Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 2: The Principle or Foundation of Barclay's Doctrine Is Examined
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).
In the second chapter Barclay sets about laying the foundations of his doctrine. One of these, and perhaps the chief, is that the ecclesiastical and the political power are by divine law distinct and separate, so that, although both are from God, each, shut within its own bounds, cannot by its own right invade the borders of the other, and neither has command over the other. To prove this principle he brings forward the canon Duo sunt and the canon Cum ad verum, distinction 96; the chapter Novit, on judgments; the chapter Per venerabilem, which children are legitimate; Saint Bernard, book 1 on Consideration; John Driedo, book 2 on Christian liberty, chapter 2; and Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, in Athanasius, in the epistle to those leading the solitary life.
But this principle or foundation we contend to be wholly false in its last clause, namely in those last words: and neither has command over the other. For we affirm that the ecclesiastical power is indeed distinct from the political, but not only far nobler than it, but also so superior to it that it can direct and correct it, and in certain cases, namely in order to the spiritual end and eternal life, command it.
Nor is that last clause, namely, that neither has command over the other, found in the testimonies alleged, whether from the canons or from the doctors. In the canon Duo sunt, which is taken from the epistle of Pope Gelasius I to the emperor Anastasius, these words are found: There are two things, august emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, the sacred authority of the Pontiffs and the royal power; in which the burden of the priests is so much the heavier, as they are to render an account in the divine examination even for the governments of men themselves; and below: You know, therefore, that you depend on their judgment, and that they cannot be brought to your will. So it stands there, where not only is there not found what Barclay says, that neither has command over the other, but the wholly contrary is found; for if the Pontiff is to render an account to God for the governments of men, certainly he ought to direct those governments, and if perhaps they stray, to correct them and bring them back into the way. But how can he direct and correct human governments if he has no command over them?
By the same reasoning, in the canon Cum ad verum, which is taken from the epistle of Pope Nicholas I to the emperor Michael, those words are not found: that neither has command over the other. For these are the words of Pope Nicholas: When it came to the truth, the emperor no longer seized for himself the rights of the pontificate, nor did the Pontiff usurp the name of the emperors; because the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, by his own acts and distinct dignities, separated the offices of both powers. Here too it is in no word indicated that neither power has command over the other, but only that they are separated in acts, dignities and offices. And since the same Nicholas adds a little after that Christian emperors need the ministry of the Pontiffs for eternal life, and on the other hand the Pontiffs use the imperial laws only for the course of temporal life, it is most plainly indicated that the end of the pontifical power is superior to the end of the political power, and thereby that the power of the Pontiffs has command over the political power, so far as is needed that the political power may not hinder the attaining of eternal life, to which it is to be directed by the pontifical power.
So too in the chapter Novit, on judgments, and in the chapter Per venerabilem, which children are legitimate, which are of Pope Innocent III, there is nothing at all found from which it could be gathered that the political power is not subject to the spiritual or ecclesiastical power; otherwise the same Pontiff would not have decreed in the general Lateran council, chapter 3, that the princes of the world can be deprived of their principality by the Apostolic See if they were negligent in purging their lands of the heretical stain and, warned by the bishops, did not obey. Nor would he himself have deposed the emperor Otto IV if he had thought that the ecclesiastical power had no command over the political power. Saint Bernard too, in book 1 on Consideration, says indeed that the power of the Pontiff is over sins, and spiritual; but the same Saint Bernard, in book 4 on Consideration, chapter 4, says that both swords, the spiritual and the material, are the Church's; which he surely would not say unless he believed the material sword to be subject to the spiritual sword. Further, of the opinion of John Driedo there can be no doubt; for he says that the political power ought to be so subject to the ecclesiastical that the Pontiff can in certain cases, in order to eternal life, deprive kings and princes of their kingdoms and dominions, as we showed above by his own words brought forward. Lastly, the words of Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, recorded by Saint Athanasius, show the distinction of the offices of both powers; they do not show equality. “To you,” he says, “God has committed the empire; to us he has entrusted the things that are the Church's; and as he who carps at your empire with malignant eyes contradicts the divine ordinance, so do you too beware lest, drawing to yourself the things that are the Church's, you become liable to a great crime. Render, it is written, the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God. Neither, then, is it lawful for us to hold empire on earth, nor do you, emperor, have the power of incense and of sacred things.” So he, who is not at odds with Saint Gregory Nazianzen, who in the oration to the people struck with fear and the governor in anger most plainly teaches that the ecclesiastical power stands to the political as the soul stands to the body; and that the soul presides over the body, and rules it, and commands it, no one has ever called into doubt.
