world, and also from eternity, was the natural Lord, and by natural law could have passed sentences of deposition and condemnation on emperors and any others whatever, so by the same reason his Vicar.” John de Sylva, tract on benefices, part 3, question 8: “And the Pope,” he says, “can depose a king.” Stephen Aufrerius, in the tract on the power of seculars, numbers 5 and 6: “The Pope,” he says, “removes the emperor himself, as an inferior, causes requiring; and in all arduous affairs and greatest difficulties breeding scandal in Christendom, the Pope can by reason of this superiority interpose himself, even among laymen, and exercise this power attributed to him by God.” William Durandus, bishop of Mende, commonly called the Speculator, in the Speculum, book 1, title on the legate, paragraph Now it must be shown, number 17: “The Pope,” he says, “deposes the emperor on account of his iniquities, and gives (to princes) guardians, where they are useless for ruling.” John Faber on the first law, number 10, Codex on the highest Trinity and the Catholic faith: “But,” he says, “of the Pope there is no doubt that he is superior to all Christians, both in temporal and in spiritual things.” And below: “When it is a matter of prejudice to the soul or to the people, the Pope can and ought to provide, and if necessary, depose any kings whatever.” Giles Bellemère, bishop of Avignon, on the chapter Alius, cause 15, question 6, number 2, says thus: “The Pope can depose the emperor, who acknowledges his temporality from him.” And below: “Also other kings, although they do not hold their kingdoms from him in fief, nor acknowledge their temporalities from him, nor render him an oath of fidelity, namely for crimes and negligences.” And below: “But the deposition of kings to be made by the Pope proceeds not from that ordinary, but from a certain supreme and absolute power; and that the Pope has that supreme and absolute power seems very equitable and very expedient for the commonwealth, namely that there be some supreme monarch who can correct excesses of this kind of kings, and administer justice concerning them.” See the same on the chapter Novit, on judgments, and on the chapter Solitae, on majority and obedience. John Quintin of Autun, in the repetition on the chapter Novit, on judgments, number 64: “Wherefore,” he says, “we hold that both swords were given to the Church, that is, that the Pontiff of the Church has right and power over spiritual things and at the same time over all temporal things, and can for cause decree and determine about them, by whose decrees one must stand; for although he is a mortal man, yet he is strong in heavenly power.” And below, number 127: “By this right,” he says, “Pope Zachary in the year of Christ's birth 753 deprived Childeric, by a long line of ancestors the legitimate king of Gaul and possessor, of his ancestral kingdom, and substituted in his place Pepin, a Belgian, alleging it a sin that a man unequal to so great a power, inert and doing nothing, should hold the helm of the commonwealth.” And below: “Hence too Leo, as Roman Pontiff, resting on the same authority, likewise created Charles, king of the Gauls, Roman emperor.” Raymond Rufus, against Molinaeus, chapter 6, page 106: “We are not ignorant,” he says, “that Pope Leo III conferred on Charlemagne the empire taken from the Greeks; for both our Annals and the books of the Greeks witness this; which both Charlemagne and the later Franks and Germans thought acquired to them by right. I pass over Pepin made king by Stephen II, or as some say, by Zachary, Childeric, an idle, stupid and dull king, being thrust into a monastery.”
Opinion of the illustrious writers of the Spanish nation. Saint Raymond, in the Summa, book 1, title on heretics, paragraph 7: “From what has been said,” he writes, “gather notably among other things that a judge or secular power, not only on account of his own heresy but also on account of negligence in rooting out heresy, can not only be excommunicated by the Church but also deposed; and extend this punishment and power of the Church whenever any secular prince is useless, dissolute and negligent about government and the keeping of justice, cause 17, question 4, paragraph If any prince.” Alvaro Pelayo, bishop of Silves, taken from the order of Minors, in the tract on the lament of the Church, book 1, article 21: “The Pope,” he says, “transfers the empire, and confirms the emperor, anoints and crowns the one canonically elected; and deprives of the empire the contumacious and the persecutor of the Church.” John of Torquemada, most learned Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, in the Summa on the Church, book 2, chapter 113, proposition 4, teaches that the Pope by right of the papacy does not have power in temporal matters directly outside his own ecclesiastical principality; but in chapter 114 he teaches by sixteen conclusions that the Pope in order to spiritual things has a most ample power in temporal matters. I shall relate in this place only one conclusion. Fourth proposition: the Roman Pontiff seems to have jurisdiction even in temporal matters, because he can not only coerce by ecclesiastical censure secular princes offending in the use of their jurisdiction, but also depose from their dignity those notably negligent. Let the reader see the whole chapter, and the commentary of the same author on the chapter Alius, cause 15, question 6. Cyprian Benet, an Aragonese, of the order of Preachers, in the book on the first see of the world, in the answer to the sixth for the second part of the first conclusion: “In the handing over of the keys,” he says, “is included also the conferring of earthly powers for the preservation of spiritual goods.” Francis Vitoria, of the order of Preachers, on the power of the Church, relection 1, question 5, proposition 8: “In order to the spiritual end,” he says, “the Pope has a most ample temporal power over all princes and kings and the emperor”; and below: “When it is necessary for the spiritual end he can do not only all that secular princes can, but also make new princes and remove others, and divide empires.” Dominic Soto, of the order of Preachers, on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 25, question 2, article 1, conclusion 5: “Every civil power,” he says, “is so far subject to the ecclesiastical in order to spiritual things, that the Pope can by his spiritual power, as often as the reason of faith and religion requires, not only proceed against kings with the thunderbolts of ecclesiastical censures and compel them, but also deprive all Christian princes of temporal goods, and proceed even to their deprivation.” Alphonsus de Castro, of the order of Minors, book 2, chapter 7, on the just punishment of heretics, says thus: “Nor ought anyone to wonder that the Pope on account of the crime of heresy deposes a king from the royal dignity and deprives him of the kingdom; since in the business of faith even kings, like other inferiors, are subject to the Supreme Pontiff.” James Simancas, bishop of Badajoz, in the book on Catholic institutions, title 45, number 25: “Although,” he says, “the ecclesiastical power is distinct from the secular, and the Pope does not have civil jurisdiction over the kingdoms of secular princes, nevertheless in order to the spiritual end the Supreme Pontiff has a most ample power over all orthodox princes. Whence if some prince were useless, or should make wicked laws against religion or against good morals, or should do anything similar to the detriment of spiritual things, the Pope could, the just circumstances being observed, apply a fitting remedy, even by depriving such a prince of administration and jurisdiction.” Dominic Bañez, on 2-2, question 10, article 10, at the end of the commentary, paragraph Fourth conclusion: “So too,” he says, “from positive divine law is the power which the Pontiff has to take away dominion and jurisdiction from unbelievers over believers; but when this power is to be used is left to his dominion or judgment”; and question 12, article 2, in the commentary, paragraph About the last conclusion: “The Church,” he says, “deprives of dominion over subjects not only princes perfectly apostate, but also those who have fallen in any way into heresy.” Martin Ledesma, on the second part of the fourth, question 25, article 4, conclusion 8: “In order to the spiritual end,” he says, “the Pope has a most ample temporal power over all princes and kings and emperors.” Gregory of Valentia, on 2-2, disputation 1, question 12, point 2, assertion 2: “By ecclesiastical law,” he says, “through the authority and sentence of the Supreme Pontiff, one can altogether be deprived of dominion and prelacy over subjects on account of the sin of apostasy from the faith, nor is there any doubt about this assertion among the truly orthodox.” William of Montserrat, a Catalan, in the tract on the succession of kings, number 40: “The Pope,” he says, “the Vicar of Christ, can with cause deprive any Christian prince whatever; as he deprived and deposed Childeric, king of France, and set Pepin in his place, and transferred the Roman empire from the Greeks to the Germans.” Alphonsus Alvarez, in the Speculum, chapter 16: “Hence it is,” he says, “that (the Pope) can transfer the empire from a certain kind of persons, with the greatest cause, to another kind”; and below: “And he removes the emperor himself, as an inferior, the greatest and most arduous causes requiring.” Antonio of Cordoba, of the order of Minors, book 1 of the Quaestionarium, question 57, doubt 3: “The civil power,” he says, “is subject, not indeed to the temporal power of the Pope, but to the spiritual in some way, in a case of necessity or of great usefulness of spiritual things. And the Church, and above all the Pope, has power and authority, or some temporal jurisdiction in order to the spiritual end, over all men and princes, and all things and kingdoms of the whole world.” Luis Molina, volume 1 on justice and right, tract 2, disputation 29, conclusion 3: “The spiritual power of the Supreme Pontiff,” he says, “has, joined to the supernatural end as it were by consequence, a supreme and most ample power of temporal jurisdiction over all kings and the rest who are of the Church; yet precisely so far as the supernatural end demands, to which