Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 3: That the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters Is Not a Doubtful Thing, nor Depends Only on the Opinions of the Doctors
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 third chapter Barclay contends that on the power of the Supreme Pontiff in temporal matters nothing certain is held, but that the whole thing is freely disputed between theologians and canonists. “The huge disagreement,” he says, “between theologians and canonists, and of both among themselves, on this matter, while some build up a direct power and others an indirect, makes this question of the temporal power of the Pope seem doubtful and uncertain, and wholly placed in the opinion of men; and therefore the truth of its solution is to be searched out by the light of reason and the subtlety of argument.” So he.
But there is a great difference between the question whether a thing is, and what it is, or how it is. That God exists not even the pagans used to call into doubt; yet on the nature of the gods there were very many opinions among the philosophers. That God is three and one no Catholic denies, but all hold it with the firmest faith; and yet, how many opinions are there among the scholastic theologians on the constitution of the persons, on the relations, on the notions? So then of the power in temporal matters, that it is in the Pope is not opinion but certainty among Catholics, although there is no lack of disputes over what and of what kind that power is, that is, whether it is of itself and properly temporal, or rather is itself spiritual, but disposes of temporal things by a certain necessary consequence and in order to spiritual things. Wherefore Barclay does not gather rightly when he reasons thus: “There is disagreement between theologians and canonists, while these build up a direct power and those an indirect; therefore the question of the temporal power of the Pope is doubtful and uncertain, and wholly placed in the opinion of men.”
That it is a certain and settled thing that the Supreme Pontiff can for just causes judge of temporal matters, and sometimes depose temporal princes themselves, we prove. First, from the common consent of the writers, whose words we brought forward at the beginning of the disputation; for what the doctors teach by common consent in various places and times, the universal Church is judged to think and teach; for God set pastors and doctors in the Church for this reason, as is said in Ephesians 4, that the peoples might follow them as leaders and not depart from them, unless perhaps they see some one man bringing in something new against the common doctrine, as Barclay has done at this time. Second, we prove it through the Extravagant Unam sanctam, on majority and obedience, where we are taught that sword is under sword, and the temporal authority is subjected to the spiritual power; and that if the earthly power strays, it will be judged by the spiritual; if the lesser spiritual strays, by its superior; but if the supreme, it can be judged by God alone. Nor does it stand in the way that the definition of this decretal seems to have been revoked by Clement V in the Extravagant Meruit, on privileges. For Clement V did not revoke the Extravagant of Boniface, but declared the ancient obligation which men have to obey and be subject to the Apostolic See. Third, we prove it from the councils brought forward above, of which the last two were general; for how can that be called into doubt, and depend on the opinion of men alone, which general, Catholic and lawful councils approve? But that temporal princes can be deposed by the Supreme Pontiff when the necessity of the Church demands it, and thereby that the temporal power of princes is subject and subordinate to the spiritual power of the Pontiffs, those ten councils, and above all the last two, the Lateran and that of Lyons, most plainly teach. Fourth, we prove it from the divine letters, as Gregory VII proves it in epistle 21 of the eighth book. For in the Scriptures and in tradition we find most manifestly founded the ecclesiastical primacy of the Roman Pontiff, in which primacy is contained a most ample power of ruling, binding and loosing any whatever, even kings and emperors; which neither Barclay nor any Catholic denies. From this principle it is plainly enough gathered that there is in the Roman Pontiff a power of disposing of temporal things, even to the deposition of kings and emperors themselves; for through the spiritual power itself the Supreme Pontiff can bind secular princes with the bond of excommunication; he can through the same loose peoples from the oath of fidelity and obedience; he can oblige the same peoples under pain of excommunication not to obey an excommunicated king, and to choose themselves another king. Besides, since the end of the spiritual government is the attaining of eternal life, which is the supreme and last end, to which all other ends are subordinated, it is certainly necessary that to the spiritual power of the supreme ecclesiastical hierarch every secular power be subjected and subordinated, which he ought to direct, and if it strays, to correct and judge, and at last to bring it about that it does not hinder the salvation of the Christian people. And this is the reason why both Gregory VII and Innocent IV, in the deposition of emperors, to show that they did it by right, alleged the words of the Lord: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and: Whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven, Matthew 16; and: Feed my sheep, John 21; namely to signify that their power of disposing of temporal things, when the salvation of souls, the safety of religion, the preservation of the Church requires it, does not depend on the uncertain opinions of men, but on the divine ordinance of Christ, the eternal king and Supreme Pontiff, who is also God over all, blessed for ever, as the Apostle witnesses in Romans 9.
But let us see what Barclay objects against these things.
His first argument is this: “It is absurd and unjust to say that heathen princes were received into the Church on a harder and worse condition than private men; or that the Pope now has a greater power over Christian political princes than blessed Peter and the other Apostles once had over any private man whatever, a son of the Church. But these had no temporal right and power at that time over lay Christians; therefore neither does the Pope now have any temporal power over secular princes.” I answer: the assumption of the argument is false, and wholly contrary to the holy Scriptures. For first, the Apostles had the right of receiving from the temporal goods of the laity. The Apostle proves this in 1 Corinthians 9, saying: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, why not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power, but we bear all things, lest we should give any hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place, and they that serve the altar partake with the altar? So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. Then, the Apostles could command that Christians should appoint Christian judges in civil causes, and not go to the courts of the heathen magistrates; for so the Apostle commands in 1 Corinthians 6, saying: Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things of this world? If therefore you have judgments of things pertaining to this world, set them to judge who are the most despised in the Church. Wherefore if the Apostles could ordain judgments in civil causes, and command the laity to support the ministers of the gospel with their means, how had they no right over the temporal goods of the laity?
But Barclay says: “It is more certain than certain that the ecclesiastical power was wholly separated from the political in the time of the Apostles, and that the latter was wholly in the hands of heathen princes outside the Church, so much so that the Apostles themselves were under the temporal power of the heathen; and this Albert Pighius and Robert Bellarmine and other notable theologians frankly confess.” I answer: the ecclesiastical power is even now separated from the political; for the power of Pontiffs and of kings is not the same but different. But because, as we said above, the ecclesiastical power, which is spiritual, presides over the temporal political power, and ought to direct it to the supreme end of eternal life, it can therefore in order to spiritual things dispose of temporal goods. It is true that in the time of the Apostles the political power, not every kind but the royal or imperial, was wholly among the heathen, because there were then no Christian kings or emperors; but from this nothing else follows except that the ecclesiastical power at that time did not have execution ready to hand, especially in temporal matters, as it has at this time. That the Apostles themselves were under the temporal power of heathen princes I once wrote with Albert Pighius and some others; but afterwards, reviewing and weighing my books more carefully, I judged that the Apostles were subject to those princes in fact, not by right, as I set down in my Recognition.
But Barclay says: “Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it, nor to take away the rights of nature and of nations, or to shut anyone out from the temporal dominion of his own things. Therefore, as before him kings presided over their subjects with political power, so also after he came, and then departed from us into the heavens, they retained that same power, confirmed by apostolic doctrine and in no part weakened. If therefore Peter and the other Apostles, before they followed Christ, were subject to the temporal rule and jurisdiction of heathen princes, which cannot be denied, and the Lord nowhere expressly and by name freed them from the obligation of right, it necessarily follows that they remained under the same yoke even after the apostolate.” I answer: Christ did not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it; therefore he did not take away the rights of nations and of nature, but perfected them; he did not deprive kings and princes of dominion or jurisdiction, but set their jurisdiction and dominions in order; for even in the Church itself kings and princes are endowed with no less political power than the heathen were; this alone was added, that he set over them a great Shepherd to act in his stead on earth, by whom they might be directed if perhaps it should happen that they wandered from the way which leads to the kingdom of heaven. Which benefit of God ought to be acknowledged among the greatest by all the faithful, but by none more than by kings and princes, who, the higher the place they stand in, are the more exposed to a graver fall, and so much the more need a Bishop and Shepherd of their souls, as Cardinal Reginald Pole elegantly and copiously admonished in the dialogue on the Supreme Pontiff. But that Christ did not by name and expressly free Peter and the Apostles from the obligation by which they were held to heathen princes seems wholly at odds with the Gospel; for in Matthew 17 Christ paid the didrachma for himself and Peter to avoid scandal; for otherwise he showed that neither he nor Peter was bound to pay that tax, in those words: The kings of the earth, of whom do they receive tribute or custom? of their own children, or of strangers? and when Peter answered, Of strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the children are free. By which words he declared that he, because he was the son of the King of all kings, was immune from every tribute and tax; and because, when the son of a king is immune, his household too is counted immune, therefore Peter and the Apostles, who belonged to the household of Christ by his favour, ought also to be immune. But of this matter we have written more fully elsewhere.