Barclay then goes on and harries Bozio, and refutes his answers and disputations; these I leave whole to Bozio himself, for I have not undertaken to defend anything except what touches the common cause or my own in particular. Such is what Barclay says at the end of the chapter, that one power cannot be subordinated and subject to another unless the dignity and office which is in the subordinate is also in the one subordinating. For the subjection and subordination of the political power to the ecclesiastical all we Catholics teach; but not all of us admit what Barclay gathers from it. For this subordination can be understood in two ways. In one way, so that the power which is in the subordinate is derived from the one subordinating, such as is the power of a vicar, which is derived from him whose vicar he is; and of a legate, which is derived from the prince who sent him; and of a judge or governor, which is derived from the king; and then without doubt the power of the one subordinating includes the power of the subordinate. In the other way, so that the one is not derived from the other, but is subject and subordinated to the other for this reason alone, that the end of the one is subjected and subordinated to the end of the other; such is the subordination and subjection of the various arts to the art of ruling peoples, which can be called the royal art. For the poet said truly:
Others will beat out the breathing bronze more softly,
I do believe it, and draw living faces from marble;
they will plead causes better, and trace the paths of heaven
with the rod, and name the rising stars.
You, Roman, remember to rule the peoples with your command.
These will be your arts.
For the art of ruling peoples is distinct from the arts of sculpture, oratory, astronomy and others like them; neither is one derived from another, nor does one properly include another; and yet all are subordinated and subject to the art of ruling peoples, so that the king can direct all to the common benefit of the people, and if they do not obey, banish from his kingdom or remove any craftsmen whatever and put others in their place, because the ends of the other arts are subjected and subordinated to the end of the royal art. Now, then, if the subjection and subordination of the political power to the ecclesiastical is understood in the former way, it certainly follows that the political power is joined to the ecclesiastical; and I do not see how that would not be at odds with the words of the Supreme Pontiffs Gelasius, Nicholas and Innocent, and also of Hosius, Bernard and Driedo. But if it is understood in the latter way, as we understand it, then Barclay's reason and examples conclude nothing at all. For as the royal art does not include the art of sculpture, nor is sculpture derived from the royal art, and yet the royal art commands sculpture and holds it subject and subordinate, and the king can and ought to order the sculptor not to carve obscene statues, lest the young be corrupted; nor to carve them from gold or silver, that those metals may be kept for a more necessary use; nor to sell his statues at too great a price, to restrain greed: so the ecclesiastical art of ruling souls, which is the art of arts and resides chiefly in the Pope, does not necessarily include the royal art, nor is it necessary that all kingdoms be derived from the Church; and yet, because its end is eternal life, to which all other ends are subordinated, the political art of ruling peoples is subject and subordinate to it, and the Supreme Pontiff can and ought to command kings not to abuse the royal power for the overthrow of the Church, for the fostering of heresies and schisms, in short for the eternal ruin of their own soul and of the peoples subject to them; and if they do not comply when they have been warned, he can cast them out of the Church by the censure of excommunication, and absolve the peoples from the oath of fidelity, and lastly even strip them of the kingdom and deprive them of the royal power.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT II.
Excutitur principium sive fundamentum do¬
ctrinas Barclaii.
In secundo capite Barclaius fundamenta
jacere aggreditur doctrinae sute : quorum
unum, ac forte primarium est, potestatem
ecclesiasticam et politicam jure divino dis¬
tinctas et separatas esse, ut, quamvis ambae
a Deo sint, utraque suis terminis conclusa in
alterius fines invadere suo jure nequeat,
neutrique in alteram imperium sit. Ad pro¬
bandum hoc principium adducit can. Duo
sunt, et, Cum ad verum, dist. 96. cap. Novit,
de Judiciis, cap. Per venerabilem, Qui filii
sint legitimi, sanctum Bernardum lib. i, de
Consideratione, Joann. Driedonemlib. ii,de
Libertate Christiana, cap. 2. et Hosium Cor-
dubensem Episcopum, apud Athanasium in
epist. ad solitariam vitam agentes.
Atqui hoc principium, sive fundamentum
in ultima particula falsum omnino esse con¬
tendimus, in illis videlicet ultimis verbis:
Neutrique in alteram imperium sit. Siquidem
affirmamus, Ecclesiasticam potestatem, dis¬
tinctam quidem esse a politica, sed ea non
modo longe nobiliorem, verum etiam ita su¬
periorem esse, ut eam dirigere et corrigere,
et in certis casibus, in ordine videlicet ad fi¬
nem spiritualem et vitam aeternam, eidem
imperare possit.