the spiritual power is ordered. Wherefore, if the supernatural end requires it, the Supreme Pontiff can depose kings and deprive them of their kingdoms.” Diego Covarruvias, in the tract on the resurrection, on the rule Peccatum, part 2, paragraph 9, number 7: “This opinion,” he says, “is true in this sense, that the Pope truly has temporal power even over the emperor, so far as it is useful and necessary for the government of the Catholic Church and the use of the spiritual power.” Fernando Vázquez, book 1 of the illustrious controversies, chapter 21: “But,” he says, “the Pope also has jurisdiction in temporal matters, so far as they are necessary for the spiritual expedition.” And below: “Which the favourers of both sides commonly admit.” Michael de Aynion, in the tract on the unity of the fold and the shepherd, number 12: “With the Pope,” he says, “is both supreme power, although he does not have the use of the temporal sword; and because the power of the Pope flowed immediately from God, and is subject to God alone, but the power of the emperor from the Vicar of Christ, to whom it is subordinate, therefore the Pope can transfer the empire from a certain kind of persons to another, and anoints and crowns, confirms, approves and reproves the emperor, and also deposes him, causes requiring.” Martin Navarrus, in the commentary on the chapter Novit, on judgments, notable 3, number 41: “The ecclesiastical power,” he says, “is a species of power distinct from the lay, and far nobler than it; as gold is a species of metal distinct from the species of lead, and nobler than it; and it embraces strictly only supernatural things; but indirectly natural things so far as they are necessary for the attainment of the supernatural end”; and below, number 99: “The reason is gathered,” he says, “why the Pope can depose kings so negligent in ruling their kingdoms that on that account the people of God subject to them is drawn back from obtaining eternal life.” Further, this author cites very many to the same opinion.
Opinion of the illustrious writers of the German nation. Stephen, bishop of Halberstadt, in the epistle which exists in the appendix of Marianus Scotus, speaking of the emperor Henry IV: “The lord Henry,” he says, “is a heretic, and for his wicked evils excommunicated by the Apostolic See, and can obtain neither kingdom nor any power over us, because we are Catholics.” Hugh of Saint Victor, a Saxon by nation, a man most celebrated for learning and holiness, book 1 on the sacraments, part 2, chapter 41: “The spiritual power,” he says, “has both to institute the earthly power that it may be, and to judge it if it is not good. But it itself was first instituted by God, and when it strays, can be judged by God alone.” Henry of Ghent, quodlibet 6, question 33: “That hierarch,” he says, “first after Christ over the universal Church, was Peter, to whom he handed both keys and committed both swords; so that the government of the universal Church, both in spiritual and in temporal things, belonged to him.” Ulrich in his Summa says thus: “If a king were manifestly a heretic, or if, appealed to by the Church, he nevertheless neglected the government of his kingdom as to the things which are of faith, namely if he did not attend to the rooting out of heretics, he could be deposed by the Church from the royal dignity.” This author John of Torquemada cites in the place cited above. Denis the Carthusian, in the book on the government of the state, article 19: “In the Church of God,” he says, “there is one Supreme Pontiff, namely the lord Pope, in whom is the fullness and summit of both power and dominion, that is, both of spiritual and of secular power; therefore he has jurisdiction and disposition over all kingdoms and principalities of the faithful, not only in spiritual but also in temporal things, when a reasonable cause requires. For he can both depose the emperor, and deprive kings of their kingdoms, if their life deserves it.” John Driedo, book 1 on Christian liberty, chapter 14: “But,” he says, “here it is not to be passed over in silence that the Pope, from the fullness of power over all Christian princes, can on account of the crime of heresy deprive kings and princes of their kingdoms and empires, and in temporal matters altogether exempt the Christian people from obedience and subjection to them.” See also chapter 9, where the author shows that in order to the supernatural end the temporal power is subject to the spiritual power. Albert Pighius, book 5 on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, chapter 2: “Wherefore,” he says, “all these (Christian kings and princes namely), as they are a part and members of the Church, are necessarily also subject to the President of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, who by the rein of his rule may govern them; may hold them all conspiring to their mutual benefit and that of the whole body, keep them in duty, correct the transgressing, and if the necessity of the whole so requires, remove them also from administration and office, and set others in their place, or order them to be set by those to whom this belongs by right or custom.” See the same author in the fourteenth chapter, where he repeats the same and proves it by examples brought forward. James Latomus, in the book on the Church, chapter 14: “From the same principles,” he says, “it is concluded that a king, or any other earthly Christian prince whatever, can by right be deprived of his kingdom and principality by the Church; because the kingdom and principality, together with the persons, as was said above, passed into the body and right of the Church through holy baptism, and through the free acceptance of the Christian religion were dedicated and consecrated to Christ and his bride, and given by an irrevocable gift.” So he, who showed that the power of the Church resides most fully in the Supreme Pontiff in another book, which he entitled On the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Conrad Brunus, book 3 on legations, chapter 6: “This jurisdiction,” he says, “embraces civil and criminal judgments, denunciations and inquisitions, accusations, punishments too, and ecclesiastical censures over ecclesiastical persons and things; in many cases also it is given over lay persons and for temporal things. In all these the Supreme Pontiff has the fullest jurisdiction; but archbishops, bishops, and so on, a determinate one, and enclosed within certain limits.”
Opinion of the illustrious writers of the English and Scottish nation. Alexander of Hales, an Englishman, of the order of Minors, a most learned man, and the teacher of Saints Thomas and Bonaventure, part 4, question 10, in the explanation of the canon of the Mass, on that, And for the king N.: “The spiritual power,” he says, “has to instruct the earthly, and to judge it if it is not good; but it itself was first instituted by God, and when it strays, can be judged by God alone.” The same Alexander, part 4, question 79, members 5 and 6: “God willed,” he says, “that certain persons should have power over several others; and then those others over fewer; and so always until one came to one, namely the Pope, who is under God immediately.” In which place Alexander teaches that the Pope so presides over all powers that he alone is under God immediately. Robert Holcot, an Englishman, on the book of Wisdom, lecture 200: “But this,” he says, “is the king of kings, to whom all nations and peoples are subject, who receive temporal things from him; yet he ought to be subject to the priesthood and the Supreme Pontiff.” And below: “Samuel anointed David as king, in figure that the Vicar of Christ and the Prelate of the Church confers principality and royal power for the benefit of the Church; whence the right and authority of examining the person elected as king, and of promoting him to the empire, belongs to the Pope.” Francis Mayron, a Scot, on the fourth book of the Sentences, distinction 19, question 4: “The fullness of power,” he says, “according to both jurisdictions concurs in the same person; this is plain by the authority of Christ saying: Whatsoever thou shalt bind,” and so on. John Bacon, an Englishman, of the order of Carmelites, in the prologue on the fourth book of the Sentences, question 11, article 4: “The Pope,” he says, “has to judge of kingdoms and of kings in the cause of war and peace; for he can compel temporal princes to keep peace and justice with one another.” And below: “He has to depose a king, that the kingdom may be given to another, by reason of the iniquity or uselessness of his person. Likewise he has to depose the emperor and give the empire to another if he does not defend the Church.” Thomas Netter of Walden, of the same order, in book 2 of the Doctrinal of the ancient faith, article 3, chapter 75, explaining in what sense Saint Gregory called himself the servant of the emperor: “Assuredly,” he says, “neither did blessed Pope Gregory prejudice in anything the eminence of his state over the state of the emperor, when he set the king before himself in words only, the business also which was then being handled being attended to; which we shall fitly see if we seek his later deeds and writings. See whether he does not judge himself the master both of emperors and of kings, when after certain privileges directed to a senator, a presbyter, and the abbot of the hospice of the Franks, he closed with a threat of dignity and honour against every violator of it”; so he, who at once adds two privileges of Saint Gregory, in which he threatens kings with the loss of their kingdoms if they should presume to violate those privileges. Reginald Pole, Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, in the book on the Supreme Pontiff, chapter 8: “From which,” he says, “what we said a little before can be so concluded, that the Vicar of Christ, to whom the singular and greatest ministry of all has been committed, that namely which regards the last end of man, holds in the world and in governing the Church the highest and chief power among all the other ministers of God, whether emperors, or kings, or princes, or by whatever other name they are called.” Nicholas Sander, in book 2 on the visible monarchy of the Church, chapter 4: “From these things, then,” he says, “which both the divine law and the light of nature itself reveal, it abundantly appears how far they stray from the truth who think that Christian kings always have supreme power in their kingdoms, and are never so subject to bishops that, when they sin obstinately against the faith, they can be removed from the kingdom”; and above: “The Pontiff, then, will take no less pains to remove from the government of the people a king who imbues the Christian people with false doctrine, than a shepherd takes pains to remove from the midst a diseased ram.”