But Barclay does not rest; for he adds: “But that they were subject to princes like other citizens appears from their own doctrine and deeds; for it cannot be cast up to them, what Christ reproaches the Scribes and Pharisees with, that they did one thing and taught another. But they taught Christians the subjection and obedience of which we speak, to be shown to kings and princes; for which cause Paul himself appealed to Caesar, and commanded all Christians to be subject to the temporal power of the heathen, not only for wrath but also for conscience' sake.” I answer: the Apostles without doubt were not like the Pharisees, who taught one thing and did another; yet they were not on that account subject by right, like other citizens, to the temporal powers, since they were themselves appointed by God princes over all the earth, as we read in Psalm 44; for although that principality was spiritual, not temporal, yet it was a true principality, and far nobler than a temporal principality. Further, Saint Paul appealed to Caesar as to the judge of the governor of Judea and of the Hebrews, who were unjustly oppressing him; for otherwise that cause, which was spiritual, namely of the resurrection of Christ and the ceremonies of the Mosaic law, could not by right belong to a heathen prince. See the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 21 to 26. But the same Paul in Romans 13 delivered a universal doctrine on the obedience of inferiors to superiors when he says: Let every soul be subject to higher powers; which doctrine he afterwards applied in particular to the obedience which subjects owe to temporal princes, and at last concludes: Render therefore to all men their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. Wherefore if anyone proves that he is not by right subject to some power, he will not be held by this apostolic sentence, even if perhaps in fact, or to avoid scandal, it is fitting that he be subject.
Barclay adds: “For what some say, that blessed Paul is not speaking there of the temporal power of secular princes but of power in general, that each should obey his own superior, layman a layman, churchman a churchman, is mere cavilling, and an answer unworthy of learned men and theologians; for at that time no other power than the political and temporal was commonly acknowledged by men.” I answer: in the words of the Apostle, as we said a little before, some sentences are general, some particular. For who can deny that this is a general sentence: Let every soul be subject to higher powers? Likewise this: There is no power but from God? and this: He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God? But the Apostle, adding: For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil; and below: If thou do that which is evil, fear, for he beareth not the sword in vain; seems altogether to have meant political princes by the higher powers. So it is; by the higher powers he meant political princes to be understood, but not them alone; for the Apostle preferred to frame and set out his doctrine in general words, that it might profit more; whence elsewhere he warns children to obey parents, wives husbands, servants masters, and peoples their ecclesiastical superiors. For what Barclay says, that at that time no power was commonly acknowledged by men except the political and temporal, is an opinion wholly unworthy of a learned man and a jurist. For the paternal power, the master's power, the marital power, the power of a teacher over pupils, and lastly the ecclesiastical power, were always most well known; and all these powers are most plainly distinguished from the political, if we wish to speak properly. And of the ecclesiastical power, does not the same Apostle most frequently make mention? Certainly he speaks thus in 2 Corinthians 10: For if also I should boast somewhat more of our power, which the Lord hath given us unto edification and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed; and in chapter 13: These things I write, being absent, that being present I may not deal more severely, according to the power which the Lord hath given me; and in Hebrews 13: Obey your prelates, and be subject to them.
Barclay adds the testimony of Saint Augustine in the exposition of certain propositions of the epistle to the Romans. From this testimony Barclay gathers, first, that the profession of the Christian religion does not exempt anyone from subjection to the temporal power. Second, that the Apostles, and Saint Peter himself, were subject to the heathen magistrate. Third, that it was not lawful for those first Christians to revolt from the rule of heathen princes and appoint other princes for themselves, even if they had had strength enough to carry it through. Fourth, that Augustine understood the words of the Apostle of the temporal power only. Fifth, that Augustine includes himself in the number of those whom the Apostle commands to be subject to the temporal powers; from which it follows that bishops too and all clerics ought to be subject to the same temporal powers. Sixth, that the duty of subjects is twofold: one, to obey the king when he commands nothing against God; the other, not to obey the king when God commands the contrary. I answer: Saint Augustine truly teaches that the profession of the Christian religion does not exempt anyone from subjection to the temporal power, and he gathers this most rightly from the words of the Apostle, nor do we contradict it. But from this it does not follow that Saint Peter and the other Apostles were subject by right to the temporal powers, nor does Saint Augustine say this; for even if the profession of the Christian religion did not exempt the Apostles from that subjection, yet the apostolic principality exempted them, which is higher than every temporal principality. But whether it was lawful for Christians to revolt from heathen emperors we shall treat below in its place; meanwhile we say only this, that it is not gathered from the words of Augustine or of the Apostle; for Saint Augustine teaches from the Apostle that Christians owe obedience to temporal princes, namely while they command with power, but not if they fall from their principality. But whether it was lawful for Christians to abolish the rule of the heathen neither the Apostle nor Augustine defines in this place. But that is false, that Saint Augustine understands this passage of the Apostle of the temporal power only; for nowhere in Augustine, nor in the Apostle, is the particle only found; and we have Saint John Chrysostom with Theodoret and Theophylact, who expound it of power in general; and Saint Anselm, who expounds it of the ecclesiastical and temporal power; and Saint Bernard, epistles 42 and 183, who also expounds it of both. But that Saint Augustine counts himself among those who are commanded to obey the temporal powers does not force us to gather from it that bishops and clerics are not exempt from the secular power; for when he says: Since we consist of soul and body, as long as we are in this temporal life we also use temporal things for the support of living this life, it is fitting that in that part which pertains to this life we be subject to the powers, that is, to men administering human affairs with some honour; he shows that all men need laws and political magistrates, without which this life cannot be led in tranquillity. As Pope Nicholas too, in the epistle to Michael, writes that even the Pontiffs themselves use the imperial laws for the course of temporal affairs; for all ought to observe laws of this kind, but not all by force of the laws themselves; some by force of the laws, some by force of reason.
Barclay goes on and says: “What more unworthy and unjust can be said than that princes professing the faith of Christ will be pressed with a harder yoke than single men out of the multitude? But private men, when they passed into the spiritual rule of the Church, lost nothing of their patrimony or temporal right, except those things which they had offered of their own accord, as appears from the Acts of the Apostles; so likewise princes too, when they gave their name to Christ, kept their temporal right, I mean their rule and political power, whole and untouched.” I answer: private men, when they are admitted into the Church, do not indeed lose their patrimonies or other temporal rights; yet they can be compelled by the Church to support their parish priests, and, as the Apostle speaks, to grant to those who sow spiritual things that they reap carnal things, to which before receiving the faith they were in no way bound; they can also, in punishment of various crimes, not only be compelled in the inner forum by confessors to redeem their sins by alms, but also be fined a money penalty by bishops in the outer forum, or even be committed to prison, as is clear from the Council of Trent, session 25, chapter 3. By the same reasoning temporal princes, when they come to the household of Christ, lose neither their principality nor their jurisdiction; but they are subjected to him whom Christ set over his household, to be ruled and directed by him in that way which leads to life.
“Nor does it help the cause of the adversaries,” Barclay adds, “to say that the Apostles did not have temporal power over the princes of their age because they had not yet become Christians, according to that: For what have I to do to judge them that are without? 1 Corinthians 5; but that the Pope now has that power because they have become Christians and sons of the Church, of which he himself is the supreme prince and head on earth, and the Father of all Christians; and that the right order of nature and reason demands that the son be subject to the father, not the father to the son. This, I say, is so far from being a reason that it is a wonder any place was given it by learned men; for that spiritual subjection, through which princes have become sons of the Pope, is wholly distinct and separate from temporal subjection, so that the one does not follow the other. But just as a governor or consul, while he holds his magistracy, can give himself in adoption to another, and so pass into the family and paternal power of the adoptive father, though by that lawful act he transfers to the adopter neither the consular fasces nor anything else belonging to him by right of the magistracy.” I answer: it is a wonder how easily Barclay pronounces on the writings of learned men, when with the best right it could be turned back on him that his answers and comparisons are of so little worth that it is scarcely credible they could have satisfied their author. For that comparison of the adopted son, on which his whole answer rests, is nothing at all to the point. The power of the father and of the governor or consul are not only distinct and separate, but the former is inferior to the latter; and if a father abuses the paternal power, he can be corrected by the governor or consul, and much more by the king and prince, and in certain cases deprived of his power; whereas on the contrary, if a governor or consul or prince abuses his political power, he cannot be corrected by his adoptive or even natural father by way of command, and much less be deprived of his power. Now the spiritual and supernatural power of the Supreme Pontiff, higher and greater than the royal temporal and earthly power, ought not to have been compared with the human power of an adoptive father toward a son who is governor or consul, that is, with an inferior power toward a superior; but with the power of a prince or governor toward the paternal power of private citizens, that is, with a superior power toward an inferior. From which it follows that although the power of the Pope and of the king are distinct and separate, and the one does not necessarily follow the other, yet when they are found in the same body of the Church, the power of the Pope so stands out that it ought to direct and correct the royal power, and neither ought nor can be directed or corrected by it. So the whole deception of Barclay lies in this, that he judged the spiritual and supernatural fatherhood of the Supreme Pontiff toward Christian kings and princes to be no higher than the human and civil fatherhood of a private man toward an adopted son; which is a manifest and childish delusion.
