Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 4: On the False Cause of the Origin of the Pontifical Temporal Power Assigned by Barclay
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 fourth chapter Barclay discourses on the origin of the pontifical temporal power, as if it were already settled that by divine law only spiritual things belong to the Supreme Pontiff. But since that is neither settled nor true, I could easily have passed over this whole chapter in silence, as one that does not bear on the matter, or certainly lacks a solid foundation. Let us see, however, what it is that Barclay brings forward in this place. “I find two things chiefly,” he says, “which seem to have given the Pontiffs a handle for claiming so great a power. One is that huge honour which, as was fitting, was paid by Christian princes and peoples to the supreme Shepherd of souls, and ought still to be paid, and also the prejudged opinion of holiness concerning that See of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” And below: “The other handle for grasping at so great a temporal jurisdiction was given by the sword of excommunication.”
I answer: Barclay seeks in vain whence so great a power came to the Supreme Pontiffs, since the reason is at hand, which both the doctors by common consent and the general councils themselves have handed down, namely the supreme spiritual power divinely conferred on the Apostle Peter and his successors over the whole Church; for from it manifestly follows that in order to spiritual things and eternal life the Supreme Pontiff can dispose of temporal things too, as was explained in the preceding chapter. But what Barclay says, that from the very great honour paid to the Supreme Pontiffs and the prejudged holiness of that See the Pontiffs grasped a handle for claiming to themselves temporal power over kings and princes, is shown false by what Barclay himself wrote above; for the very great honour and the prejudged holiness were not lacking in the first thousand years, indeed they then flourished most; and yet Barclay contends that Gregory VII was the first who usurped for himself temporal power over kings and princes, after the year one thousand and seventy from the coming of the Saviour. He will say perhaps that in those first years the Pontiffs were very good, but afterwards, grown worse, began to aspire to the glory of temporal rule. But Gregory VII was a most holy man, famous not only for innocence of life but also for miracles; of which fact there are as many witnesses as there are writers of that time, excepting schismatics or heretics; just as Innocent III and IV too, who seem to have used this power more than the others, were held to be Pontiffs most praised. Nor is it true that Gregory VII was the first who began to dispose of a temporal kingdom; for Gregory I and Gregory II, and other Pontiffs very good and most praised before Gregory VII, testified that they had this power, as we shall show a little below. Further, excommunication is indeed the instrument which the Pontiffs commonly use to restrain the powers of this world; but even without that instrument the Supreme Pontiffs have more than once disposed of temporal dignities for the benefit of the Church and the salvation of souls; as when Zachary commanded Childeric, king of the Franks, to be deposed, and ordered Pepin to be anointed and raised to the throne, and freed the peoples from the obedience and fidelity rendered to Childeric; and when Hadrian I conferred on Charlemagne, king of the Franks, the dignity of the Roman patriciate; and when Leo III declared the same Charles emperor of the West. Wherefore it is not true that the censure of excommunication gave the Pontiffs a handle to claim temporal power to themselves.
But it pleases me to note some things which in this chapter Barclay has babbled out not without great rashness. The first is this: “But here the reader must be warned that that sentence celebrated by the voices of all, that every excommunication is to be feared, ought to be understood with this exception: unless it be manifestly established to be unjust; for then it is neither to be regarded nor feared, provided contempt and presumption be absent from the excommunicated.” This doctrine of Barclay all good writers condemn, who distinguish between an unjust excommunication and a null one; and they teach with Saint Gregory that an unjust one is to be feared, but that a null one is not to be feared, except sometimes on account of scandal, namely when the nullity of the excommunication is not known. And that it may not be necessary to bring forward single doctors, let us hear Martin Navarrus, who witnesses that this is the common doctrine. In the Enchiridion, chapter 27, number 3, Navarrus speaks thus: A sentence of excommunication, however unjust, is regularly valid, and for this reason Gregory, in chapter 1, cause 11, question 3, said that it is to be feared whether it be just or unjust; and below: Where the gloss, and everywhere the doctors, plainly say that an unjust excommunication is valid and binds, and differs from one which is null.
The second is in these words: “Of which kind that excommunication seems to be which is pronounced against subjects because they obey their excommunicated king or prince in those things which are of temporal jurisdiction and are not repugnant to the commandments of God.” The rashness of this doctrine we can show from this alone, that by it the sentence of Innocent IV pronounced in the council of Lyons is condemned; for what rashness can be greater than to condemn of manifest injustice a sentence of the Supreme Pontiff pronounced in a general council and approved by the consent of all?