We have, then, what doctrine flourished in the Church before Barclay and I began to dispute. And if Saint Augustine, in book 2, last chapter, against Julian, having brought forward the testimonies of eleven writers, some of whom had lived two hundred years before, some a hundred, some in his own age, affirms that in no ecclesiastical council did so many illustrious writers and masters ever come together at once, and wonders whether Julian, brought into that assembly, would have dared to open his mouth and resist so many most weighty and most learned men; with how much greater reason can we affirm that in no synod, however numerous, did there ever come together more than seventy eminent writers, some of whom flourished five hundred years ago, and who in different centuries and in different parts of the Christian world adorned the Church not only with learning but also with holiness and miracles? And although I cannot affirm whether Barclay, brought into the circle of so many notable writers, if he were now living, would think that he should sit down, or that he should be believed; yet this I affirm with security: either the books of all these, which the Church has now used for so many centuries, are to be rooted out; or Barclay's little book, as scandalous, rash, seditious and erroneous, is to be delivered to the avenging flames.
Opinion of the councils on the power of the Supreme Pontiff in temporal matters. But if perhaps single witnesses, however many, and above all exception, do not make faith for someone, I shall come to joint witnesses, and those almost innumerable, who will give testimony against Barclay. That nine hundred years ago the emperor Leo the Isaurian was excommunicated by the Roman Pontiff Gregory II on account of the crime of heresy, and fined the tributes of Italy, and thereby a part of the empire, the Greek historians Glycas, Theophanes, Cedrenus and Zonaras witness, on Leo the Isaurian; and the Latins, Sigebert on the year 727, Paul the Deacon, book 21, and Platina on Gregory III. For the Latins attribute this deed to Gregory III, because he confirmed the sentence of Gregory II. Further, that the sentence of Gregory II was passed in a synod of bishops, John Zonaras, a Greek author, witnesses in the life of Leo the Isaurian, whose words these are, volume 3 of the Annals: “Gregory, who then governed the Church of old Rome, bound them together with the emperor by a synodal anathema, and forbade the tributes which until that time were paid thence to the empire, having entered into a league with the Franks.” And so that whole synod assented to Pope Gregory, and there are as many witnesses of that matter as there were bishops who came together in that synod. Then, after about three hundred years, when Pope Gregory VII excommunicated the emperor Henry IV, often warned, and deprived him of the empire and the kingdom, he did it not secretly and by his own judgment alone, but in a Roman synod, to which very many bishops had come together from every side, all consenting and approving, publicly and with solemn rite and ceremony; of this synod it is written in book 7 of the Register of Gregory VII that it was held in the year of the Lord 1080, the seventh year of the same Gregory, and that there came together to that synod archbishops and bishops, and also abbots, and an innumerable multitude of clerics of different orders and of laymen. To these should be added five other councils held by the successors of Gregory VII, namely that of Benevento by Victor III; of Piacenza by Urban II; of Rome by Paschal II; of Cologne by Gelasius II; of Reims by Callistus II; in which the sentence of Gregory VII was confirmed. See on these councils below, chapter 9. Besides, when Pope Urban II excommunicated Philip I, king of the Franks, on account of his repudiating his lawful wife and taking an adulteress in marriage, and refusing to obey when warned, and deprived him of the crown of the kingdom, he did it in the most crowded council of Clermont, as Sigebert witnesses in the Chronicle of the year 1095; and Matthew Paris relates the same more clearly, on William II, at the year 1095. But that with the excommunication was understood the deprivation of the royal dignity can be understood from Ivo, bishop of Chartres, who in epistle 28 to Pope Urban II speaks thus: “Those who are about to come to you have promised in the craftiness of their small wit and the charm of their tongue that they will obtain from the Apostolic See impunity for the king's crime, intending to use this argument in part, that the king with the kingdom will depart from your obedience unless you restore the crown and absolve him from the anathema.” It can be understood also from the historians, who witness that it was forbidden by Pope Urban that the royal diadem be placed on the excommunicated Philip. See the Chronicle of John Nauclerus, generation 37, Paulus Aemilius, book 3, on King 38, Papirius Masson, Annals, book 3. Add also what is written in the Summary or Compendium of the French histories of Nicolas Vignier, that during the whole time in which Philip lived under anathema there was not put in public documents, as was the custom, In the reign of Philip, but, In the reign of Christ; because namely the people did not hold an excommunicated king for a king. Moreover, Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 convoked the general Lateran council, which is rightly accustomed to be called the greatest; for there were present with the Supreme Pontiff himself two Eastern Patriarchs in person, of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, two by legates, of Alexandria and of Antioch; seventy archbishops, four hundred and twelve bishops, eight hundred abbots and conventual priors, legates of the emperors of West and East, and of the kings of Jerusalem, France, Spain, England and Cyprus. In this most celebrated assembly of the Christian world, then, was published the canon which is third in order, against heretics, in these words: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself against this holy orthodox Catholic faith which we have set out above,” and so on. And below: “But if a temporal lord, warned by the Church, neglects to purge his land of heretical filth, let him be bound by the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and the comprovincial bishops. And if he scorns to give satisfaction within a year, let this be signified to the Supreme Pontiff, so that from then he may declare the vassals absolved from fidelity to him, and expose the land to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being rooted out, may possess it without any contradiction and keep it in the purity of the faith, saving the right of the principal lord, provided he himself offers no obstacle in this matter nor sets up any impediment; the same law nevertheless being kept concerning those who have no principal lords.” What would Barclay say here? If this is not the voice of the Catholic Church, where, I beseech you, shall we find it? And if it is (as it most truly is), is not he who scorns to hear it, as Barclay did, to be held as a heathen and a publican, and in no way a Christian and godly man? If the Supreme Pontiff does not have power on earth to dispose of temporal things even to the deposition of those princes who are either heretics themselves or in any way favour heretics, why at the publication of this canon did no one out of so great a number protest? Why did not even one of so many orators of emperors and kings dare to mutter? The parasites of temporal princes, namely, had not yet arisen, who, that they may seem to establish temporal kingdoms, snatch the eternal kingdom from those whom they flatter. But let us add the council of Lyons too. Pope Innocent IV, then, in the year of salvation 1245, celebrated a general council at Lyons, in which, besides the archbishops summoned from every side, there were present also Baldwin, emperor of the East, with many other princes. That Saint Louis, king of the Franks, was also at Lyons at that time, and was present with the Pontiff, Aemilius and Nauclerus witness. And in that assembly, without doubt representing the universal Church, sentence was passed on the emperor Frederick II in these words: “We therefore, upon the foregoing and very many other wicked excesses of his, after diligent deliberation held beforehand with our brothers and the holy council, since we hold the place of Jesus Christ on earth, though unworthy, and it was said to us in the person of blessed Peter, Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, show and declare the said prince, who has rendered himself unworthy of the empire and of kingdoms and of every honour and dignity, and who on account of his iniquities has been cast off by God that he should not reign or rule, to be bound by his sins and cast off, and deprived by the Lord of every honour and dignity; and nevertheless by sentence we deprive him; absolving for ever from oath of this kind all who are bound to him by an oath of fidelity, firmly forbidding by apostolic authority that anyone henceforth obey or attend to him as emperor; decreeing that whoever thereafter shall afford him counsel or help or favour as emperor or king shall by that very fact lie under the sentence of excommunication. But let those to whom in the same empire the election of the emperor belongs freely elect a successor. For the aforesaid kingdom of Sicily we shall take care to provide, with the counsel of our same brothers, as we shall see to be expedient.” This is the sentence of the Supreme Pontiff with the whole council approving, that is, with the whole body of Christian prelates consenting and praising; and yet one, I know not who, dares to dispute against it, and to publish his book, and to bewitch the eyes of the unskilled. But if the