Neque ultima illa particula, videlicet :
Neutrique in alteram imperium sit, invenitur
in testimoniis allegatis sive ex canonibus,
sive ex doctoribus. In can. Duo sunt, qui de¬
sumptus est ex epist. Gelasii Papa3 primi, ad
Anastasium imperatorem, hsec habentur:
Duo sunt quippe, imperator Auguste, quibus
principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas
sacra Pontificum, et regalis potestas: in qui¬
bus tanto gravius est pondus Sacerdotum,
quanto etiam pro ipsis regiminibus hominum
in divino sunt reddituri examine rationem,
et infra : Nosti itaque ex illorum te pendere
judicio, non illos ad tuam posse redigi vo¬
luntatem.
u
DE POTESTATE PAPJE
Haec ibi, ubi non solum non habetur, quod
Barclaius dicit, neutri in alteram imperium
esse ; sed habetur omnino contrarium : nam
si Pontifex redditurus est Deo rationem pro
regiminibus hominum, certe dirigere, debet
ea regimina, et si forte deviant, corrigere,
atque in viam reducere. Quomodo autem
potest dirigere et corrigere humana regi¬
mina, si nullum in ea imperium habet?
Pari ratione in canone, Cum ad verum,
qui ex epist. Nicolai Papae primi, ad Michae-
jem imperatorem, sumptus est , non haben¬
tur illa verba : Neutri in alteram imperium
esse. Hsec enim suntverba Pontificis Nicolai :
Cum ad verum ventum est, ultra sibi nec
imperator jura pontificatus arripuit , nec
Pontifex nomen imperatorum usurpavit :
quoniam mediator Dei et hominum homo
Christus Jesus actibus propriis, et dignitati¬
bus distinctis, officia potestatis utriusque
discrevit.
Hic quoque nullo verbo indicatur, neu¬
tram potestatem in alteram habere imperium,
sed solum discretas esse actibus, dignitati¬
bus et officiis. Et quoniam idem Nicolaus,
paulo post subjungit, Christianos imperato¬
res egere Pontificum ministerio pro aeterna
vita; et contra Pontifices uti legibus impe¬
rialibus pro cursu tantum vitae temporalis :
apertissime indicatur finem potestatis pon¬
tificiae, superiorem esse fini potestatis politi¬
cae, ac per hoc potestatem Pontificum, impe¬
rium habere super politicam potestatem,
quatenus opus est ut potestas politica non
impediat adeptionem vitee aeternae, ad quam
a pontificia potestate dirigenda est. Sic
etiam in cap. Novit, de judic. et in cap. Per
venerabilem, Qui filii sint legitimi, quae sunt
Innocentii III. Pontificis, nihil omnino habe¬
tur, unde colligi possit, politicam potestatem
spirituali , sive Ecclesiasticae potestati non
esse subjectam : alioqui non decrevisset idem
Pontifex in concilio Lateranensi generali
cap. 3. posse principes saeculi per Apostoli-
cam Sedem principatu privari, si negligen-
tes essent in purgandis terris suis ab haere¬
tica labe, et admoniti ab Episcopis, non
obedirent. Neque idem ipse Othonem IV.
imperatorem deposuisset, si existimasset,
potestati Ecclesiasticae nullum imperium esse
in politicam potestatem. S. quoque Bernar-
dus in i. lib. de Gonsid. dicit quidem, Pon¬
tificis potestatem esse in peccata, et spiritua¬
lem ; sed idem S. Bernardus lib. mi. de
Consid. c. 4. utrumque gladium spiritualem,
et materialem dicit esse Ecclesiae : quae sane
non diceret, nisi crederet gladium materia¬
lem gladio spirituali esse subjectum. Porro
de sententia Joan. Driedonis, nulla dubitatio
esse potest : nam dicit etiam politicam eccle¬
siasticae adeo esse debere subjectam, ut pos¬
sit Pontifex in certis casibus in ordine ad
vitam aeternam reges, et principes regnis
suis, dominiisque privare, ut nos supra al¬
latis verbis ipsius indicavimus. Denique
Hosii Episc. Cordubensis verba, a S. Atha-
nasio commemorata, distinctionem officio¬
rum utriusque potestatis demonstrant, ae¬
qualitatem non demonstrant : « Tibi Deus,
inquit, imperium commisit, nobis quae sunt
Ecclesiae concredidit : et quemadmodum,
qui tuum imperium malignis oculis carpit,
contradicit ordinationi divinae; ita et tu cave,
ne quae sunt Ecclesiae ad te trahens, magno
crimini obnoxiussias: Date, scriptum est, quae
sunt Caesaris (' aesori , et quae Dei Deo. Neque
igitur fas est nobis in terris imperium tenere,
neque tu thimiamatum, et sacrorum pote¬
statem habes imperator. » Haec ille, qui non
repugnat S. Gregorio Nazianzeno, qui ora¬
tione ad populum timore perculsum, etpree-
sidem irascentem apertissime docet, Eccle¬
siasticam potestatem ita se habere ad politi¬
cam, ut anima se habet ad corpus : animam
autem praeesse corpori illudque regere ei-
que imperare nemo unquam in dubium re¬
vocavit.