“To this is added,” says Barclay, “that while the Christian commonwealth was flourishing most, both in the multitude of believers, and in the holiness of the Pontiffs, and in the learning and examples of the doctors, and was meanwhile harassed and tossed by bad Christian princes, no declaration of this principality and temporal jurisdiction over secular princes, I will not say express and manifest, but not even the slightest mention, was made.” I answer: I could ask Barclay how it came about that in the Old Testament so many centuries passed before a high priest ordered a king to be deposed and another put in his place; which was done when the high priest Jehoiada commanded Queen Athaliah not only to be deposed but also to be killed, and put King Joash in her place, 4 Kings 11. Likewise, since after the division of the kingdom of Solomon into the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah, among the kings of Israel there was none godly, but all were wicked and idolaters, why, after tolerating many others, did the prophet of the Lord anoint Jehu as king, and order him to kill King Joram, to whom he had sworn fidelity; which he did at once, and was praised by God, as we have in 4 Kings 9 and 10. He would answer, I think, that so it pleased God, whose judgments are unsearchable. In the same way, then, the Church, which is ruled by the Spirit of God, does not always put forth her power, but according to place and time, as she is admonished and led by the Spirit of Christ. And indeed in the first three hundred years the Christian Church had no Christian kings except a very few, such as Lucius in Britain and Donald in Scotland, who, since they were godly, gave no cause why the Church should exercise her power over them. Afterwards there followed kings either very godly and religious, such as Constantine the Great, Constans his son, Jovian, Valentinian, Gratian, Theodosius, Honorius and others; or very wicked and blasphemous, such as Constantius, Julian, Valens, Theodoric, Totila, Genseric, Huneric and others. Toward the former the Church had to show goodwill, not severity; toward the latter, since they were most powerful, to show severity would have profited nothing, and so patience rather than authority had to be used. But when in the times of Pope Gregory II the peoples of Italy bore ill the rule of Leo the Isaurian, a heretic and persecutor, and were ready to shake off the yoke of the wicked prince if the Pontiff ordered or consented, then at last it seemed opportune to the Apostolic See to put forth her authority, namely when she would not put it forth in vain. So too Pope Zachary did not think of deposing King Childeric and raising Pepin to the kingdom before the people and the nobles of the Franks sought it; for it would not have been a prudent counsel of the Pontiff if, against the will of the people and the nobles, he had tried to depose their king, however unfit and idle. But if Barclay makes so much of the silence of seven hundred years, why should not we make more of the words and examples of nine hundred years? For the Pontiffs and writers of the Church of the earlier time, as they did not affirm, so also did not deny, that there is in the Apostolic See some power of disposing of temporal things, at least in order to spiritual; but the Pontiffs and writers of the later time have expressly pronounced that this power is not lacking to the Church. The Church is certainly the same, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her; nor does the Church of the later time lack men illustrious in learning and holiness. Wherefore he does not think rightly of the Church of Christ who admits nothing except what he reads to have been expressly written or done in the ancient Church, as if the Church of the later time had either ceased to be the Church or had no faculty of explaining and declaring, and even of establishing and commanding, the things that pertain to the Christian faith and morals.
Barclay brings forward Saint Gregory, who in epistle 61 of book 2 calls himself the unworthy servant of the emperor, and says that power has been given to the emperor from heaven over all men; where he notes that this word, all, includes even the Pope, if the Pope is a man; and lest anyone perhaps answer that Saint Gregory spoke so out of humility, he cites this from Saint Augustine, sermon 29 on the words of the Apostle: “When you lie for the sake of humility, if you were not a sinner before you lied, by lying you become what you had avoided.” Lastly he adds the words of Saint Gregory at the end of that epistle: “On both sides, then, I have paid what I owed, who have both offered obedience to the emperor, and for God's sake have in no way kept silent what I thought.” I answer: Saint Gregory named himself the servant not of the emperor alone, but of all the faithful, since at the beginning of his epistles he wrote, Gregory, servant of the servants of God. And John the Deacon, book 4 of the Life of Saint Gregory, chapter 58, witnesses that Saint Gregory used to call all priests brothers, all clerics sons, all laymen lords; and yet, I think, Barclay will not grant that Saint Gregory was subject to all laymen. Further, what Saint Gregory writes, that power was given to the emperor from heaven, does not signify that the imperial power is immediately from God, but that it is from God in that sense in which the Apostle says, Romans 13: There is no power but from God. For every power is from God, but some immediately, as that of Moses, of Saint Peter, of Saint Paul; some by the mediation of the consent of men, as the power of kings, consuls, tribunes; for, as Saint Thomas teaches in 2-2, question 10, article 10, and question 12, article 2, human dominions and principalities are of human law, not of divine law. What Saint Gregory adds, over all men, is understood of all men subject to the Roman empire; otherwise the power of the emperor Maurice would have been even over the Antipodes, the Garamantes and the Indians, and yet it was not over the neighbouring Persians or Scythians, nor over the Germans or Franks or Spaniards, or innumerable others; therefore Barclay could have left out that consequence, therefore over the Pope, if he is a man. Nor did blessed Gregory lie out of humility when he called himself the servant of those to whom he was not subject; for he is called a servant who serves the benefit of others, whether he does it by obeying or by commanding; for the Apostle too writes that he was the servant of the Corinthians, over whom nevertheless he says he received power from Christ, 2 Corinthians 4 and 13. Lastly, as to the obedience which Saint Gregory writes he showed to the emperor, I say it was forced, and rendered in fact, not by right; for the same Saint Gregory, in the explanation of Psalm 101, writes these words of the emperor Maurice: But he stretched the madness of his rashness so far as to claim for himself the Roman Church, the head of all the Churches, and to usurp the right of earthly power over the mistress of the nations.
Barclay goes on and exclaims: “O divine prelate, and a sentence to be pressed upon the Pontiffs of all following ages! But alas, whither has that kindly and humble confession been banished from our ages, in whose place has gradually grown up this threatening and haughty speech against kings and emperors: We, set on the supreme throne of justice, holding a supreme power over all the kings and princes of the whole earth and all peoples, nations and tribes, delivered to us not by human but by divine institution, declare, order, command, and so on; which words are false and empty, as is plain from this, that the Pope has neither temporal nor spiritual power over unbelieving princes and peoples, who surpass Christians in number, as Bellarmine shows with the firmest reason in the books on the Roman Pontiff.” I answer: this empty exclamation and praise of the humble confession Saint Gregory himself refutes in that privilege which he granted to the monastery of Saint Medard, and which is read, signed by Gregory himself and by many bishops, in book 12 of the Epistles after epistle 31; for in that privilege he speaks thus: But if any of kings, prelates, judges, or any secular persons whatever, shall violate or contradict the decrees of this Apostolic authority and of our command, or disturb or trouble the brothers, or order otherwise, of whatever dignity or eminence he be, let him be deprived of his honour, and as a corrupter of the Catholic faith and a destroyer of the holy Church of God, let him be cut off from the fellowship of Christianity and from the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. And above he had said that he decreed by divine authority, in the stead of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles. Saint Gregory uses the same words in another similar privilege, which is in book 11, epistle 10, to the abbot Senator. So that humble servant of the servants of God was not ignorant of the eminence of his dignity, when by divine authority, in the stead of the Prince of the Apostles, he did not fear to command all kings, of whatever dignity and eminence they were, under threat of the loss of their own honour, that they should not dare to violate the decrees of his command. What then is there in the Bulls of Pius V and Sixtus V (for he notes these Bulls in the margin), which Barclay calls threatening and haughty, that is not in that privilege given by the humble Gregory? Pius and Sixtus say that power was delivered to them by divine institution; and Gregory says that he commands by divine authority. They say that they have power over all kings; he says, if any of kings, or any secular persons whatever, and so on. They say, we order, we command; he says, if any of kings, and so on, shall violate the decrees of this Apostolic authority and of our command. But, says Barclay, that those words of Pius V and Sixtus V are false and empty is plain from this, that the Pope has neither temporal nor spiritual power over unbelieving princes. I answer: if those words are false and empty, much more false and empty will be the words of Saint Gregory in epistle 61 of book 2, cited and praised by Barclay above, where Saint Gregory says that power was given by God to the emperor Maurice over all men; for it is certain that the power of the emperor Maurice was not over all men, since it was only over men subject to the Roman empire, which empire at that time did not contain even a third part of mankind. As therefore the words of Saint Gregory on the power of Maurice over all men ought to be understood of all men who were subject to the Roman empire, so too the words of the Pontiffs on power over all kings and peoples ought to be understood of all kings and peoples who are in the Catholic Church, which is spread through the whole world; for that those words ought to be so understood the preceding words teach. For Pius V, at the beginning of the Bull, writes that there is one only true Church of God, and that the whole of it was committed to Saint Peter and his successors, and from this he gathers that the Supreme Pontiff has power over all kings and peoples, namely those who belong to the Church, which is in the whole world. And Sixtus V says that the care of all Churches, peoples and nations lies upon him; where he does not say that he has power over all peoples and nations, but over the Churches which are in all peoples and nations. A like expression is found in Saint Bernard, book 3 on Consideration, chapter 1, where he says that the whole world belongs to the care of the Supreme Pontiff: “So,” he says, “you are the heir, and the world the inheritance”; and: “he must go out of the world who would seek what does not belong to your care”; and yet in the same place he says that the Pope is not the lord of the world, but that the whole world belongs to him because he ought to feed the faithful, and preside over them with power, and apply zeal and diligence to the conversion of unbelievers, as the Apostles did. Saint Thomas too, in 2-2, question 12, article 2, says that the Pope has power over the faithful, and over unbelievers who at some time received the faith, but not over those who never received the faith, according to that of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 5: For what have I to do to judge them that are without? which authors, and many others, I followed in the place which Barclay noted, namely book 5 on the Pontiff, chapter 2. Nor is this at odds with what we taught above with Saint Thomas, that any unbelievers whatever can be deprived by the Supreme Pontiff of the dominion which they have over believers; for even if it does not absolutely belong to the Pontiff to judge those who are without, nor does the Pontiff have ordinary power over them, since they do not belong to the flock entrusted to him except in potency, yet in order to the preservation of the faithful he has from God the authority of depriving unbelieving princes of the dominion which they have over believers, as the same Saint Thomas teaches, 2-2, question 10, article 10.