single councils of the Catholic Church, by themselves, especially when the Supreme Pontiff presides in them, make the fullest faith, so that it is lawful for no one to think otherwise, how great a rashness would it be if someone dared to contradict ten most crowded councils joined together? For even if those councils were held in different places and times, yet all can easily be set before the eyes of the mind at once, and out of all be made one greatest and most numerous, where at once are seen Gregory VII, Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II, Gelasius II, Callistus II, Innocent III and Innocent IV, all most holy and most learned Pontiffs, by apostolic power excommunicating heretical kings or the patrons of heretics, and deposing them from the throne of the kingdom; and at the same time all the prelates of the Churches with the legates of almost all princes approving and praising the sentences of such great Pontiffs as most just. Certainly if Barclay, or anyone like him, were brought into an assembly of this kind, it would be a wonder if he dared to speak, indeed if he did not at once fall silent. Saint Augustine, book 1 against Julian, chapter 2, thought that a Palestinian council of fourteen bishops would be of authority great enough to crush the audacity of the one Julian; why then should not more than a thousand bishops, who came together in ten councils, avail much more to condemn the rashness of the one Barclay? This opinion, then, of the Catholic Church, which in my Disputations on the Supreme Pontiff, when I was still young, I had briefly touched, I am now forced as an old man to defend against William Barclay; a labour which I should never have suspected would be brought upon me by a man who professes himself a Catholic. For those who are outside, and continually write against me, I do not regard.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
DE POTESTATE SUMMI PONTIFICIS IN TEMPORALIBUS ADVERSUS GULIELMUM BARCLAIUM PR^FATIO Qui librum Gulielmi Barclaii de Potestate Papse nuper emisit in lucem, neque nomen suum, neque typographi, ac ne loci quidem ubi liber excusus sit, prodere ausus est. Quamvis enim in quibusdam codicibus edi¬ tus dicatur is liber Musiponti : id tamen con¬ fictum fuisse, exploratum habeo. Timuit vi¬ delicet, nec sine causa, poenam, aut vitupe¬ rationem; non praemium, aut laudem expe- ctavit. Nomen tantum auctoris, quod ipse auctor, si viveret, libenter fortasse texisset, libere detexit; quod sciret cum ad judicem supremum avocatum et raptum, niliil negotii cum mortalibus jam habere. Hmc sane non boni operis argumenta sunt; qui enim male agit, odit lucem, et non venit ad lucem, ut non arguentur opera ejus : qui autem facit yeritatem, venit ad lucem, ut manifestentur opera ejus, quia in Deo sunt facta, Joan. ni. Ipse etiam Barclaius veritus fortasse, ne in - credibilis arrogantia}, ac temeritatis arguere¬ tur, si quasi alter Goliath, adversus acies omnium Catholicorum scriptorum unus pro¬ cederet ; dissimulata multitudine adversari¬ orum, mea solius scripta ex proposito oppug¬ nanda suscepit. Sed ego non tanti sum, ut causam Ecclesiae universae a me uno pendere existimem : novi imperfectum meum ; scio me unum esse de multis, neque committam, ut communi caUsse praejudicetur, sive dispu- Tom. XI [ tando stem, sive cadam. Ea de causa pri¬ mum afferam in medium sententias claris¬ simorum scriptorum ex omni natione orbis Christiani, ut omnes intelligant Barclaii sen¬ tentiam singularem esse, et scriptoribus Catholicis omnibus tum theologis, tum sa¬ crorum canonum, ac civilium legum profes¬ soribus repugnare. Mirum autem esset si Barclaius nunc viveret, et in theatrum tot virorum doctissimorum, Italorum, Gallorum, Hispanorum, Germanorum, atque Anglorum introductus, tot adversa lumina intueri, vel os aperire, aut omnino mutire auderet. Deinde, ut de sententia Catholica} Ecclesiae nemo dubitare possit, plurium conciliorum Patres in unum quasi maximum concilium cogam ; ubi aliquot summi Pontifices, non pauci Patriarcha}, plurimi Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, aliique viri doctissimi, qui variis locis, et temporibus olim congre¬ gati sederunt; nunc iterum simul omnes conveniant, et unum Barclaium in medium vocatum sententiis suis obruant. Postremo cum satis constiterit, tum ex singulis scri¬ ptoribus, tum ex conciliis generalibus, quis sit Ecclesia} Catholica} sensus de summi Pon¬ tificis potestate in temporalibus : tum demum ad Barclaii objectiones solvendas, atque ejus argumenta examinanda deveniam. Et quo¬ niam Barclaius potest|jte^if^ummi Pontificis 2 DE POTESTATE PAP^ in temporalibus universe negat, ego quoque potestatem eamdem universe astruam, non multum laborans, si ea potestas sit absoluta, vel in ordine tantum ad Spiritualia se ex¬ tendat. Relaturus igitur sententias illustrium scriptorum Occidentalis Ecclesise de Pote¬ state Papse in temporalibus, visum est ab Italica natione incipere, quia idem observa¬ tum esse video in concilio Constantiensi sess. 41. Sententiae illustrium Scriptorum nationis Italicae . Primus igitur ex Italica natione prodeat S. Gregorius VII. Papa, qui lib. vili. Regi- stri sui, epist. 2. ad Episcopum Metensem, copiose docet, posse a Romano Pontifice principes Christianos excommunicari, et prin¬ cipatu privari, eorumque subditos ab obe- dientia eorum absolvi : « Quoti autem, in¬ quit, postulasti, te nostris scriptis juvari, et praemuniri contra illorum infamiam, qui ne¬ fando ore garriunt, non potuisse auctoritatem sanctae, et Apostolicee Sedis regem Henri- cum excommunicare, nec quemquam a sa¬ cramento fidelitatis ejus absolvere, etc. » S. Thomas Aquinas, qui non solum ex¬ cellenti doctrina floruit, sed ea sanctitatis gloria fulsit, ut eum ab omni adulatione erga Pontificem longissima abfuisse, dubitari non possit, in 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 10 : « Consi¬ derandum est, inquit, quod dominium, vel praelatio introducta sunt ex jure humano : distinctio autem fidelium, vel infidelium est de jure divino : jus autem divinum quod est ex gratia, non tollit jus humanum, quod est ex naturali ratione : ideo distinctio fide¬ lium, et infidelium secundum se considerata, non tollit dominium, et praelationem infide¬ lium supra fideles. Potest tamen juste per sententiam, vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, au¬ ctoritatem Dei habentis, tale jus dominii, vel praelationis tolli : quia infideles merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei, sed hoc quidem Ecclesia quandoque facit, quandoque non facit. » Haec S. Thomas, qui duo dicit adversus Barclaium : unum est, dominium, et praelationem introductam esse de jure humano, non ex jure divino, ut Bar- claius frequenter affirmat : alterum est, au¬ ctoritate Ecclesiae, quae sine dubitatione ple¬ nissime residet in Papa, privari posse prin¬ cipes infideles dominio, quod habent super fideles. Neque per infideles intelligit S. Tho¬ mas solos Ethnicos, ut videtur existimare Barclaius, sed omnes infideles, sive pagani, sive judaei, sive haeretici sint : nam art. 6. ejusdem quaestionis enumerat, et comparat inter se species infidelitatis, ac dicit : « Hae¬ reticos esse infideles paganis, et judaeis ab¬ solute, et simpliciter deteriores; » deinde artic. 10, de omnibus infidelibus diserte pro- nunciat, « posse eos privari dominio, quod habent super fideles, si Ecclesia judicet ex¬ pedire. » Idem repetit qu. 12, art. 2. et ad¬ dit : « Propter alia etiam crimina, posse ab Ecclesia privari dominos dominio, quod ha¬ bent super alios. » Idem in eadem 2. 2. quaest. 60. art. 6 : « Ad tertium potestas, inquit, saecularis subditur spirituali, sicut corpus animae, et ideo non est usurpatum judicium, si spiritualis praelatus se intromit¬ tat de temporibus. » Idem S. Thomas in 2. sent. dist. 44. in fine, dicit, in Papa esse apicem utriusque potestatis spiritualis, et temporalis. Idem, si tamen idem lib. ili. de Regimine principum cap. 10 : « Quod si di¬ catur, inquit, ad solam referri spiritualem potestatem (plenitudinem videlicet potesta¬ tis Pontificiae) hoc esse non potest, quia cor¬ porale, et temporale ex spirituali, et perpe¬ tuo dependet. » Et cap. 19 : « Simile contin¬ git in principe totius regni, quia pro conser¬ vatione regiminis super subditos ampliatur ejus potestas imponendo taleas, destruendo civitates et castra pro conservatione totius regni. Multo igitur magis conveniet summo, et supremo Principi, id est, Papae ad bonum totius Christianitatis. » Haec ille. De quo etsi non nihil dubium est, an sit S. Tfiomas, cum cap. 20. sequenti mentionem facit Alberti imperatoris, cujus tempora S. Thomasvivendo non attigit : et quia cap. 10. citato, S. Pe¬ trum Christi successorem non semel appel¬ lat ; qua voce successoris videlicet , uti non solent, qui proprie loquuntur, ut S. Tomas in primis solet; tamen auctor est antiquus, et doctus, quem Barclaius spernere non po¬ test. Sanctus Bonaventura, vir doctissimus, et sanctissimus Episcopus Card. Albanensis, tantum abfuit ab adulatione Pontificis, ut ne levis quidem suspicio tanti criminis in eo unquam adhseserit. Is nihilominus, in lib. de Ecclesiastica hierarchia, part. 2, cap. 1. sic loquitur : « Jam vero possunt sacerdotes, IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS et pontifices ex causa amovere reges, et de¬ ponere imperatores, sicut saepius accidit, et visum est, quando scilicet eorum malitia hoc exigit,» et reipublicae necessitas sic requirit. Summus vero Pontifex penes quem in terris prima residet auctoritas non a rege, non a principe saeculari, non ab homine judicatur, sed solius Dei judicio reservatur. » iEgidius Romanus ordinis sancti Augu¬ stini, archiepiscopus Bituricensis, in tract. de Potestate ecclesiastica, part. 1 . cap. 30 : « Sed, inquit, diceret aliquis, quod reges et principes spiritualiter non temporaliter sub¬ sint Ecclesiae, sed haec dicentes vim argu¬ menti non capiunt : nam si solum spirituali¬ ter reges et principes subessent Ecclesiae, non esset gladius sub gladio ; non essent temporalia sub spiritualibus; non esset ordo in potestatibus ; non reducerentur infima in suprema per media, haec ille, qui toto illo tractatu hoc probat potestatem Ecclesiae, quae plenissima est in summo Pontifice, non ad sola spiritualia, sed etiam ad temporalia se extendere. » Beatus Augustinus Triumphus, alias de Ancona, vir adeo pius, et doctus fuit, ut in ejus sepulcro, beati titulum incisum vide¬ amus. Is in lib. de Potestate Ecclesiae quaest. 