Pergit deinde Barclaius, et Bozium exagi¬
tat, ejusque responsiones, et disputationes,
refellit : quae ipsi Bozio integra relinquo ;
non enim defendenda suscepi, nisi ea, quae
causam communem, vel meam particularem
attingunt : quale est illud quod in extremo
capite Barclaius dicit, non posse unam po¬
testatem alteri subordinari, et subjectam
esse, nisi dignitas et officium, quod est in
subordinato, sit etiam in subordinante. Nam
subjectionem, et subordinationem potesta¬
tis politicae ad ecclesiasticam, omnes Catho¬
lici docemus : sed non omnes admittimus
quod Barclaius inde collegit : Haec enim sub-
ordinatio duobus modis potest intelligi :
uno modo, ut potestas quae est in subordi¬
nato, derivetur a subordinante, qualis est
potestas Vicarii, quae derivatur ab eo, cujus
est Vicarius, et legati, quae derivatura prin¬
cipe, qui eum legavit, et judicis, sive praesi-
dis, quae derivatur a rege : et tunc sine du¬
bio potestas subordinantis includit potesta¬
tem subordinati : altero modo, ut una non
IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS
15
derivetur ab altera, sed ob id solum subjecta,
et subordinata sit alteri, quia finis unius
subjicitur, et subordinatur fini alterius, qua¬
lis est subordinatio, et subjectio variarum
artium ad artem regendi populos, quae regia
dici potest. Vere enim dixit poeta :
Excudent alii spirantia mollins sera,
Credo equidem vivos ducent de marmore vultus :
Orabunt causas melius, coelique meatus
Describent radio, et surgentia sydera dicent.
Tu regere imperio populos, Rcynane, memento.
Hae tibi erunt artes.
Ars enim regendi populos distincta est ab
artibus, sculptoria, oratoria, astronomica, et
aliis similibus, neque una derivatur ab alia,
neque una proprie alteram includit ; et ta¬
men omnes subordinantur, et subjectae sunt
arti regendi populos, ut possit rex omnes
dirigere ad communem populi utilitatem, et
nisi pareant, exterminare de regno suo, vel
removere quoslibet artifices, et alios substi¬
tuere, quoniam fini artis regise subjiciuntur,
et subordinantur fines artium caeterarum.
Jam igitur si subjectio et subordinatio pote¬
statis politicae ad ecclesiasticam intelligatur
priore modo, utique sequitur, ut potestas
politica conjuncta sit ecclesiasticae ; neque
video quo modo id non repugnet verbis Ge-
lasii, Nicolai, et Innocentii summorum Pon¬
tificum; necnon Hosii, Bernardi, Driedonis :
sed si intelligatur posteriore modo, ut nos
eam intelligimus, tum ratio, et exempla Bar-
claii nihil omnino concludunt : quemadmo¬
dum enim ars regia non includit artem scul-
ptoriam, neque sculptoria derivatur a regia,
et tamen ars regia imperat sculptoriae, eam-
que subjectam, et subordinatam habet, et po¬
test ac debet rex sculptori jubere, ut non scul¬
pat statuas obscoenas, ne corrumpatur juven¬
tus ; neque ex auro, vel argento, ut ea metalla
serventur ad usum magis necesssarium; ne¬
que statuas suas nimis magno pretio vendat,
ad coercendam avaritiam : sic ars ecclesiasti¬
ca regendi animas , quae est ars artium, et
praecipue residet in Papa, non includit neces¬
sario artem regiam, neque necesse est, ut
omnia regna deriventur ab Ecclesia ; et tamen
quia finis ejus est vita aeterna, ad quam sub¬
ordinantur omnes alii fines ; subjecta, et
subordinata est illi ars politica regendi popu¬
los, et potest ac debet Summus Pontifex re¬
gibus imperare, ut non abutantur potestate
regia ad Ecclesiam evertendam, ad haere-
ses et schismata fovenda , ad perniciem de¬
nique aeternam animae suae, et populorum
sibi subjectorum ; et si non obtemperent, cum
admoniti fuerint , potest eos de Ecclesia
per censuram excommunicationis ejicere, et
populos a juramento fidelitatis absolvere,
denique etiam eos regno exuere, et regia po¬
testate privare.