Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 1: On Barclay's Excuse
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).
These things, then, being set down by way of prolegomena, I come to Barclay's book. In the first chapter he is wholly taken up with excusing and clearing himself for having written what he wrote on this question of the power of the Pope, and he first proves that it was lawful for him to give his opinion, because many other Catholics have done so. “If several,” he says, “both theologians and jurists, one after another, have applied themselves to examining this same question, and the judgment of the earlier did not prejudge the opinions of the later writers, why should not I too claim for myself some place, as it were by my own right, in searching out the truth, since I have spent my life in that study?”
But of how much weight this reason is can be understood from this, that it did not persuade even his own heir, or his particular friend. For why did his heir, or whoever it was who published his book, who was certainly a very close friend, judge that his own name, and the printer's, and the place where the book was published, should be wrapped in silence, unless because he thought, not without cause, that the author was not free to write with impunity what he wrote? For otherwise the errors of all heretics could be excused. So it was lawful for Catholic writers, who agree in the thing, to dispute about the manner; it was not lawful for Barclay, against all other writers, and against the opinion of all councils, even general ones, to deny altogether the power of the Supreme Pontiff in temporal matters. Just as it was lawful, and is lawful, for the scholastic doctors, who confess in God the unity of essence with the trinity of persons, to dispute many things about the attributes of the divine essence and the constitution of the persons; but it was not lawful for the Arians, old and new, either to multiply the essences of God in writing, or to confound the Trinity. By the same reasoning it was lawful, and is lawful, for Catholic doctors, who agree on the substance of the seven sacraments, to dispute about many things which do not pertain to the foundations of the faith; yet it is not lawful, nor was it lawful, for the Lutheran and Calvinist sectaries to write so much against the substance and number of the sacraments. And the same can be said of the other dogmas of the faith.
Barclay adds: “The reader must be warned first of all that I follow that See with all reverence and goodwill, and that I do not aim, either here or elsewhere, that anything of the power and dignity due to him should be taken from the Vicar of Christ and the successor of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul.” But this seems like what Saint Mark writes in chapter 15: They struck his head with a reed, and bowing their knees they worshipped him; and what Saint John writes in chapter 19: They came to him and said, Hail, King of the Jews, and they gave him blows. For so Barclay follows the Apostolic See with all reverence and goodwill, but meanwhile he nearly halves its power. And he adds afterwards: “I beseech those, therefore, who wrote before me with a good mind, as I suppose, not to be indignant or angry if I depart from their opinion; for (to speak with Saint Augustine, epistle 3) we ought not to hold the disputations of any men whatever, though Catholic and praised men, as canonical Scriptures,” and so on.
But I am not indignant, nor angry, that Barclay or anyone else whatever has departed from my opinion; but this I cannot bear with an even mind, that anyone should depart from the common opinion of the writers in so grave a matter, indeed even from the sense and consensus of the universal councils. And although we do not owe to the books of the doctors, however Catholic and praised men, that reverence which we owe to the holy Scriptures, yet it cannot be denied that very much altogether ought to be given to the common opinion of the writers, so that he cannot be excused of rashness who strives in writing against the torrent of the doctors, as it is usually said. For that very same Saint Augustine, who had written that the disputations of any men whatever are in no way to be made equal to the authority of the divine Scriptures, charged Julian with rashness for daring to oppose himself to eleven Catholic writers, whose words and opinions he carefully weighs in book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, last chapter, against Julian.
Then Barclay, coming nearer to the matter, reports two opinions of Catholics. One, which most of the canonists follow, that in the Supreme Pontiff is both powers, spiritual and temporal, as he is the Vicar of Christ. The other, which is nearly common to the theologians, that the power of the Supreme Pontiff, as he is the Vicar of Christ, is properly and of itself spiritual, but that through it he can nevertheless dispose of temporal things as they are ordered to spiritual. Then he sets out his own opinion, for which he cites no Catholic writer, thus: “But to me,” he says, “neither of these opinions, as to the temporal power, has seemed firm enough”; and a little below: “These theologians, therefore, refute the opinion of the canonists very soundly, but, by their leave I shall say it, they themselves do not think better.” So he, who plainly enough shows himself to have pitched his tent, like another Ishmael, over against all his brethren, so that his hands might be against all, Genesis 16.