22. artic. 3. « Imperatorem, inquit, a Papa posse deponi quis ibit inficias? ejus enim est deponere imperatorem, cujus est eumdem consituere, id quod exempla ipsa declarant. » Yide plurima alia in tota quadragesimae quaestione. Beatus Joannes de Capitrano, qui doctrina5 et miraculis Ecclesiam Catholicam illustra¬ vit, in lib. de Potestate Papae, part. 2. se¬ cundae partis principalis , in argumento octavo decimo pag. 54. editionis Venetae anni 1588 : « Papa, inquit, principes in spi¬ ritualibus, debet similiter in temporalibus eminere, ut tamquam dignior propter emi¬ nentiam, supremus in omnibus habeatur. » Sanctus Antoninus Florentiae archiepisco¬ pus, vir aeque sanctus, ac doctus, atque ab omni adulandi specie alienissimus in summa sua part. 3. tit. 22. cap. 3. §. 7 : « Talis, inquit, est potestas imperatorum, regum, et principum, quia per Papam habet institui, regulari, et confirmari, si bona est; et per ipsum habet judicari, et condemnari, si bona non est. » Item cap. 5. §. 7 : « Potest, inquit, ipsos reges ex causa rationabili de¬ ponere. » Isidorus Mediolanensis ordin. Prsedicat. lib. ii. de imperii militantis Ecclesiae digni¬ tate, tit. 8. conci. 3. « Papa, inquit, potest eorum demeritis exigentibus imperatorem ac regem deponere. » Gabriel Biel insignis Theologus, lect. 23. in canone Missae : « Ille, inquit, regit, et cu¬ stodit, qui propter ipsius Ecclesiae regimen, unum (Papam videlicet) praeposuit univer¬ sis, ut omnes ab uno, sicut corpus a capite gubernatur. » Et prope finem : « Papa trans¬ fert potestatem supremam saecularem de gente in gentem, et imperatorem deponere potest, etc. » ThomasCajetanus ordin. Praedic. S. R. E. Gard. doctrina, et vitoe integritate insignis, in Apologia, de comparata auctoritate Pa¬ pae, et Concilii, part. 2. cap. H, ad octa¬ vum, idem docet : nam proposito argumen¬ to octavo adversarii his verbis : Octavo, quia nonnulli summi Pontifices inveniuntur definivisse, se in temporalibus habere supre¬ mam potestatem : caeteri vero in oppositum. Respondet his verbis : Ad octavum dicitur, quod quia potestas Papae directe est respe¬ ctu spiritualium ad supremum simpliciter finem humani generis; ideo suae potestati duo conveniunt : primo, quod non est dire¬ cte respectu temporalium : secundo, quod est respectu temporalium in ordine ad spi¬ ritualia ; hoc enim habet ex eo quod ad su¬ premum finem omnia ordinari debent, etiam temporalia, ab eo procul dubio, cujus inter- est ad illum finem omnes dirigere, ut est Christi Vicarius : primum autem ex natura suae potestatis consequitur. Ex his autem se¬ quitur, quod utrumque vere potest determi¬ nare, ut Papa : et quod habet supremam potestatem in temporalibus ; et quod non habet supremam potestatem in temporali¬ bus : quoniam utrumque verum est ad sa¬ num intellectum, affirmatio namque est ve¬ ra in ordine ad spiritualia : negatio vero est vera directe, secundum se ipsa temporalia. Unde nihil ex utraque decisione erroris ac¬ cidit. » Alexander de S. Elpidio ordin. Eremita- tium S. Augustini in lib. de auctoritate sum¬ mi Pontificis, et juridictione imperii, cap. 9, «Deo, inquit, non subditur, qui subjectus non est Dei Vicario, et ecclesiasticae pote¬ stati : nullus ergo rex, nullus temporalis princeps, cujuscumque conditionis existat, excipi potest, si Christianum se fateri vult 4 DE POTESTATE PAP/E » nomine, et re : quia etiam in tempora¬ libus potestati supremae spirituali subjici debent. » Petrus de Monte Venetus, et episcopus Brixiensis, in Monarchia, part. 2. quae st. 4. in fine : « Magnam, inquit, habet potesta¬ tem Papa super imperatorem, quia ex deli¬ cto eum deponit. » Petrus Ancharanus in cap. Canonum sta¬ tuta, n. 6. de constitut. : « Papa, inquit, ha¬ bet utrumque gladium, et superioritatem ad imperium, et hinc est, quod imperatorem coronat, et inungit, et quandoque deponit.» Sylvester Prieras ordin. Prsed. theologus, et canonista doctissimus, in Summa, verbo, Papa, n. 10 : Papa, inquit, potest eligere imperatorem per se ipsum immediate, quan¬ do ex juxta, et rationabili causa expediret : quia principalis agentis habentis dirigere omnes fideles ad pacem, et finem spiritua¬ lem, est eligere ministros. » Et infra : « Po¬ test (Papa imperatorem) dignum excom¬ municatione excommunicare, et dignum de¬ positione deponere. » Et num. 11. : « Habet (Papa in reges, ct principes Christianos om¬ nes) universalem spiritualium, et tempo¬ ralium jurisdictionem. » Et infra : « Potest ex rationabili causa deponere. » Astensis in Summa, 1. part. lib. ii. tit. 64. art. 4. pag. 201 : « Ex praedictis, inquit, col¬ lige, quod principes saeculi, et domini tem¬ porales, non tantum propter haeresim suam, sed etiam propter negligentiam extirpandi haeresim aliorum, sunt excommunicandi, ab Ecclesia deponendi, de terris suis expellendi, et terrae eorum occupandae Catholicis pos¬ sunt exponi, et idem, si princeps circa reg¬ num, et justitiam faciendam, inventus fue¬ rit negligens, insufficiens, et ineptus : Unde /acharias deposuit Childericum, et Innocen¬ tius Othonem. » Nicolaus Abbas Panormitanus, in cap. so-' litae, de major, et obed. num. 7. « Papa, inquit, potest rationabiliter increpare impe¬ ratorem, et alios principes saeculares, et non mirum, nam potest eos ex causa deponere » , idem docet in cap. Per venerabilem, Qui filii sint legitimi. Joannes de Anania, Archidiaconus Bono¬ niensis in cap. licet, de voto, num. 10. « Papa, inquit, privat laicum ordine geni¬ turae, quia habet potestatem super reges, et regna. Unde deponit imperatorem. » Bartholus in 1. si imperator. C. de legi¬ bus, num. 4. « Jus, inquit, eligendi impera¬ torem habent principes de Alemania, et jus privandi solus Papa habes ». Baldus in prooemio ff. vet. : «Solus, inquit. Papa privat imperatorem » . Petrus Andreas Gambara , in tract. de officio , et potestate Legati lib. ii. tit. de Variis ordinariorum nominibus, num. 220. « Solus, inquit, Papa deponit imperatorem, et reges, demeritis suadentibus ». Restauras Castaldus, in lib. de Impera¬ tore qu. 81. « Solus, inquit, Papa sine Con¬ cilio deponit imperatorem, quia Papse, et Christi unum est tribunal ». Et infra : « Papa principem quantumcumque exemptum , si expedit, punit, et deponit. » Dominicus Cardinalis Tuscus vir doctissi¬ mus, qui adhuc vivit, et magnum opus ante paucos annos edidit, in sexto tomo Practi- carum conclusionum, verbo. Papa, multos auctores citat ad hoc ipsum propositum : ad eum, si quis plures auctores velit, lectorem remitto. Sententia illustrium Scriptorum nationis Gallicae. Sanctus Bernardus lib. iv. de Considera¬ tione cap. 4. « Quid tu, inquit, denuo usur¬ paro gladium tentes, quem semel jussus es ponere in vaginam : quem tamen qui tuum negat, non satis mihi videtur attendere ver¬ bum Domini dicentis sic : Converte gladium tuum in vaginam. Tuus ergo et ipse tuo for¬ sitan nutu, et si non tua manu evaginandus, alioquin si nullo modo ad te pertineret, et iis, dicentibus Apostolis, eccc duo gladii hic, non respondisset Dominus, satis est, sed nimis est. Uterque ergo Ecclesise, et spiri¬ tualis scilicet gladius, et materialis. Sed is quidem pro Ecclesia, ille vero et ab Ecclesia exerendus est, ille sacerdotis, is militis ma¬ nu, sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis, et jussum imperatoris, heee sanctus Bernardus, qui certe non diceret, gladium materialem Ec¬ clesise esse, et non solum pro Ecclesia exe- rendum, sed etiam ad nutum sacerdotis exe- rendum, si cum Barclaio, existimaret, pote¬ statem in temporalibus nullo modo ad Ecclesiam, ejusque Prsesidem pertinere ». Sed de hac sententia suo loco plura dice¬ mus. Petrus de Palude Patriarcha Hierosoly- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 5 mitanus, vir doctissimus, in tract. Dc causa immediata Ecclesiasticse potestatis artic. 4. qui est de potestate Papse, sic loquitur : a Licet Papa non habeat confirmare quem¬ libet regem, qui consensu populi a princi¬ pio regnum assumpsit : tamen potest depo¬ nere omnem talem, non solum propter hse- resim, aut schisma, aut aliud crimen intole¬ rabile in populo, sed etiam propter insuffi¬ cientiam, utpote, si quis idiota sensit, vel impotens viribus in regno prseesset, et pro¬ pter ejus insufficientiam regnum fidelium periclitaretur. » Et infra reddens rationem ait : « Quia Papa est superior in spirituali¬ bus, et per consequens in temporalibus quantum nccesse est pro bono spirituali. » Durandus Episcopus Meldensis theologus insignis, in lib. de Origine jurisdictionum, qusest. 3. « Quia, inquit, utraque potestas temporalis, et spiritualis est necessaria, ideo utramque potestatem (Christus) contulit Pe¬ tro. » Et infra : « Isti sunt veri termini ju¬ risdictionis 'spiritualis, et temporalis a fun¬ datione Ecclesiae, quos transgredi non licet ; quia jurisdictio temporalis nullo modo se extendit ad spiritualia, de quibus nihil no¬ vit : jurisdictio vero spiritualis se extendit primo, et principaliter ad spiritualia, secun¬ dario vero, et per quamdam consequentiam se extendit ad actiones hominum circa tem¬ poralia, quse ordinantur ad spiritualia tam¬ quam ad finem. » Erveus Brito Ordin. Prsedic. Magister Generalis , et theologus acutissimus , tract. de Potestate Papse §. Ad evidentiam secundi, sic loquitur : « Ad Papam pertinet corri¬ gere omnem abusum tam potestatis Eccle¬ siasticse, quam terrense in quocumque exi- stente de populo Christiano » . Jacobus Alrnain in tract. de Suprema po¬ testate ecclesiastica, et temporali, qusest. 2. principali , quse est de suprema potestate laica, cap. 5. ad tertiam allegationem : « Papa, inquit, potest imperatorem depo¬ nere in duobus casibus : primus, pro crimi¬ ne pure spirituali, ut est hseresis : secundus, quando illi, ad quos spectat jure ordinario, sunt negligentes ipsum deponere. Ibidem ad quartam allegationem, sic ait: Si gens impe¬ rii efficeretur hseretica, vel transferret se ad aliam sectam dimittendo sectam Christianam : posset propter hoc Papa illam gentem pri¬ vare dignitate, imperiali, et sic transferre in aliam gentem » . Henricus Card. Ostiensis in Summa tit. de Ileereticis. paragr. Qua poena puniantur num. 11. « Nota, inquit, quod domini tem¬ porales, non solum propter suam hseresim, sed etiam aliorum, quod cum possunt admo¬ niti exterminare negligunt, excommunicari possunt, et terree ipsorum exponi Catholicis occupandse. Idem si princeps negligens in¬ veniretur circa regimen, et justitiam facien¬ dam. Unde Zacharias Papa deposuit Chide- ricum regem Francorum. » Petrus Bertrandus Cardin. et Episcopus, Eduensis, in tractat, de Origine jurisdict. qusest. 