I add lastly that the words of Pius V are not so haughty and threatening as Barclay says; for these are his words in the Bull of excommunication of Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England: “He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on earth, has delivered the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which there is no salvation, to one alone on earth, namely to Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor the Roman Pontiff, to be governed in fullness of power. Him alone he has appointed prince over all nations and all kingdoms, to root up, destroy, scatter, ruin, plant and build, that he may keep the faithful people, bound by the bond of mutual charity, in the unity of the spirit, and present it safe and sound to its Saviour; in the discharge of which office we, called by the goodness of God to the helm of the aforesaid Church, leave off no labour,” and so on. And below: “Supported therefore by his authority, who willed to set us on this supreme throne of justice (though unequal to so great a burden), out of the fullness of the Apostolic power we declare the aforesaid Elizabeth a heretic and a favourer of heretics, and that she and those adhering to her have incurred the sentence of the aforesaid anathema, and are cut off from the unity of the body of Christ; and moreover that she is deprived of the pretended right to the aforesaid kingdom, and of all and every dominion, dignity and privilege,” and so on. Further, the Bull of Sixtus V begins thus: “The authority delivered by the immense power of the eternal King to blessed Peter and his successors surpasses all the powers of earthly kings and princes, and standing firm on the rock, and turned aside from the right by no adversities nor even by favourable winds, unshaken it brings forth judgments upon all.” And below: “Therefore, set on this most lofty throne, and in the fullness of power which the King of kings and Lord of lords himself has bestowed on us, though unworthy, by the authority of almighty God and of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, and with the counsel of our venerable brothers the Cardinals of the holy Roman Church, we pronounce and declare,” and so on. Wherefore the sentence which Barclay recites is not found word for word in the Bulls of Pius V or Sixtus V; but he himself put it together out of various places in such a way as he judged fittest for stirring up ill will. I pass over the rest that is in this third chapter, because they are not arguments or reasons, but abuse and reproaches against the Pontiffs; for we wish to imitate him who, when he was reviled, did not revile; when he suffered, he threatened not, 1 Peter 2.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III.
Potestatem Summi Pontificis in temporalibus,
non esse rem dubiam , neque ab opinionibus
doctorum solum pendere.
In tertio capite contendit Barclaius, de
potestate summi Pontificis in temporalibus
nihil certi haberi, sed rem totam inter theo¬
logos, et Canonistas lihere disputari.
« Ingens, inquit, theologos inter, et Cano¬
nistas, et utrorumque inter se de hac re dis¬
sensio, dum hi directam, alii indirectam po¬
testatem astruunt, facit, ut quaestio haec de
temporali potestate Papae dubia et incerta,
ac tota in hominum opinione posita videatur:
ac proinde solutionis ejus veritatem lumine
rationis et disserendi subtilitate esse per¬
vestigandam. t> Haec ille.
At magnum est discrimen inter quaestio¬
nem an sit, et quid sit, vel, quomodo sit.
Deum esse ne Pagani quidem in dubium re¬
vocare solebant ; tamen de natura deorum
plurimae erant apud Philosophos opiniones.
Deum esse trinum, et unum, nullus Catholi¬
cus negat, sed omnes firmissima fide tenent :
et tamen, quot sunt inter Scholasticos theo¬
logos de constitutione personarum, de rela¬
tionibus, de notionibus opiniones ? Sic igitur
de potestate in temporalibus, quod ea sit in
Papa, non opinio, sed certitudo apud Catho¬
licos est : quamvis non desint altercationes,
quid sit, et qualis ea potestas, id est, an sit
per se, et proprie temporalis : an potius ipsa
quidem spiritualis sit, sed per quamdam ne¬
cessariam consequentiam, et in ordine ad
spiritualia de temporalibus disponat. Quare
non recte colligit Barclaius dum sic ratioci¬
natur :
« Dissensio est inter theologos, et Canoni¬
stas, dum hi directam, illi indirectam pote¬
statem astruunt, ergo quaestio de temporali
potestate Papae dubia et incerta, ac tota in
opinione hominum posita est. »
Esse autem rem certam, et exploratam,
16
DE POTESTATE PAP/E
posse Pontificem Maximum justis de causis
de temporalibus judicare, atque ipsos tem¬
porales principes aliquando deponere; pro¬
bamus.
1. Primum ex communi consensu Scripto¬
rum, quorum verba initio disputationis attu¬
limus : quod enim communi consensu Do-
ctores variis in locis, et temporibus docent,
jn Ecclesia universa sentire, et docere cense¬
tur : ideo enim posuit Deus in Ecclesia Pa¬
stores, et Doctores, ut dicitur ad Ephes. iv.
ut eos populi tamquam duces sequantur ne¬
que ab eis recedant, nisi forte videant unum
aliquem novi aliquid contra doctrinam com¬
munem invehere, ut. hoc tempore Barclaius
fecit.
2. Secundo probamus per Extra vagantem,
Unam sanctam, de majorit. et obedientia,
ubi docemur, gladium esse sub gladio, et
temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici
potestati : et quod si deviat terrena potestas,
judicabitur a spirituali ; si deviat spiritualis
minor, a suo superiore ; si vero suprema, a
solo Deo poterit judicari. Neque obstat quod
definitio hujus decretalis videtur esse revo¬
cata a Clemente Y, in Extravaganti, Meruit,
de privilegiis. Neque enim Clemens Y.
Extravagantem Bonifacii revocavit, sed an¬
tiquam obligationem declarasse, quam ha¬
bent homines ad obediendum, et subjacen¬
dum Apostolicae Sedi.
3. Tertio probamus ex conciliis supra al¬
latis, quorum duo postremo generalia fue¬
runt : quomodo enim potest in dubium re¬
vocari, et a sola hominum opinione pendere,
quod generalia, catholica legitimaque con¬
cilia probant? Posse autem per summum
Pontificem deponi principes temporales ,
quando Ecclesia necessitas id postulat, ac
per hoc temporalem principum potestatem
spirituali potestati Pontificum subjectam, et
subordinatam esse, concilia illa decem, ac
prsesertim duo postrema Lateranense et
Lugdunense apertissime docent.
4. Quarto, probamus ex divinis literis,
quemadmodum id probat Gregorius Y1I. in
epist. 21. libri octavi. Nam in Scripturis et
traditione manifestissime reperimus funda¬
tum Primatum Ecclesiasticum Romani Pon¬
tificis, quo primatu amplissima potestas con¬
tinetur regendi, ligandi , et solvendi quos¬
cumque, etiam reges et imperatores : id quod
neque Barclaius , neque ullus Catholicus
negat. Ex hoc autem principio satis aperte
colligitur, esse in Romano Pontifice potesta¬
tem temporalia disponendi, usque ad ipso¬
rum regum, et imperatorum depositionem :
nam per ipsam spiritualem potestatem po¬
test summus Pontifex ligare principes saecu¬
lares vinculo excommunicationis; potest per
eamdem solvere populos a juramento fi¬
delitatis et obedientise ; potest obligare
eosdem populos sub excommunicationis
poena, ut regi excommunicato non pa¬
reant, atque ut alium sibi eligant regem.
Praeterea cum finis spiritualis regiminis sit
adeptio aeternae vitae, qui est finis supremus,
et ultimus, cui omnes alii subordinantur fi¬
nes ; certe necesse est, ut spirituali potestati
supremi hierarchae ecclesiastici subjiciatur,
et subordinetur omnis saecularis potestas
quam ille dirigere debet, et si deviat corri¬
gere, et judicare, ac demum efficere ne im¬
pediat salutem populi Christiani. Atque haec
est ratio cur, et Gregorius YII. et Innocen¬
tius IV. in depositione imperatorum, ut
ostenderent jure se id facere, verba Domini
allegaverint : Quodcumque ligaveris super ter¬
ram , erit ligatum et in coelis; et : Quodcum¬
que solveris super terram , erit solutum et in
coelis, Matt. xvi. et : Pasce oves meas( 1), Joan.
xvi. nimirumutsignificarentpotestatemsuam
disponendi de temporalibus , quando id re¬
quirit salus animarum. Religionis incolumi¬
tas, Ecclesiae conservatio ; non pendere ad
incertis hominum opinionibus, sed ab ordi¬
natione divina Christi regis aeterni, et Pon¬
tificis Maximi, qui et super omnia Deus est
benedictus in saecula, teste Apostolo ad Ro-
man. xi.
Sed videamus, quid contra haec Barclaius
objiciat.
1. Primum argumentum ejus hoc est :
« Absurdum, et iniquum est dicere, princi¬
pes Ethnicos duriore, et deteriore conditione
ad Ecclesiam esse receptos , quam homines
privatos : vel Papam habere majorem nunc
potestatem in principes politicos Christianos,
quam olim B. Petrus, et caeteri Apostoli in
quemlibet privatum hominem Ecclesiae fi¬
lium : at hi nullum jus, et potestatem tem¬
poralem habuerunt tunc temporis in Chri¬
stianos laicos : ergo nec Papa in principes
saeculares potestatem ullam temporalem nunc
habet. »
Respondeo : Assumptio argumenti falsa
(1) Matth. XYI, 19 ; Joan. XXI, 17.
IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS
17
Reges terrae a quibus accipiunt tributum , vel
est, et Scripturis sanctis omnino contraria :
primum enim jus habebant Apostoli perci¬
piendi ex bonis temporalibus laicorum. Id
probat Apostolus I ad Cor. cap. ix. dicens :
Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus , magnum
est , si nos carnalia vestra metamus ? si alii
potestatis vestrae participes sunt, quare non
potius nos ? sed non usi sumus hac potestate ,
sed omnia sustinemus , ne quod offendiculum
demus Evangelio Christi: nescitis quoniam qui
in sacrario operantur , quae de sacrario sunt
edunt, et qui altari deserviunt , cum altari
participant ? Ita, et Dominus ordinavit iis,
qui Evangelium annunciant de Evangelio vi¬
vere. Deinde, potuerunt Apostoli jubere,
ut Christiani in causis civilibus judices Chri¬
stianos constituerent, nec ad judicia gen¬
tilium magistratuum accederent : sic enim
mandat Apostolus I ad Cor. vi. dicens :
Audet aliquis vestrum habens negotium adver¬
sus alterum, judicari , apud iniquos , et non
apud Sanctos ? nescitis quia Angelos judicabi¬
mus ? quanto magis saecularia ? saecularia igi¬
tur judicia si habueritis, contemptibiles qui
sunt in Ecclesia , illos constituite ad judican¬
dum. Quare si poterant Apostoli ordinare ju¬
dicia in causis civilibus; et mandare laicis,
ut ministros Evangelii suis facultatibus sus¬
tentarent ; quomodo nullum jus habebant
in bona temporalia laicorum ?
2. At inquit Barclaius : «Certo certius est,
Ecclesiasticam potestatem fuisse omnino se¬
paratam a politica tempore Apostolorum, et
hanc totam penes Ethnicos principes extra
Ecclesiam fuisse, adeo ut ipsi Apostoli in po¬
testate temporali Ethnicorum fuerint; idque
Albertus Pighius, et Robertus Bellarminus,
aliique theologi insignes ingenue fatentur. »
Respondeo : Ecclesiastica potestas nunc
etiam separata est a politica : non enim ea¬
dem, sed diversa est potestas pontificum, et
regum. Sed quoniam, ut supra diximus, po¬
testas Ecclesiastica , quee spiritualis est ,
prseest potestati politicae temporali, et eam
dirigere debet ad finem supremum seternai
vitae : ideo potest in ordine ad spiritualia
disponere de bonis temporalibus. Verum
autem est Apostolorum tempore, politicam
potestatem, non quamcumque, sed regiam,
sive imperatoriam, fuisse apud ethnicos to¬
tam, quia nulli tunc erant reges, aut impe¬
ratores Christiani ; sed ex hoc nihil aliud se¬
quitur , nisi potestatem ecclesiasticam eo
tempore non habuisse paratam executionem,
Tom. X JI
praesertim in temporalibus, ut hoc tempore
habet : ipsos vero Apostolos fuisse in pote¬
state temporali prineipum Ethnicorun scripsi
olim cum Alberto Pighio, et aliis nonnullis :
sed postea recognoscens, et expendens di¬
ligentius libros meos, censui, Apostolos de
tacto subjectos fuisse principibus illis, non
de jure; ut in Recognitione mea posui.
3. At inquit Barclaius : « Non venit Chri¬
stus solvere legem, sed adimplere, nec na¬
turae et gentium jura tollere, aut quem¬
quam temporali rerum suarum dominio ex¬
cludere. Itaque sicut ante eum reges politica
potestate subditis praeerant, ita etiam post-
eaquam advenit, et a nobis deinde in coe¬
los recessit, eam ipsam potestatem apostoli-
ca doctrina confirmatam, nullaque ex parte
debilitatem retinuerunt. Si itaque Petrus,
caeterique Apostoli, antequam Christum se¬
querentur, temporali prineipum Ethnico¬
rum ditioni, et jurisdictioni subjiciebantur,
quod negari non potest, nec Dominus ulli-
bi diserte, et nominatim juris obligatione li¬
beravit ; consequitur necessario, mansisse
eos sub eodem jugo, etiam post Apostola-
tum.
Respondeo: Christus non venit legem sol¬
vere, sed adimplere : ideo non sustulit jura
gentium, et naturae, sed perfecit : non pri¬
vavit reges et principes dominio, aut juris¬
dictione, sed eorum jurisdictionem, et do¬
minia ordinavit : nam et in ipsa Ecclesia re¬
ges et principes sunt non minore praediti
potestate politica , quam Ethnici essent :
hoc solum accessit, quod praeposuit illis Pa¬
storem magnum, qui vice sua fungeretur in
terris, a quo dirigerentur, si forte avia, quae
ducit ad regnum coelorum, eos aberrare
contingeret : quod beneficium Dei inter po¬
tissima debet agnosci a fidelibus omnibus ;
sed a nullis magis, quam a regibus, et prin¬
cipibus, qui quo sunt in loco sublimiore, eo
magis obnoxii sunt casui graviori, et tanto
magis egent Episcopo, et Pastore animarum
suarum, ut eleganter, et . copiose admonuit
Reginaldus Polus Cardinalis, in dialogo de
Pontifice Maximo : quod autem Christus non
liberaverit nominatim et expresse Petrum
et Apostolos ab obligatione, qua tenebantur
Ethnicis principibus, videtur omnino Evan¬
gelio repugnare : siquidem Matth. xvn.
Christus solvit didrachma pro se et Petro,
ob scandalum vitandum : nam alioqui neque
se, neque Petrum ad id vectigal solvendum
obligatos fuisse demonstravit illis verbis :
2
18
DE POTESTATE PAP.E
censum ? a filiis suis , an ab alienis ? et re¬
spondente Petro, ab alienis , dixit illi Jesus :
ergo liberi sunt filii { 1) quibus verbis decla¬
ravit, se, quod filius esset Regis omnium re¬
gum, immunem esse ab omni tributo, et
censu : et quoniam cum filius regis immunis
est, ipsa quoque ejus familia censetur im¬
munis ; ideo Petrus et Apostoli, qui ad fa¬
miliam Christi, ipsius beneficio, pertinebant,
immunes quoque esse debebant : sed de hac
re alibi scripsimus copiosius.
4. Sed non quiescit Barclaius, addit enim :
« Sed et eos aliorum civium instar princi¬
pibus subditos extitisse, ex ipsorum doctri¬
na et factis apparet : quippe id illis expro¬
brari non potest, quod Christus Scribis, et
Pharisaeis improperat , aliud eos fecisse ,
aliud docuisse. Docuerunt autem Christia¬
nos subjectionem, et obedientiam, de qua
loquimur, regibus et principibus exhiben¬
dam : qua de causa Paulus ipse ad Caesarem
appellavit, et jussit Christianos omnes sub¬
jectos esse temporali potestati Ethnicorum,
non solum propter iram, sed etiam propter
conscientiam. »
Respondeo : Apostoli sine dubio non fue¬
runt similes Pharisaeorum, qui aliud doce¬
bant, aliud faciebant; non ideo de jure sub¬
jecti erant instar aliorum civium temporali¬
bus potestatibus, cum essent ipsi constituti
a Deo principes super omnem terram, ut
legimus in Psal. xliv., quamvis enim princi¬
patus ille spiritualis esset, non temporalis ;
tamen verus principatus erat, et temporali
principatu longe nobilior. Porro S. Paulus
appellavit ad Caesarem, ut ad judicem prse-
sidis Judaeae, et Hebraeorum, qui injuste il¬
lum opprimebant : alioqui enim causa illa,
quae spiritualis erat, videlicet de Resurre¬
ctione Christi, et caeremoniis legis Mosaicae,
ad principem Ethnicum jure pertinere non
poterat. Vide Acta Apostolorum c. xxi.,
xxii., xxiii., xxiv., xxv. et xxvi. Idem vero
Paulus ad Rom. xm. universalem doctri¬
nam tradidit de obedientia inferiorum ad
superiores, cum ait: Omnis anima potestatibus
sublimioribus subdita sit: quam po-tea doctri¬
nam applicavit in particulari ad obedien¬
tiam, quam debent subditi principibus tem¬
poralibus; et tandem concludit: Reddite er¬
go omnibus debita, cui tributum, tribulum; cui
vectigal, vectigal ; cui timorem, timorem; cui
honorem, honorem (2). Quare si quis probet, se
non esse jure subditum alicui potestati, non
tenebitur hac Apostolica sententia, etiam si
forte de facto, vel ad scandalum vitandum
subditum illum esse oporteat.