The last part of the first chapter he spends entirely in refuting, or rather in mocking, Bozio, who, though he professes himself a theologian, preferred to adhere to the opinion of the canonists. On which matter I have nothing to say; for I have resolved neither to refute nor to defend Bozio's opinion, but only that in which all Catholics agree, and in which we all differ from Barclay; and this I have decided to defend against the objections of the same Barclay.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT PRIMUM. De Excusatione B arclaii. His ergo quasi prolegomenis praemissis, venio ad librum Barclaii. Is in primo capite totus est in se excusando et purgando, quod in hac quaestione de potestate Papae scripse¬ rit, quod scripsit ac primum probat, licuisse sibi sententiam suam dicere, quia multi alii Catholici id fecerunt. a Si complures, inquit, tum theologi, tum jureconsulti, alii post alios in eamdem hanc quaestionem excutiendam incubuerunt, nec priorum de ea judicium sequentium scripto¬ rum sententiis praejudicavit; cur non et ego aliquem indagandae veritatis locum (quando¬ quidem in eo studio aetatem consumpsi) meo mihi quodammodo jure vindicem?» At quanti momenti sit haec ratio, vel ex eo potest intelligi, quod ne suo quidem haeredi, aut amico singulari persuasit. Cur enim hae¬ res ipsius, aut quicumque fuit, qui librum ejus edidit, qui certe amicissimus fuit, et nomen suum, et typographi et loci, in quo liber editus est, silentio involvendum censuit, nisi quia non sine causa existimavit, non li¬ cuisse auctori impune scribere quod scripsit? Nam alioqui haereticorum omnium errores excusari possent. Ergo licuit Catholicis scri¬ ptoribus, qui consentiunt in re, disputare de modo : non licuit Barclaio adversus omnes alios scriptores, atque adversus omnes con¬ ciliorum etiam generalium sententiam, ne¬ gare omnino potestatem summi Pontificis in temporalibus : quemadmodum licuit, et li¬ cet scholasticis doctoribus, qui confitentur in Deo unitatem essentiae cum trinitate perso¬ narum, multa disputare de attributis essen¬ tiae divinae, et personarum constitutione: sed non licuit Arianis veteribus, et novis, vel es¬ sentias Dei scribendo multiplicare, vel Tri¬ nitatem confundere. Pari ratione, licuit, et licet Catholicis doctoribus, qui consentiunt de substantia septem sacramentorum, dispu¬ tare de multis, quae ad fidei fundamenta non pertinent ; non tamen licet, nec licuit secta¬ riis Lutheranis et Calvinistis tam multa scribere, contra substantiam et numerum sacramentorum : quod idem de aliis fidei dogmatibus dici potest. Subjungit Barclaius : «Monendus in primis lector est, omni me reverentia, et benevolentia Sedem illam pro¬ sequi : nec id aut hic, aut alibi agere, ut de¬ bitae potestatis et dignitatis aliquid decedat Vicario Christi, et successori sanctorum Apo¬ stolorum Petri et Pauli. » At hoc videtur simile esse ei, quod scribit S. Marcus cap xv. Percutiebant caput ejus arundine , et ponentes genua adorabant eum : et quod scribit S. Joan. cap. xix. Veniebant ad eum , et dicebant : Ave Rex Judaeorum, et clabant ei alapas. Sic enim Barclaius omni reverentia, et benevolentia prosequitur Apo- stolicam Sedem, sed interim potestatem ejus fere dimidiat, et addit postea : « Eos itaque obsecro qui ante me bono, ut opinor, animo scripserunt, ne indignentur, IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 13 aut succenseant, si ab illorum opinione re¬ cessero : neque enim (ut cum sancto Augu¬ stino loquar epist. III.) quorumlibet disputa¬ tiones, quamvis' Catholicorum, et laudatorum hominum, veluti scripturas canonicas habere debemus, etc. » At ego non indignor, neque succenseo, quod a mea opinione, velBarclaius, vel alius quicumque recesserit: sed illud sequo animo ferre non possum, quod a communi Scripto¬ rum sententia in re tam gravi, imo etiam conciliorum universalium sensu, et consensu ullus recedat. Et quamvis non debeamus li¬ bris doctorum, quantumvis Catholicorum, et laudatorum hominum eam reverentiam, quam Scripturis sanctis debemus : tamen negari non potest, quin communi scriptorum sententise multum omnino tribui debeat, ut a temeritate excusari non possit, qui contra torrentem doctorum, ut dici solet, scribendo nititur. Nam ipse idem sanctus Augustinus, qui scripserat, disputationes quorumlibet ho¬ minum nullo modo aequandas esse auctoritati Scripturarum divinarum; Juliani temeritatem arguit, quod se auderet opponere undecim scriptoribus Catholicis, quorum verba et sententias diligenter expendit lib. i. cap. 2. et lib. ii. cap. ult. adversus Julianum. Deinde Barclaius ad rem propius accedens refert duas Catholicorum sententias. Alte¬ ram, quam plerique Ganonistarum sequun¬ tur, quod in summo Pontifice sit potestas utraque spiritualis, et temporalis, ut Christi Vicarius est. Alteram, quse theologis fere communis est, quod potestas summi Pontifi¬ cis, ut Christi Vicarius est, spiritualis pro¬ prie, ac per se sit, sed tamen per eam dispo¬ nere possit de temporalibus, ut ad spiritualia ordinantur. Tum sententiam suam, pro qua nullum Catholicum scriptorem citat, ita pro¬ ponit : « Mihi vero, inquit, neutra istarum opi¬ nionum, quantumad temporalem potestatem, satis firma visa est; '> et paulo infra: « The- ologiitaqueistiCanonistarum opinioncmpro- bissime refellunt, sed pace ipsorum dicam, nec ipsi melius sentiunt. » Hsec ille, qui satis aperte se prodit, tam¬ quam alterum Ismaelem e regione universo¬ rum fratrum suorum fixisse tabernaculum, ut manus ejus contra omnes essent. Genes, xvi. Extremam partem primi capitis totam consumit in refutatione, vel potius irrisione Bozii, qui cum se theologum profiteatur, Ca- nohistarum opinioni adh terere maluit. De qua re nihil habeo quod dicam : nam Bozii opinionem, neque refutare, neque defendere statui ; sed id tantum, in quo Catholici omnes conveniunt, et in quo a Barclaio omnes dis¬ sidemus, meque ipse ab ejusdem Barclaii objectionibus propugnare decrevi.