4. num. 5. « Potestas, inquit, spiri¬ tualis debet dominari omni humanse crea- turee : et quemadmodum Jesus Christus dum fuit in hoc mundo, et etiam ab seterno natu¬ ralis Dominus fuit, et de jure naturali in im¬ peratores, et quoscumque alios depositionis, et damnationis sententias ferre potuisset : ita eadem ratione ejus Vicarius. » Joanncs de Sylva, tract. de Beneficio p. 3. qusest. 8. « Et Papa, inquit, potest deponere regem. » Stephanus Aufrerius, in tract. de Potestate ssecularium, num. 5. et 6. « Papa, inquit, ipsum imperatorem tamquam inferiorem destituit, exigentibus causis : et in omnibus arduis negotiis, et maximis difficultatibus generantibus scandalum in christianitate , Papa potest hujusmodi majoritatis ratione se intromittere, etiam inter laicos, et exer¬ cere hujusmodi potestatem sibi a Deo attri¬ butam. Gulielmus Durandus Episcopus Mimaten- sis, speculator vulgo dictus, in speculo lib. i. tit. de legato. §. Nunc ostendendum, num. 17. « Papa, inquit, deponit imperatorem propter ipsius iniquitates, et dat (principi¬ bus) curatores, ubi ipsi sint inutiles ad re¬ gendum. » Joannes Faber in legem primam, num. 10. C. summa Trinit. et fid. catholica. « Sed, inquit, de Papa non est dubium, quin se superior omnibus Christianis, et in tempora¬ libus, et in spiritualibus. » Et infra : « Cum agitur de praejudicio animse, vel populi, Papa potest, et debet providere, et si necesse sit, quoscumque reges deponere » . .fiEgidius Bellamera Episcop. Avenionen- sis, in cap. Alius. 13. qusest. 6. num. 2. sic ait : « Papa potest deponere imperatorem, qui ab eo temporalitatem recognoscit » . Et infra : « Etiam alios reges, licet ab eo regna sua non teneant infseudum, nec temporali¬ tates suas ab eo recognoscant, nec juramen- 6 DE POTESTATE PAPjE tum fidelitatis ei praestent, videlicet pro de¬ lictis, et negligentiis. » Et infra : « Depositio autem regum facienda per Papam, non ex illa ordinaria; sed ex quadam suprema, et absoluta potestate procedit : et quod illam supremam, et absolutam potestatem Papa habeat, videtur multum aequum, et reipu- blicae valde expediens, scilicet ut sit aliquis supremus monarcha , qui regum hujusmodi excessus possit corrigere, et de ipsis justi¬ tiam ministrare. » Yide eumdem, in cap. Novit, de Judic. et in cap. Solitae, de majo- rit. et obed. Joannes Quintinus Haeduus in repetitione ad c. Novit, de Judic. num. 64. «Quare, in¬ quit, ponimus utrumque gladium Ecclesiae datum esse, hoc est, Ecclesiae Pontificem habere jus, et potestatem in spiritualia si¬ mul, et omnia temporalia, atque de his sta¬ tuere, et decernere ex causa posse, cujus decretis standum : nam quamvis homo sit mortalis, tamen coelesti potestate pollet. » Et infra num. 127 : « Hoc, inquit, jure Papa Zacharias anno Christi nati 753. Childeri- cum longa majorum serie legitimum Galliae regem, et possessorem regno avito destituit, et in ejus locum Pipinum Belgam substituit, causatus peccatum esse, hominem tantae imparem potestati, inertem, et nihil agentem reipublicae gubernacula moderari. » Et in¬ fra : « Hinc et Leo, ut Pontifex Romanus, eadem fultus auctoritate Carolum pariter Gallorum regem, romanum creavit impera¬ torem. » Remundus Ruffus, contra Molineum c. 6. pag. 106. « Non ignoramus, ir.quit, Leonem III. Pontificem Graecis ademptum imperium in Carolum Magnum contulisse : id enim cum nostri Annales, tum Graecorum libri testantur : quod jure sibi quaesitum, et Ca- rolusMagnus, et posteri Franci, Germanique putarunt. Omitto Pipinum a Stephano II. vel ut nonnulli, a Zacharia regem factum, detruso in Monasterium Childerico ignavo, stupido, et bardo rege. » Sententia illustrium Scriptorum nationis Hispanicae. Sanctus Raymundus, in Summa lib. i. tit. de Haereticis. §. 7. Ex praemissis, inquit, inter alia collige notabiliter, quod judex, vel potestas saecularis, non solum propter liaere- sim suam ; sed etiam propter negligentiam contra haeresim extirpandam , potest non solum excommunicari ab Ecclesia; sed etiam deponi : et extende hanc poenam, et Eccle¬ siae potestatem quandocumque princeps ali¬ quis saecularis fuerit inutilis, dissolutus, et negligens circa regimen, et justitiam obser¬ vandam. 17. quaest. 4. §. Si quis prin¬ ceps. Pelagius Alvarus Episc. Sylvensis ex Or¬ dine Minorum assumption. in tractat, de Planctu Ecclesiae lib. i. art. 21. Papa, inquit, transfert imperium, et confirmat imperato¬ rem, electum canonice inungit, et coronat ; et contumacem, et persecutorem Ecclesiae imperio privat. Joannes de Turrecremata S. R. E. Card. doctissimus, in Somma de Ecclesia lib. ii. cap. 1 (3. propositione 4. docet, Papam jure papatus non habere extra principatum suum ecclesiasticum potestatem in temporalibus directe: sed cap. 114. docet per sexdecim conclusiones, Papam in ordine ad spiritualia habere potestatem amplissimam in tempo¬ ralibus. Referam hoc loco unam tantum conclusionem. Quarta propositio, Romanus Pontifex videtur jurisdictionem etiam in temporalibus habere, quia non solum prin¬ cipes saeculares circa usum suae jurisdictio¬ nis delinquentes potest per censuram Eccle¬ siasticam coercere ; verum etiam notabiliter negligentes a dignitate deponere. Yideat lector totum caput, et commentarium ejus¬ dem auctoris in cap. Alius. 15. qusest. 6. Cyprianus Benetus Aragonensis Ordin. Praedic, in libro de prima orbis sede, in resp. ad sextum pro 2. parte conclusionis primae. In traditione, inquit, clavium inclu¬ ditur etiam collatio terrenarum potestatum pro conservatione bonorum spiritualium. Franciscus Victoria Ord. Praedic, de Pote¬ state Ecclesiae Relectione 1. quaest. 5. prop. 8. In ordine, inquit, ad finem spiritualem Papa habet amplissimam potestatem tempo¬ ralem super omnes principes, et reges, et imperatorem, et infra : Quando necesse est ad finem spiritualem potest, non solum om¬ nia, quae principes saeculares possunt; sed et facere novos principes, et tollere alios, et imperia dividere. Dominicus a Soto Ordin. Praedic, in 4. sent. dist. 25 quaest. 2. art. 1. conci. 5 : Po¬ testas, inquit, quaecumque civilis eatenus est ecclesiasticae subjecta in. ordine ad spi¬ ritualia, ut Papa possit per suam spiritua¬ lem potestatem, quoties ratio fidei et reli- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 7 gionis exegerit, non solum ecclesiasticarum censurarum fulminibus adversus reges age¬ re, eosque cogere ; verum et cunctos chri- tianos principes temporalibus bonis pri¬ vare, et usque ad eorum privationem pro¬ cedere. Alphonsus de Castro Ordin. Minor lib. n, cap. 7. de justa hsereticorum punitione, sic ait: Nec mirari debet aliquis, quod Papa propter haeresis crimen regem a regia dig¬ nitate deponat, et regno privet ; quoniam in negotio fidei, etiam reges, sicut et alii inferiores subduntur summo Pontifici. Jacobus Simanca Pacensis Episc. in lib. de Catholicis institutionibus tit. 45. num. 25. Quamvis, inquit, Ecclesiastica potestas dis¬ tincta sita saeculari, et Papa jurisdictionem civilem non habeat in saecularium princi- pum regna : nihilominus tamen in ordine ad finem spiritualem habet Pontifex Maxi¬ mus amplissimam potestatem, in omnes prin¬ cipes Orthodoxos. Unde si princeps aliquis inutilis esset, aut iniquas leges contra reli¬ gionem, aut contra bonos mores conderet, aut quidpiam simile faceret in detrimentum rerum spiritualium , posset Papa servatis justis circumstantiis, congruum remedium adhibere, privando etiam talem principem administratione, et jurisdictione. Dominicus Bannes, in 2. 2. qua3st. 10. arfc. 10. in fine commentarii, paragr. Quarta conci. Ita etiam, inquit, a jure divino posi¬ tivo est potestas, quam habet Pontifex ad auferendum dominium, et jurisdictionem ab infidelibus supra fideles : quando autem utendum sit hac potestate, relinquitur ejus dominio, vel judicio; et qusest. 12. art. 2. in comment. paragr. Circa ultimam conclus. Ecclesia, inquit, non tantum privat dominio in subditos, principes apostatas perfecte, verum etiam illos, qui lapsi sunt aliquo pa¬ cto in heeresim. Martinus Ledesmius in secunda quartae queest. 2;>. art. 4. conci. 8. In ordine, inquit, ad finem spiritualem Papa habet amplissi¬ mam potestatem temporalem super omnes principes, et reges, et imperatores. Gregorius de Valentia, in 2. 2. disput. 1. quoest. 12. punct. 2. asser. 2. : Jure, inquit, ecclesiastico per summi Pontificis auctorita¬ tem, atque sententiam, omnino potest quis dominio, et praelatione erga subditos privari propter peccatum apostasiae a fide, neque est de hac assertione dubium ullum apud * vere Orthodoxos. Gulielmus de Monserat Catalanus, in tra¬ ctat. de Successione regum, num. 40. : Papa, inquit, Vicarius Christi cum causa potest quamcumque Christianum principem pri¬ vare; prout privavit, et deposuit Childeri- cum regem Franciae, et in ejus locum Pipi- num instituit, et romanum imperium a Gree- cis transtulit in Germanos. Alphonsus Alvarez, in Speculo cap. 16. Hinc, inquit, est, quod (Papa) imperium transferre potest de certo genere persona¬ rum, cum maxima causa ad aliud genus; et infra : Et ipsum imperatorem, tamquam inferiorem destituit exigentibus causis ma¬ ximis, et arduis. Antonius Cordubensis Ord. Minor, lib. i. Quaestionarii, qusest. 57. dub. 3. : Potestas, inquit, civilis subjecta est, non quidem po¬ testati temporali Papae; sed spirituali aliquo modo, in casu necessitatis, vel magnse utili¬ tatis spiritualium. Et Ecclesia, et maxime Papa, habet potestatem et auctoritatem, vel jurisdictionem aliquam temporalem in or¬ dine ad finem spiritualem super omnes ho¬ mines, et principes, et res omnes, et regna totius mundi. Ludo vicus Molina, tom. i. de Just. et jure, tract. 2. disp. 29. conci. 3. « Potestas, in¬ quit, spiritualis summi Pontificis ad finem supernaturalem adjunctam quasi ex con¬ sequenti habet supremam, et amplissimam potestatem jurisdictionis temporalis super omnes reges, et reliquos, qui sunt de Ec¬ clesia ; praecise tamen quantum postulat finis supernaturalis, ad quem spiritualis po¬ testas ordinatur. Quare si id exigat finis su¬ pernaturalis, potest summus Pontifex depo¬ nere reges eosque regnis suis privare. » Didacus Covarruvias, in tract. de resur¬ rectione super Regulam, Peccatum, part. 2. §. 