5. Subjungit Barclaius : « Nam quod qui¬
dam dicunt, B. Paulum non de potestate
temporali saecularium principum illic loqui,
sed de potestate in genere, ut quisque suo
superiori obediat, laicus laico, ecclesiasticus
ecclesiastico ; mera cavillatio est, et respon¬
sum viris doctis, ac theologis indignum :
nulla siquidem tunc temporis alia, quam po¬
litica, et temporalis potestas vulgo ab ho¬
minibus agnoscebatur. »
Respondeo : In verbis Apostoli, ut paulo
ante diximus, quaedam sunt sententiae gene¬
rales, quaedam particulares. Quis enim infi-
ciari potest, illam esse sententiam genera¬
lem : Omnis anima potestatibus sublimiori¬
bus subdita sit ? Item illam : Non est pote¬
stas nisi a Deo ? et illam : Qui potestati resi¬
stit, Dei ordinationi resistit ? At Apostolus
subjungens : Nam principes non sunt timori
boni operis, sed mali; et infra : Si male egeris,
time, non enim sine causa gladium portat : vi¬
detur omnino, per sublimiores potestates,
intelligi voluisse principes politicos. Ita est,
per sublimiores potestates, politicos princi¬
pes intelligi voluit, sed non solos : maluit
enim doctrinam suam Apostolus generalibus
verbis concipere, et proponere, ut pluribus
prodesset, unde alibi monet, ut filii parenti¬
bus obediant ; uxores viris, servi dominis ;
et populi praepositis suis Ecclesiasticis. Nam
quod Barclaius dicit, nullam tunc temporis
agnitam fuisse vulgo hominibus potestatem,
nisi politicam et temporalem ; sententia est
prorsus indigna homine docto, et jurecon¬
sulto. Siquidem notissima semper fuit pote¬
stas patria, potestas herilis, potestas marita¬
lis, potestas magistri in discipulos , potestas
denique ecclesiastica : quae omnes potestates
a politica (si proprie loqui velimus) apertis-
me distinguuntur. Ac de potestate ecclesia¬
stica, nonne idem Apostolus frequentissime
meminit? Certe sic loquitur, II Cor. x : Nam
et si amplius gloriatus fuero de potestate nostra ,
quam dedit nobis Dominus in aedificationem , et
non in destructionem , non erusbescam , et c.
xm. Haec absens scribo, ut non praesens dumus
agam secundum potestatem, quam Dominus
dedit mihi , et ad Hebr. xm. Obedite praepo¬
sitis vestris, et subjacete eis (3).
(1) Matth. XVII, 24. - (2) Rom. XIII, 1,7.- (3) II Cor. X, 8, 10 ; Heb. XIII, 17.
IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS
19
6. Addit Barclaius testimonium S. Au¬
gustini, in expositione quarumdam proposi¬
tionum epist. ad Roman. Ex quo testimonio
colligit Barclaius, primo, Christianae Reli¬
gionis professionem non eximere quemquam
a temporalis potestatis subjectione. Secun¬
do, Apostolos, et ipsum sanctum Petrum,
ethnico Magistratui subjectos fuisse. Tertio,
non licuisse primis illis Christianis ab ethni¬
corum Principum imperio deficere, et alios
sibi principes constituere, etiam si vires illis
ad perficiendum suppetissent. Quarto, Au¬
gustinum intellexisse verba Apostoli de po¬
testate temporali tantum. Quinto, Augusti¬
num seipsum includere in numero eorum,
quos Apostolus jubet subjectos esse debere
potestatibus temporalibus. Ex quo sequitur,
ut etiam Episcopi, et Clerici omnes subditi
esse debeant iisdem temporalibus potestati¬
bus. Sexto, duplex esse officium subdito¬
rum : unum, ut obediant regi, quando ni¬
hil jubet contra Deum : alterum, ut non obe¬
diant regi, quando contrarium jubet Deus.
Respondeo : S. Augustinus vere docet
Christianae Religionis professionem non exi¬
mere quemquam a temporalis potestatis
subjectione : idque rectissime colligit ex ver¬
bis Apostoli, neque nos contradicimus. Sed
ex hoc non sequitur S. Petrum, et Aposto¬
los ceeteros subjectos fuisse de jure tempora¬
libus potestatibus; neque hoc 3. Augustinus
dicit : nam etiamsi non eximebat Apostolos
ab illa subjectione professio Christianae Reli¬
gionis, eximebat tamen Principatus aposto.
licus, qui sublimior est omni Principatu
temporali. An autem licuerit Christianis de¬
ficere ab Ethnicis imperatoribus, infra suo
loco tractabimus : interim hoc solum dici¬
mus, id non colligi ex verbis Augustini, vel
Apostoli : docet enim S. Augustinus ex Apo¬
stolo, Christianos debere obedientiam tem¬
poralibus principibus, dum videlicet , cum
potestate imperant : non autem si a princi¬
patu excidant. Utrum autem licuerit Chri¬
stianis imperium ethnicis abrogare, neque
Apostolus, neque Augustinus hoc loco defi¬
nit. Illud vero falsum est, S. Augustinum in-
telligere hunc locum Apostoli de temporali
potestate tantum : nusquam enim habetur
apud Augustinum, neque apud Apostolum
particula, tantum, et nos habemus S. Joan-
nem Cbrysostomum cum Theodoreto, et
Theophilacto, qui exponunt de potestate in
genere : et S. Anselmum, qui exponit de
potestate Ecclesiastica, et temporali, et S.
Bernardum epist. xlii. et clxxxiii. qui expo¬
nit etiam de utraque. Quod autem S. Augu¬
stinus se ipse numeret inter eos, qui juben¬
tur obedire temporalibus potestatibus : non
cogit, ut inde colligamus, Episcopos, et Cle¬
ricos non esse exemptos a potestate seculari:
nam cum dicit : Cum constemus ex anima,
et corpore, quamdiu in hac vita temporali
sumus, etiam rebus temporalibus ad subsi¬
dium degendae hujus vitae utamur, oportet,
nos ex ea parte, quae ad hanc vitam perti¬
net subditos esse potestatibus, id est, homi¬
nibus res humanas cum aliquo honore ad¬
ministrantibus : ostendit , omnes homines,
egere legibus, et magistratibus politicis, sine
quibus hgec vita tranquille duci non potest.
Quemadmodum etiam Nicolaus Papa, in
epist. ad Michaelem, scribit, ipsos etiamPon-
tifices uti legibus imperialibus pro cursu re¬
rum temporalium : omnes enim observare
debent hujusmodi leges, sed non omnes vi
legum ipsarum, sed aliqui vi legum, aliqui
vi legum, aliqui vi rationis.
7. Pergit Barclaius, et ait : « Quid indi¬
gnius, et iniquius dici potest, quam Principes
Christi fidem prohtentes duriori jugo pres¬
sum iri, quam singulos de multitudine ? At
privati homines quando in spiritualem Eccle¬
siae ditionem concedebant, nihil patrimonii,
aut juris temporalis amittebant, exceptis re¬
bus illis, quas sponte obtulerant, ut ex Actis
Apostolorum patet : similiter ergo, et Prin¬
cipes, ubi Christo nomen dabant, jus suum
temporale, imperium dico, et potestatem po¬
liticam, integram, et intactam retinebant. »
Respondeo : Privati homines cum in Ec¬
clesiam admittuntur, non amittunt quidem
patrimonia, aut alia temporalia jura : pos¬
sunt tamen per Ecclesiam cogi, ut Parochos
suos alant, et, ut Apostolus loquitur, semi¬
nantibus spiritualia, concedant, ut carnalia
metant ; ad quee ante fidem susceptam mi¬
nime tenebantur: possunt quoque in poenam
variorum criminum, non solum cogi in foro
interiore a confessariis, ut eleemosynis redi¬
mant peccata sua : sed etiam ab Episcopis in
foro exteriore mulctari poena pecuniara, vel
etiam carceribus mancipari, ut ex concilio
Trident. sess. xxv. cap. m. perspicuum est.
Pari ratione Principes temporales cum ad
familiam Christi veniunt, neque Principa¬
tum, neque jurisdictionem suam amittunt;
sed subjiciuntur ei, quem Christus super fa¬
miliam suam constituit, ut ab eo regantur,
et dirigantur in ea via, quee ducit ad vitam.
20
DE POTESTATE PAP./E
8. « Nec juvat, addit Barclaius, adversa¬
riorum causam, dicere, Apostolos ideo non
habuisse temporalem potestatem in sui saeculi
Principes, qua nondum facti erant Christia¬
ni: secundum illud, Quid enim mi/u de ns ,
qui foris sunt judicare ? I Corinth. v. Papam
vero nunc illam potestatem habere, quia fa¬
cti sunt Christiani, et filii Ecclesiae, cujus
ipse supremus Princeps, et caput in terris est,
atque omnium Christianorum Pater : et re¬
ctum naturae, et rationis ordinem postulare,
ut filius patri , non pater lilio subjiciatur.
Haec, inquam, adeo nihil ratio est, ut mirum
sit, locum ei aliquem a viris doctis datum
esse : nam illa subjectio spiritualis, perquam
Principes facti sunt filii Papae, penitus distin¬
cta, et separata est a subjectione temporali,
ita ut altera alteram non sequatur. Sed quem¬
admodum Praeses, vel Consul interea dum
magistratum gerit, potest se in adoptionem
alio dare, atque ita in familiam Patris ado¬
ptivi, et patriam potestatem transire, cum
tamen per illum actum legitimum nec fasces
consulares, nec aliud quicquam jure magi¬
stratus sibi competens in adoptantem transfe¬
rat. »
Respondeo : Mirum est quam facile Bar¬
claius de scriptis hominum doctorum pro-
nunciet : cum optimo jure in ipsum retor¬
queri possit, ejus responsiones atque simili¬
tudines, adeo nihili esse, ut vix credibile sit
eas auctori suo satisfacere potuisse. Siqui¬
dem illa similitudo lilio adoptivo, qua tota
ejus responsio nititur, nihil omnino facit ad
rem : potestas prassidis, sive consulis, non
solum distinctae et separatae sunt ; sed etiam
prior posteriore inferior est; et si pater po¬
testate patria abutatur, potest per praesidem,
sive consulem ac multo magis per regem, et
principem corrigi, et in certis casibus pote¬
state sua privari : cum e contrario si praeses,
aut consul, aut princeps potestate sua poli¬
tica abutatur, non possit a patre adoptivo,
vel etiam naturali pro imperio corrigi, et
multo minus potestate sua privari. Jam vero
potestas summi Pontificis spiritualis, et su-
pernaturalis, et regia temporali, et terrena
potestate sublimior, atque major non debuit
conferri cum potestate humana Patris ado¬
ptivi erga filiu/u praesidem, aut consulem,
id est, cum potestate inferiore erga superio¬
rem : sed cum potestate principis, aut prae-
sidis erga potestatem patriam civium pri-
vatorem, id est, cum potestate superiore
erga inferiorem. Ex quo sequitur, ut quam¬
vis potestas Papae, et regis distinctae sint, et
separatae, et non necessario alia aliam se¬
quatur : tamen cum in eodem Ecclesiae
corpore inveniuntur, potestas Papae ita emi¬
net, ut regiam potestatem dirigere, et corri¬
gere; non ab illa dirigi, vel corrigi debeat,
aut possit. Itaque tota deceptio Barclaii in
eo posita est, quod spiritualem, et superna-
turalem paternitatem summi Pontificis erga
reges, et principes Christianos, nihilo subli¬
miorem esse censuit paternitate humana, et
civili hominis privati erga filium adoptivum ;
quae manifesta, et puerilis hallucinatio est.
9. « Hunc accedit, inquit Barclaius, quod
florente plurimum Republica Christiana tum
multitudine credentium, tum sanctimonia
Pontificum, tum eruditione, et exemplis Do¬
ctorum, atque a malis interim Principibus
Christianis vexata, atque jactata, nulla de
hoc Principatu, et jurisdictione temporali in
Principes saeculares, non dicam expressa, et
manifesta declaratio, sed ne levissima qui¬
dem menti facta sit. »
Respondeo : Quaerere possem a Barclaio,
unde factum sit, quod in testamento veteri
tot saecula transierint, antequam Pontifex
regem deponi, et alium substitui jusserit :
quod factum est cum Joiada Pontifex Atha-
liam reginam, non solum deponi, sed et in¬
terfici mandavit, et Joas regem substituit
IV Regum xi. Item cum post divisionem re¬
gni Salomonis in regnum Israel, et regnum
Juda, inter reges Israel nullus fuerit pius,
sed omnes impii, et idololatrae; cur aliis mul¬
tis toleratis Propheta Domini unxerit Jehu
in regem, et jusserit, ut regem Joram, cui
fidelitatem juraverat, interficeret : quod ille
continuo fecit, et laudatus a Deo fuit, ut
habemus IV Reg. ix et x. Responderet, opi¬
nor, sic placuisse Deo, cujus judicia inscru¬
tabilia sunt. Eodem igitur modo Ecclesia,
quae spiritu Dei regitur, non semper exerit
potestatem suam, sed pro loco, et tempore,
ut a Spiritu Christi admonetur, et ducitur.
Et quidem primis trecentis annis Ecclesia
Christiana, non habuit reges Christianos,
nisi paucissimos, ut Lucium in Britannia,
et Donaldum in Scotia, qui cum pii essent,
non erant causa, cur Ecclesia potestatem
suam in illos exerceret. Successerunt postea
reges, aut valde pii, et religiosi, ut Con¬
stantinus magnus. Constans ejus filius, Jo-
vianus, Valentinianus, Gratianus, Theodo¬
sius, Honorius et alii : aut valde impii, et
blasphemi, ut Constantinus, Julianus, Va-
IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS
21
lens, Theodoricus, Totila, Gensericus,
Hunericus et alii. Erga priores Ecclesia bene¬
volentiam ostendere debuit, non severita¬
tem : erga posteriores, quoniam pofentis-
simi erant, severitatem ostendere nihil pro¬
fuisset, ideo patientia potius adhibenda fuit,
quam auctoritas. Sed cum temporibus Gre-
gorii II Pontificis, Italici populi egre fer¬
rent imperium Leonis Isaurici, haeretici,
et persecutoris ; et prompti essent ad jugum
nefarii principis excutiendum, si Pontifex
juberet, vel annueret, tum demum oppor¬
tunum visum est Apostolicse Sedi auctorita¬
tem suam exerere ; quando videlicet non
frustra exereret. Sic etiam non ante Ponti¬
fex Zaeharias de Childerico rege deponendo,
et Pipino ad regnum evehendo cogitavit,
quam populus, et Proceres Franci id expe¬
terent, neque enim prudens consilium Pon¬
tificis fuisset, si inviti populo, et proceribus,
regem illorum quamvis ineptum, et ignavum
exauctorare tentasset. Quod si Barclaius
tanti facit silentium annorum septingento¬
rum, cur non majoris facere debemus nos
verba, et exempla annorum nongentorum?
nam Pontifices, et Scriptores Ecclesiae prio¬
ris temporis, ut non affirmarunt, ita etiam
non negarunt, esse in Apostolica sede po¬
testatem aliquam disponendi de temporali¬
bus, in ordine saltem ad spiritualia : Pon¬
tifices autem, et scriptores posterioris tem¬
poris, diserte pronunciarunt,eam potestatem
Ecclesiae non deesse. Ecclesia certe eadem
est, neque adversus eam portae inferi un¬
quam praevalebunt ; neque desunt Ecclesiae
temporis posterioris homines doctrina, et
sanctitate illustres. Quare non recle de Ec¬
clesia Christi sentit, qui nihil admittit, nisi
quod expresse in veteri Ecclesia scriptum,
aut factum esse legit, quasi Ecclesia tempo¬
ris posterioris, aut desierit esse Ecclesia,
aut facultatem non habeat explicandi, et
declarandi, constituendi etiam, et jubendi,
quae ad fidem, et mores Christianos perti¬
nent.
10. Adducit Barclaius S. Gregorium, qui
inep. 61 , lib. n, vocat se famulum indignum
imperatoris, et dicit, imperatori coelitus
datam esse potestatem super omnes homi¬
nes : ubi notat illud, omnes, comprehen¬
dere etiam Papam, si Papa est homo, et ne
quis forte respondeat, S. Gregorium ex hu¬
militate ita esse locutum, citat illud ex S.
Augustino serm. 29, de verbis Apostoli :
« Cum humilitatis causa mentiris, si non
eras peccator antequam mentireris, men¬
tiendo efficeris, quod evitaveras. » Denique
addit verba S. Gregorii, in fine illius epi¬
stolae : « Utrobique ergo quse debui exolvi,
qui et imperatori obedientiam praebui, et
pro Deo, quod sensi miniine tacui. »
Respondeo : S. Gregorius non solius im¬
peratoris : sed omnium fidelium servum se
nominabat, cum initio epistolarum suarum
adscriberet, Gregorius servus servorum
Dei. Et Joannes Diaconus, lib. iv Vitae
S. Gregorii cap. 58, testatur, a S. Gregorio
vocari solitos fratres omnes Sacerdotes,
filios, omnes clericos; Dominos, omnes lai-
cos; nec tamen, opinor, Barclaius conce¬
det, S. Gregorium omnibus laicis fuisse
subjectum. Porro quod scribit S. Gregorius
datam fuisse potestatem imperatori coelitus,
non significat , imperatoriam potestatem
esse immediate a Deo ; sed esse a Deo in eo
sensu, quo dicit Apostolus, ad Roman. xm :
Non est potestas nisi a Deo. Omnis enim po¬
testas a Deo est; sed aliqua immediate, ut
Mosis, ut S. Petri, ut S. Pauli : aliqua me¬
diante consensu hominum, ut potestas re¬
gum, consulum, tribunorum : nam (ut S.
Thomas docet in 2, 2, qusest. 10, art. 10 et
queest. 12, art. 2, dominia, et principatus
humani de jure humano sunt, non de jure
divino. Quod addit S. Gregorius, super om¬
nes homines, intelligitur super omnes ho¬
mines romano imperio subditos ; alioqui po¬
testas Mauritii imperatoris fuisset etiam su¬
per Antipodas, super Garamantas, et Indos,
et tamen non fuit super vicinos Persas, vel
Scytas, nec super Germanos, aut Francos,
aut Hispanos, aut alios innumerabiles :
proinde poterat Barclaius omittere illam
consecutionem, ergo super Papam, si homo
est. Neque mentitus est ex humilitate B.
Gregorius, cum servum se dixit eorum,
quibus subjectus non erat; servus enim di¬
citur, qui servit aliorum utilitati, sive id
faciat obediendo, sive imperando : nam et
Apostolus, servum se fuisse scribit Corin¬
thiorum, super quos tamen potestatem a
Christo accepisse se dicit, ii Cor iv et xm.
Denique quod attinet ad obedientiam, quam
exhibuisse scribit S. Gregorius imperatori ;
dico eam fuisse coactam, et de facto, non
de jure praestitam : nam idem S. Gregorius
(I) Rom. xm, 1.
22
DE POTESTATE PAP^
in explicatione Psal. ci de Mauritio impera¬
tore scribit haec verba. In tantum autem suae
temeritatis extendit vesaniam, ut caput om¬
nium Ecclesiarum Romanam Ecclesiam sibi
vindicet, et in Domina gentium terrenae jus
potestatis usurpet.