9. num. 7. « Hsec, inquit, sententia vera est in hoc sensu, ut Papa vere habeat po¬ testatem temporalem etiam super imperato¬ rem, quatenus ea utilis, et necessaria sit ad Ecclesiae Catholicae regimen, et spiritualis potestatis usum. Fernandus Vasquius, lib. i. Illustrium con¬ troversiarum cap. 21. « Caeterum, inquit, Papa habet etiam jurisdictionem in tempo¬ ralibus, quatenus necessaria sunt ad spiri¬ tualem expeditionem. » Et infra : « Id quod admittunt communiter utriusque partis fau¬ tores. » Michael de Anynion, in tract. de Unitate Ovilis, et Pastoris, num. 12 : Penes Papam, 8 DE POTESTATE VA.VM inquit, est utraque suprema potestas, licet non habeat usum gladii temporalis : et quia potestas Papae immediate a Deo emanavit, et ipsi soli Deo subest : potestas vero impe¬ ratoris a Vicario Christi, cui est subordinata, ideo Papa potest imperium de certo genere personarum transferre ad aliud, et impera¬ torem ungit, et coronat, confirmat, approbat, et reprobat, ac etiam deponit causis exigen¬ tibus. » Martinus Navarrus, in Gomment. ad cap. Novit, de judiciis Notab. 3. num/41 : « Po¬ testas, inquit, Ecclesiastica, est species po¬ testatis, distincta a laica, et longe nobilior ea ; ut aurum est species metalli distincta a specie plumbi, et nobilior ea ; quasque dis¬ tricte solum amplectitur supernaturalia : indirecte vero eatenus naturalia, quatenus sunt necessaria ad consecutionem finis su- pernaturalis, » et infra, num. 99 : « Colligi¬ tur, inquit, ratio quare Papa deponere potest reges adeo negli gentes in regendis regnis suis, utob id populus Dei subditus illis retra¬ hatur a consequenda vita aeterna. » Porro hic auctor plurimos citat in eamdem senten¬ tiam. Sententia illustrium Scriptorum nationis Germanicae. Stephanus Episc. Alberstatensis, in epist. quse exstatin Apendice Mariani Scoti, loquens de Henrico IV. imperatore : « Dominus, in¬ quit, Henricus haereticus est, et pro nefandis malis a Sede Apostolica excommunicatus, nec regnum nec potestatem aliquam super nos, quia Catholici sumus potest obtinere. » Hugo de S. Victore, natione Saxo, vir doctrina et sanctitate celeberrimus lib. i. de Sacrament. part. 2. cap. 41 : «Spiritualis, inquit, potestas terrenam potestatem, et in¬ stituere habet ut sit, et judicare habet, si bona non fuerit. Ipsa vero a Deo primum institnta est, et cum deviat, a solo Deo ju¬ dicari potest. » Henricus de Gandavo, quodlibeto G. qusest. 33 : « Iste, inquit, Hierarchia primus post Christum super 'universalem Ecclesiam Pe¬ trus erat, qui ambas claves tradidit, et duos gladios commisit ; sic, ut regimen universa¬ lis Ecclesiae, tam in spiritualibus, quam in temporalibus ad ipsum pertineret. » Ulricus in sua Summa, sic ait : « Si rex esset manifeste haereticus, vel si interpellatus ab Ecclesia negligere nihilominus regimen regni sui, quantum ad ea quae sunt fidei, scilicet si non intenderet extirpationi haere¬ ticorum, posset ab Ecclesia deponi a regia dignitate. » Ilunc auctorem allegat Joan. de Turrecremata loco supra citato. Dionysius Carthusianus, in lib. de Regimi¬ ne politiae, art. 19 : «In Ecclesia, inquit, Dei est unus Pontifex summus, videlicet domi¬ nus Papa, in quo est utriusque potestatis, atque dominii plenitudo, et apex, hoc est, tam spiritualis, quam saecularis potestatis : idcirco jurisdictionem, et dispositionem ha¬ bet super omnia regna, et principatus fide¬ lium non solum in spiritualibus, sed etiam in temporalibus, dum rationalis causa requi¬ rit. Nam et imperatorem potest deponere, et reges, si vita eorum id mereatur, regnis suis privare. Joanncs Driedo lib. i. de libertate Christia¬ na cap. 14 : « Verum, inquit, hic non est silentio praetereundum, quod Papa, ex pleni¬ tudine potestatis super universos principes Christianos, potest reges, ac principes pro¬ pter haeresis crimen privare suis regnis at¬ que imperiis, et in temporalibus prorsus eximere plebem Christianam ab obedientia, et subjectione eorum. » Vide etiam cap. 9. ubi demonstrat auctor in ordine ad finem supernaturalem, subjectam esse potestatem temporalem potestati spirituali. Albertus Pighius lib. v. de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 2 : «Quare, inquit, hi omnes (reges, et principes videlicet Christiani) ut pars et membra sunt Ecclesiae, necessario etiam subsunt Ecclesiasticae hierarchiae Prae- sidi, qui sui imperii habena moderetur eos¬ dem ; in suam mutuo, et totius corporis uti¬ litatem conspirantes teneat omnes, contineat in officio, praevaricantes corrigat, et si ita exigat totius necessitas ; administratione quoque, et officio amoveat, et in locum eo- . rum constituat alios, aut constituandos prae¬ cipiat per eos, ad quos hoc ipsum de jure, aut consuetudine pertinet. » Vide eumdem auctorem cap. quartodecimo, ubi idipsum repetit, et exemplis allatis probat. Jacobus Latomus, in lib. de Ecclesia cap. 14 : « Ex ejusdem, inquit, principiis confici¬ tur, regem, aut alium quemcumque terrenum principem Christianum, regno, et principatn jure privari posse per Ecclesiam; quia reg¬ num, et principatus cum personis, ut supra dictum est, in Ecclesiae corpus, et jus trans¬ iit per sacrum baptisma, et per christianm IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 9 religionis liberam acceptionem Christo, et sponssc ejus didicatum, et consecratum, et donatum donatione irrevocabili. » Hsec ille, qui potestatem Ecclesise plenissime residere in summo Pontifice demonstravit in alio li¬ bro, quem de Primatu Romani Pontificis in¬ scripsit. Conradus Brunus lib. ni. de Legationibus cap. 6 : « Hsec, inquit, jurisdictio judicia ci¬ vilia, et criminalia, denuntiones, et inquisi¬ tiones, accusationes, pcenasitem, et censuras Ecclesiasticas complectitur in personas, et res Ecclesiasticas : multis etiam casibus in laicas personas, et pro rebus temporalibus datur. In bis omnibus plenissimam habet jurisdictionem summus Pontifex : determi¬ natam autem, et certis limitibus conclusam Archi episcopi, Episcopi, etc. » Sententia illustrium Scriptorum nationis Anglicse , et Scoticae. Alexander Alensis Anglus Ordin. Min. vir doctissimus, et sanctorum Thomae et Bona- venturae praeceptor part. 4. quaest. 10, in explicatione Canonis Missae in illud : Et pro rege : « N. spiritualis, inquit, potestas terre¬ nam habet instruere, et judicare, si bona fuerit : ipsa vero a Deo primum instituta est, et cum deviat, a solo Deo judicari potest. » Idem Alexander part. 4. quaest. 79. membr. 5 et G : « Yoluit, inquit, Deus quosdam in alios plures habere potestatem ; et deinde in illos alios pauciores ; et sic semper donec deveniretur ad unum, scilicet Papam, qui sub Deo immediate est. » Quod loco docet Ale¬ xander, Papam ita praeesse omnibus pote¬ statibus, ut ipse solus sub Deo immediate sit. Robertus Olkot Anglus, in lib. Sapientiae lect. 200 : « Hic autem, inquit, est rex re¬ gum, cui omnes subsunt nationes, et populi, qui temporalia ab eo recipiunt : Sacerdotio tamen, ac summo Pontifici debet subesse. » Et infra : « Samuel unxit David in regem, in figura quod Vicarius Christi, et Praelatus Ec¬ clesiae confert principatum, et regiam pote¬ statem ad utilitatem Ecclesiae, unde jus, et auctoritas examinandi personam electam in regem, et promovendi ad imperium ad Pa¬ pam pertinet. ' Franciscus Maironus Scotus, in 4. sent. distinet. 19. quaest. 4 : « Plenitudo, inquit, potestatis secundum utramque jurisdictionem concurrit in eamdem personam : hoc patet auctoritate Christi dicentis: Quodcumque liga¬ veris etc. » Joannes Bachonus Anglus Ord. Carmelita- rum, in Prologo super 4. sent. quaest. 11 art. 4 : « Papa, inquit, habet judicare dc regnis, et de regibus in causa belli, ct pacis : potest enim compellere principes temporales, ut pacem, ut justitiam sibi invicem servent. » Et infra : « Habet regem deponere, ut alteri regnum tribuatur, ratione iniquitatis, vel inutilitatis suae personae. Item habet impera¬ torem deponere, et imperium alteri dare, si non defendat Ecclesiam. » Thomas Valdensis Ordin. ejusdem, in lib- h. Doctrinalis fidei antiquae, art. 3. cap. 75. explicans quo sensu S. Gregorius servum se imperatoris dixerit : « Profecto, inquit, nec beatus Papa Gregorius eminentia sui status super statum imperatoris praejudicavit in ali¬ quo, cum regem sibi verbo tenus praeposuit, negotio quoque , quod tunc tractabatur attento, : quod tunc apte videbimus, si po¬ steriora ejus facta, et scripta quaeramus. Vi¬ de an se magistrum et imperatorum, et re¬ gum non arbitratur, cum post privilegia quaedam senatori presbytero, et abbati Xe¬ nodochii Francorum directa sub intermina¬ tione dignitatis, et honoris omni ejus violatori conclusit, » haec ille, qui continuo subjungit duo privilegia sancti Gregorii, quibus mina¬ tur regibus regnorum amissionem, si privile¬ gia illa violare praesumerent. Reginaldus Polus, sanctae Romanae Eccle¬ sise Cardinalis, in lib. de summo Pontifice cap. 8 : « Ex quo, inquit, id quod paulo ante diximus, ita concludi potest, Christi Vica¬ rium, cui singulare, et maximum omnium ministerium commissum est, illud nimirum, quod ultimum spectat hominis finem, in orbe terrarum, Ecclesiaque gubernanda obtinere summam ac praecipuam potestatem inter caeteros omnes Dei ministros, seu imperato¬ res, seu reges, seu principes, aut quocumque alio nomine nuncupantur. » Nicolaus Sanderus in lib. ii. de visibili Monarchia Ecclesise cap. 4. « Ex his igitur, inquit, quae tum divinum jus, tum ipsius na¬ turae lumen revelat, abunde apparet, quan¬ topere aberrent a veritate, qui putant reges Christianos in suis regnis supremam semper potestatem habere, nec unquam Episcopis ita subesse, ut cum in fidem obstinate pec¬ cant, a regno promoveri queant, et supra, Pontifex igitur non minus dabit operam, ut regem, qui populum Christianum falsa do- 40 DE POTESTATE PAPjE ctrina imbuit, a regimine populi removeat, quam Pastor operam dat, ut male affectum arietem de medio tollat. » Habemus igitur, quae doctrina viguerit in Ecclesia antequam Barclaius et ego litigare inciperemus. Et si S. Augustinus, in lib. n. cap. ultim. adversus Julianum, adductis testimoniis undecim Scriptorum , quorum aliqui ante ducentos annos, aliqui ante cen¬ tum, aliqui ipsius aetate vixerant, affirmat, in nullo concilio Ecclesiastico tot illustres Scriptores, et Magistros unquam simul con¬ venisse ; et miratur, si Julianus in illum conventum introductus os aperire, et tot vi¬ ris gravissimis, et doctissimis resistere au¬ sus fuisset: quanto majore ratione possumus nos affirmare, in nulla synodo quantumvis numerosa convenisse unquam scriptores eximios supra septuaginta, quorum aliqui ante quingentos annos floruerunt, quique diversis saeculis in diversis Christiani orbis partibus, non solum doctrina, sed etiam san¬ ctitate, et miraculis Ecclesiam illustrarunt ? Et quamvis affirmare non possum, an Bar¬ claius in coronam tot insignum scriptorum introductus, si nunc viveret, residendum, an credendum sibi esse censeret : hoc tamen securus affirmo, vel omnium istorum libros, quibus Ecclesia tot jam sseculis usa est, ex¬ terminandos bsse ; vel Barclaii libellum, ut scandalosum, temerarium, seditiosum et er¬ roneum flammis ultricibus esse tradendum. Sententia Conciliorum de potestate summi Pontificis in temporalibus. Sed si forte alicui fidem non faciunt testes singulares, quamvis plurimi, et omni excep¬ tione majores : veniam ad testes contestes, eosque pene innumerabiles, qui adversus Barclaium testimonium dicent. Ante annos 900. a Gregorio 11. Romano Pontifice ex- communicatum fuisse Leonem Isauricum imperatorem, propte* crimen haereseos, et vectigalibus Italice, ac per hoc parte imperii mulctatum, testantur historici Graeci Glycas, Theophanes, Cedrenus, et Zonatas, in Leone Isaurico ; et Latini Sigebertus anno 727, Paulus Diaconus lib. xxi. et Platina in Gre¬ gorio III. Latini enim tribuunt Gregorio III. hoc factum, quoniam is Gregorii II. senten¬ tiam confirmavit. Porro sententiam Gregorii II. in synodo Episcoporum latam fuisse, te¬ statur Joannes Zonatas Graecus auctor, in vita Leonis Isaurici, cujus haec sunt verba, tom. m. Annalium : Gregorius, quitum Ro¬ mae veteris Ecclesiam gubernabat, illos una cum imperatore synodico anathemate ob¬ strinxit, et vectigalia, quae ad id usque tem¬ pus imperio inde pendebantur, inhibuit, ini¬ to cum Francis foedere. Itaque tota illa sy¬ nodus Gregorio Pontifici assensit, totque sunt ejus rei testes, quot in eamdem syno¬ dum Episcopi convenerunt. Deinde post annos circiter trecentos, cum Gregorius YII Pontifex, Hernicum IV. impe¬ ratorem saepius admonitum excommunica- vit, et imperio regnoque privavit ; non id occulte, et solo suo arbitratu, sed in synodo Romana, ad quam, plurimi Episcopi undique convenerant, omnibus consentientibus et laudantibus, publice, et solemni ritu ac cae¬ remonia fecit : de hac synodo scribitur in lib. vn. Registri Gregorii YII. actam esse anno Domini 4080, anno septimo ejusdem Gregorii, atque ad eam synodum convenisse Archiepiscopos, et Episcopos, nec non Ab¬ bates, et diversorum ordinum Clericorum, et Laicorum innumerabilem multitudinem. Ilis addi debent alia quinque concilia ha¬ bita a successoribus Gregorii YII videlicet Beneventanum a Victore III ; Placentinum ab Urbano II ; Romanum a Paschale II ; Colo- niense a Gelatio II; Remense a Callisto II. in quibus confirmata est sententia Gregorii VII. Vide dc his Conciliis infra cap. 9. Prseterea cum Urbanus II. Pontifex Phi¬ lippum I Francorum regem, ob repudiatam legitimam uxorem, et adulteram in matri¬ monium acceptam, et admonitum obedire recusantem, excommunicaret, et coronam regni privaret ; id fecit in concilio frequen- tissimo Claramontano, ut testis est Sigeber¬ tus, in Chronico anni 1095: et clarius idem refert Matthaeus Paris in Villielmo II ad an¬ num 1095. Sed quod cum excommunicatio¬ ne intelligeretur privatio regiae dignitatis, potest ex Ivone Episcopo Carnotense, qui in epist. 28. ad Urbanum II Papam, sic loqui¬ tur : « Qui ad vos venturi sunt in calliditate ingenioli sui, et venustate linguae impunita¬ tem flagitii se impetraturosregiasede Aposto- lica promiserunt, hac rationnex parte usuri, regem cum regno ab obedientia vestra dis¬ cessurum, nisi coronam restituatis, eumque ab anathemate absolvatis. » Intelligi potest etiam ex historicis, qui testantur, vetitum fuisse ab Urbano Pontifice, ne diadema re¬ gium Philippo excommunicato imponeretur IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 11 Vide Chronicum Joan. Naucleri, Gener. 37. Paulum iEmilium lib. m. in Rege 38. Papi¬ rium Massonium, Annal. lib. m. Adde etiam quod scribitur in Summario, sive Compendio historiarum Francicarum Nicolai Yignerii, toto tempore quo Philippus sub anathemate vixit, in publicis scripturis non fuisse posi¬ tum de more, regnante Philippo, sed, reg¬ nante Christo; quia videlicet regem excom- municatum pro rege populus non habebat. Adhaec, Innocentius III. Pontifex anno 1215, concilium generale Lateranense, quod jure maximum dici solet, convocavit ^adfue¬ runt enim cum ipso summo Pontifice Patriar¬ chae Orientales duo per se, Constantinopoli- tanus et Hierosolymitanus : duo per Le¬ gatos, Alexandrinus et Antiochenus : Archie- piscopi septuaginta, Episcopi quadringenti- duodecim, abbates, priores conventuales octingenti, legati imperatorum Occiden¬ tis et Orientis, regum vero, Hieroso- lymae, Franciae, Hispaniae, Angliae, et Cy¬ pri. In hoc igitur orbis Christiani celeberrimo conventu editus est canon, qui est ordine tertius, adversus haereticos in haec verba : « Excommunicamus, et anathematizamus omnem haeresim extollentem se adversus hanc sanctam orthodoxam Catholicam fidem, quam superius exposuimus etc. » Et intra : « Si vero dominus temporalis admonitus ab Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neglexerit ab haeretica foeditate, per Metropolitanum, et comprovinciales Episcopos excommunica¬ tionis vinculo innodetur. Et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse vassallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos, et ter¬ ram exponatCatholicis occupandam, qui eam exterminatis haereticis sine ulla contradi¬ ctione possideant, et in fidei puritate conser¬ vent, salvo jure domini principalis, dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat, eadem nihilominus lege servata circa eos, qui non habent dominos principales. » Quid hic Bar- claius diceret? si haec non est Ecclesiae Ca¬ tholicae vox, ubi obsecro eam inveniemus? et si est (ut verissime est) qui eam audire contemnit, ut Barclaius fecit, an non ut eth¬ nicus, et publicanus, et nullo modo Christia¬ nus, et pius habendus erit? si non habet summus Pontifex potestatem in terris, dispo¬ nendi de temporalibus usque ad depositio¬ nem principum eorum, qui vel ipsi haeretici sunt, vel haereticis quoquo modo favent, cur in editione hujus canonis nullus ex tanto nu¬ mero reclamavit? cur ne unus quidem ex tot imperatorum, et regum oratoribus mutire ausus est? Nondum videlicet parasiti princi¬ pum temporalium exorti fuerant, qui, utreg na temporalia stabilire videantur, regnum aeternum iis, quibus adulantur, eripiunt. Sed addamus et Lugdunense conci¬ lium. Ergo Innocentius IY. Pontifex anno salutis 1245 . Lugduni generale concilium celebravit, in quo praeter Archiepiscopos un¬ dique evocatos, interfuerunt etiam Baldui- nus imperator Orientis cum aliis multis prin¬ cipibus. Sanctum quoque Ludovicum Fran¬ corum regem eo tem pore Lugduni fuisse, et Pontifici adfuisse, testantur HSmilius et Nauclerus. Atque in conventu illo, Ecclesiam universam sine dubio repraesentante, lata est sententia in Fridericum II imperatorem in haec verba: « Nos itaque super praemissis, et quam pluribus aliis ejus nefandis excessibus, cum fratribus nostris, et sancto concilio deli¬ beratione praehabita diligenti, cum Jesu Christi vices, licet immeriti, teneamus in ter¬ ris nobisque in B*. Petri persona dictum sit : Quodcumque ligaveris super terram , l/gatum erit et in coelis , memoratum principem, qui se imperio, et regnis, omnique honore, et dignitate reddidit indignum, quique propter suas iniquitates, a Deo ne regnet, vel imperet est abjectus, suis ligatum peccatis, et abje¬ ctum, omnique honore et dignitate privatum a Domino ostendimus, et denunciamus ; et nihilominus sententiando privamus; omnes qui ei fidelitatis juramento tenentur adstri- cti, a juramento hujusmodi perpetuo absol¬ ventes, auctoritate Apostolica firmiter inhi¬ bendo, ne quisquam de caetero sibi tamquam imperatori pareat, et intendat : decernendo quoslibet, qui ei deinceps veluti imperatori, vel regi consilium, vel auxilium prsestiterint, seu favorem, ipso facto excommunicationis sententiae subjacere. Illi autem ad quos in eodem imperio, imperatoris spectat electio, eligant libere successorem. De praefato Sici¬ liae regno providere curabimus, cum eorun¬ dem fratrum nostrorum consilio, sicut vide¬ rimus expedire. Haec sententia est summi Pontificis toto approbante concilio, hoc est, tota consentiente et laudante Christianorum praesulum universitate : et tamen audet unus nescio qui contra disputare, et librum suum in lucem edere, atque imperitorum oculos fascinare. Quod si singula per se concilia Catholicae Ecclesiae, praesertim cum in iis 42 DE POTESTATE PAPjE prsesidet Summus Pontifex, fidem amplissi- mamfaciunt, ut nemini fas sit contra sentire: quanta temeritas esset, si quis decem conci¬ liis frequentissimis, simul junctis, contradi¬ cere auderet? Nam etiam si concilia ista di¬ versis locis, et temporibus habita sint, tamen facile possunt ante oculos montis omnia si¬ mul constitui, et ex omnibus unum maximum, et numerosissimum fieri, ubi simul conspi¬ ciuntur Gregorius VII., Victor III., Urbanus II., Paschalis II., Gelasius II., Callixtus II., Innocentius III. et Innocentius IV. sanctissi¬ mi omnes doctissimique Pontifices, apostoli- ca potestate, reges haereticos, vel haeretico¬ rum patronos excommunicantes, atque a regni solio deponentes ; et simul omnes praesules Ecclesiarum cum Legatis omnium fere prin- cipum sententias tantorum Pontificum, ut justissimas approbantes, et collaudantes. Certe si Barclaius, aut quicumque illi similis est, in ejus modi conventum introduceretur mirum est, si loqui auderet, immo si non continuo obmutesceret. Sanctus Augustinus lib. i, in Julianum cap. 2, concilium Pa¬ laestinum Episcoporum quatuordecim, satis magnae auctoritatis futurum existimavit ad unius Juliani audaciam comprimendam ; cur igitur non multo magis valeant ad unius Bar- claii temeritatem damnandam Episcopi su¬ pra mille, qui in decem conciliis convenerunt? Hanc igitur sententiam Ecclesiae Catholicae, quam in meis Disputationibus de summo Pontifice, cum juvenis adhuc essem breviter attigeram, cogor nunc adversus Gulielmum Barclaium senex defendere : quem sane la¬ borem ab homine, qui se Catholicum profi¬ tetur, mihi adferendum, suspicatus num- quam fuissem. Nam eos, qui foris sunt, et assidue contra me scribunt, nihil moror.