Pergit Baiclaius, et exclamat : « 0 divi¬
num Antistitem, et sententiam nullis non
sequentium saeculorum Pontificibus incul¬
candam. Sed proh numen ; quo benigna illa,
et humilis confessio a nostris saeculis exula-
vit; cui paulatim succrevit haec minax, et
fastuosa adversus reges, et imperatores ora¬
tio. Nos in supremo justitiae throno collo¬
cati, supremum in omnes reges, et principes
universae terrae, cunctosque populos, gentes,
et nationes, non humana, sed divina insti¬
tutione nobis traditam potestatem obtinen¬
tes, declaramus, jubemus, praecipimus etc.,
quae verba falsa, et inania, vel ex eo esse
patet, quod Papa in principes, et populos
infideles, qui multitudine Christianos supe¬
rant, neque temporalem, neque spiritualem
potestatem habeat, ut Bellarminus in libris
de Romano Pontifice firmissima ratione
ostendit. »
Respondeo : Hanc inanem exclamationem,
et humilis confessionis laudationem S. ipse
Gregorius refellit in eo privilegio, quod Mo¬
nasterio S. Medardi concessit, quodque sub¬
scriptum ab ipso Gregorio, multisque Epi¬
scopis legitur lib. xxn Epistolarum post
epistol. 31, in eo siquidem privilegio ita
loquitur. Si quis autem regum, antistitum,
judicum, vel quarumcumque saecularium
personarum, hujus Apostolicae auctoritatis,
et nostrae praeceptionis decreta violaverit,
aut contradixerit, vel fratres inquietaverit,
vel conturbaverit, aut aliter ordinaverit,
cujuscumque dignitatis, vel sublimitatis sit,
honore suo privetur, et ut Catholicae fidei
depravator, vel sanctas Dei Ecclesiae de¬
structor, a consortio Christianitatis, et cor¬
pore, et sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi
sequestretur. Et supra dixerat, auctoritate
divina, vice B. Petri Apostoloium Principis
se statuere. Iisdem verbis utitur S. Grego¬
rius in alio simili privilegio, quod habetur
lib. xi epist. 10, quae est ad Senatorem Ab¬
batem. Itaque humilis ille servus servorum
Dei eminentiam suae dignitatis non ignora¬
vit, cum divina auctoritata, vice Principis
Apostolorum, omnibus regibus cujuscumque
dignitatis, et sublimitatis essent, sub inter¬
minatione privationis proprii honoris impe¬
rare non timuit, ut praeceptionis suae de¬
creta violare non auderent. Quid igitur est
in Bullis Pii V et Sixti V (has enim bullas
notat in margine) quas minaces, etfastuosas
appellat Barclaius, quod non sit in privile¬
gio illo ab humili Gregorio dato? Pius et
Sixtus dicunt, potestatem divina institutione
sibi traditam : et Gregorius dicit, auctori¬
tate divina se praecipere. Illi dicunt, super
omnes reges se potestatem habere : iste di¬
cit, si quis regum, vel quarumcumque saecu¬
larium personarum, etc. Illi dicunt, jube¬
mus, praecipimus : Iste dicit, si quis re¬
gum etc., hujus Apostolicae auctoritatis, et
nostrae praeceptionis decreta violaverit. At,
inquit, verba illa Pii V et Sixti Y falsa, et
inania esse, vel ex eo patet, quod Papa in
principes infideles neque temporalem, ne¬
que spiritualem potestatem habet. Re¬
spondeo : Si falsa et inania sunt ista verba,
multo magis falsa, et inania erunt verba S.
Gregorii, in epist. 61, lib. n, a Barclaio
supra citata, et laudata, ubi S. Gregorius
dicit, Mauritio imperatori, datam esse a Deo
super omnes homines potestatem : constat
enim imperatoris Mauritii potestatem non
fuisse super omnes homines, cum non fuerit
nisi super homines Romano imperio subdi¬
tos, quod imperium eo tempore ne tertiam
quidem hominum partem continebat; quem¬
admodum igitur verba S. Gregorii de po¬
testate Mauritii super omnes homines, in-
telligi debent de omnibus hominibus, qui
romano imperio subjecti erant : sic etiam
verba Pontificum de potestate super omnes
reges, et populos, intelligi debent de omni¬
bus regibus, et populis, qui sunt in Ecclesia
Catholica, quae toto terrarum orbe diffusa
est : sic enim debere intelligi verba illa,
docent verba praecedentia. Pius enim V, ini¬
tio Bullae scribit, unicam esse veram Eccle¬
siam Dei, eamque totam S. Petro ejusque
successoribus esse commissam, atque inde
colligit , summum Pontificem potestatem
habere super omnes reges, et populos, qui
videlicet ad Ecclesiam pertinent, quae in
universo mundo est. Sixtus vero V dicit, sibi
curam incumbere Ecclesiarum omnium, po¬
pulorum, et gentium ; ubi non dicit, se ha¬
bere potestatem in omnes populos et gen¬
tes; sed in ecclesias quae sunt in omni¬
bus populis, et gentibus. Similis locutio
invenitur apud S. Bernardum in lib. ili
de Consid. cap. 1, ubi dicit, totum or¬
bem terrarum ad curam summi Ponti-
IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS
2:5
ficis pertinere : « Ita, inquit, tu haeres,
et orbis haereditas >; et; « orbe illi exeun¬
dum est, qui forte voluerit explorare,
quae non ad tuam pertinent curam »; et ta¬
men ibidem dicit, Papam non esse dominum
orbis; sed orbem totum ad. eum pertinere,
quia debet fideles pascere, eisque cum po¬
testate praeesse, et infidelium conversioni
studium, et diligentiam adhibere, ut Apo¬
stoli faciebant. S. quoque Thomas in. 2. 2.
quaest. 12, art. 2, dicit, Papam habere po¬
testatem super fideles, et infideles, qui fidem
aliquando susceperunt : non autem super
eos, qui fidem numquam susceperunt, juxta
illud Apostoli I Corinth v. Quid ad me de
his qui foris sunt judicare (1) ? quos auctores,
et multos alios ego secutus sum in loco
quem Barclaius notavit, videlicet lib. v de
Pontifice cap. 2. Neque his repugnat quod
supra docuimus cum S. Thoma, posse a
Summo Pontifice privari quoscumque infi¬
deles a dominio quod habent super fideles :
nam etiam si absolute non pertineat ad
Pontificem de his qui foris sunt judicare,
neque habeat Pontifex in illos ordinariam
potestatem, cum ad gregem sibi commenda¬
tum non pertineant, nisi in potentia; tamen
in ordine ad conservationem fidelium habet
a Deo, auctoritatem privandi principes in¬
fideles dominio, quod habent super fideles,
ut idem S. Thomas docet 2. 2. quaest. 10,
art. 10.
Addo postremo, verba Pii V, non esse ita
fastuosa, et minacia, ut Barclaius dicit :
haec enim sunt ipsius verba in Bulla excom¬
municationis Elizabethae praetensae Angliae
reginae : « Regnans in excelsis, cui data est
omnis in ccelo, et in terra potestas, unam
sanctam Catholicam, et Apostolicam Eccle¬
siam, extra quam nulla est salus, uni soli
in terris, videlicet Apostolorum Principi Pe¬
tro, Petrique successori Romano Pontifici,
in potestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernan¬
dam. Hunc unum super omnes gentes, ct
omnia regna principem constituit, qui
evellat, destruat, dissipet, disperdat, et
plantet, et aedificet, ut fidelem populum mu¬
tuae charitatis nexu constrictum in unitate
spiritus contineat, salvumque, et incolumem
suo exhibeat Salvatori : quo quidem in mu¬
nere obeundo, nos ad praedictae Ecclesiae
gubernacula, Dei benignitate vocati, nullum
laborem intermittimus etc. » Et infra : « Il¬
lius itaque auctoritate suffulti, qui nos in hoc
supremo justitiae throno (licet tanto oneri
impares) voluit collocare, de Apostolicae po¬
testatis plenitudine declaramus, praedictam
Elizabetham haereticam, et haereticorum
fautricem, eique adhaerentes in praedicti ana¬
thematis sententiam incurrisse, esseque a
Christi corporis unitate praecisos : quin
etiam ipsam prsetenso regni praedicti jure;
necnon omni, et quocumque dominio, digni¬
tate, privilegioque privatam etc. » Porro
Bulla Sixti V, ita incipit : « Ab immensa
aeterni regis potentia, B. Petro, ejusque suc¬
cessoribus tradita auctoritas omnes terreno¬
rum Regum, et Principum supereminet po¬
testates, stabilique in petra consistens, nec
ullis adversitatibus, vel etiam secundis fla¬
tibus a recto deflexa inconcussa profert in
omnes judicia. » Et infra : « Itaque in prae ex¬
celso hoc solio, et in plenitudine potestatis,
quam ipse rex regum, et Dominus Dominan¬
tium, nobis licet indignis, tribuit, constituti
auctoritate Dei omnipotentis, ac beatorum
Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus, et nostra,
ac de venerabilium fratrum nostrorum
S. R. E. Cardinalium consilio, pronuncia-
mus, et declaramus, etc. » Quare sententia
quam Barclaius recitat, non habetur ad
verbum in Bullis Pii V, vel Sixti V. Sed eam
ipse variis ex locis ita construxit, ut ad invi¬
diam conflandam aptissimum esse judica¬
vit. Omitto cretera, quae sunt in hoc tertio
capite : quia non argumenta, vel rationes ;
sed maledicta sunt, et convicia adversus
Pontifices : illum enim imitari volumus, qui
cum malediceretur, non maledicebat ; cum
pateretur, non comminabatur, I Petri 11.