The third is in these words: “And indeed Gregory VII, moved partly by the public offence of the emperor Henry IV, partly by private injury, was the first of all to assert openly for himself that right of giving and taking away kingdoms.” But it is wholly false that Gregory VII was the first of all to assert for himself the right of giving and taking away kingdoms; for we have already counted above six Pontiffs who did the same before Gregory VII, namely Gregory I, Gregory II, Zachary, Leo III, Gregory IV and Hadrian II. For Gregory I put into the privilege cited above these words: “But if any of kings, prelates, and so on, let him be deprived of his honour.” Gregory II deprived the emperor Leo the Isaurian of the tributes of Italy, as Zonaras, Cedrenus and others witness. Zachary deposed Childeric from the kingdom and raised Pepin to the kingdom, as the most ancient Annals of the Franks witness, where we read thus: “Having given his authority, (Zachary) ordered Pepin to be made king.” And below: “According to the sanction of the Roman Pontiff Pepin was called king of the Franks.” The same is said by Aimoin, Einhard, Lambert, Regino, Sigebert, Hermann the Lame, Marianus Scotus, the Abbot of Ursperg, Otto of Freising and Albert Krantz, whose words we shall cite below. Leo III transferred the empire of the West from the Greeks to the Franks, which we proved by the testimonies of historians, Pontiffs, emperors and the prince electors themselves in book 1 on the Translation of the Empire. Gregory IV by his authority rescinded the decree of the Franks by which the empire was taken from Louis the Pious, and restored the empire to Louis, as Marianus Scotus relates in book 3 of the Chronicle, in these words: “Louis received at Aachen the queen coming to meet him, by order of Pope Gregory; for the sons of Louis had not only taken the empire from their father, but had also taken from him his wife Judith; but he received both by order of Gregory.” And Paulus Aemilius, book 2 on the deeds of the Franks: “At Lyons,” he says, “a council of bishops which the sons of the emperor Louis had brought together was held, and the empire taken from the father; which decree was soon rescinded by Gregory the Supreme Pontiff.” Lastly Hadrian II, more than two hundred years earlier than Gregory VII, when he had learned that the empire of the emperor Louis the Younger was being attacked in arms by King Charles the Bald, wrote threatening letters to Charles, as Antoninus witnesses, book 5, chapter 24, who speaks thus: In the letters of the Pope it was contained that the former kingdom of Lothair, which was owed by hereditary right to the emperor Louis, his spiritual son, and which returned to him after the death of the same Lothair, or the men living in it, no mortal should invade, none disturb, none try to draw to himself; and if anyone should presume, he should not only be weakened through the ministry of his authority, but also, bound with the bonds of anathema and deprived of the name of Christianity, be placed altogether with the devil.
The fourth is in the words that follow: “For in truth Gregory by that deed stirred up nothing but bloody and furious tragedies, and did not accomplish what he had unhappily planned, being hindered by force and arms.” That this too is false is most well known, since bloody and furious tragedies were bred not by Gregory's decree but by Henry's disobedience; and what Gregory chiefly desired, namely to snatch the investitures of bishops from the hands of laymen, he wholly accomplished, partly by himself, partly through his successors. For the sentence and decree of Gregory were confirmed by all his successors, Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II, Gelasius II and Callistus II, in whose time, the emperors yielding, peace was made between the priesthood and the kingdom; for so the Abbot of Ursperg writes in the Chronicle of the year 1122: “He in whose hand is the heart of the king bent all the spirit of the emperor under the obedience of Apostolic reverence, for the cause of mother Church, even beyond the hope of very many,” and so on. See the whole passage.
The fifth and last is in those words where he magnificently praises Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, whom he calls a great man and a most noble confessor; and from his opinion he says it is established that the Church in the first times neither had temporal power over princes, nor believed that she had it, and that not even on account of heresy, which is a most grave and most pernicious crime. But we know that Hosius was once a great man, yet we are not ignorant that he afterwards fell most shamefully into the Arian heresy. For this is handed down by Athanasius in the epistle to those leading the solitary life, and in the second Apology; Hilary in the book on Synods; Epiphanius, heresy 73; Phoebadius in the book against the Arians; Sulpicius, book 2 of the Sacred History; Socrates, book 2, chapter 26; Sozomen, book 4, chapter 5; Vigilius the Martyr, book 5 against Eutyches; and lastly Isidore, on illustrious men, under Gregory of Elvira. Then, even if Hosius had never fallen, still he is not to be made so much of by Catholic men that he should be set before general councils, not one but many, and before all the doctors cited by us at the beginning, who by common consent teach that on account of heresy princes can be deposed by the Supreme Pontiff and deprived of their principality. I add lastly that the words of Hosius make nothing at all against the common opinion. For what did he say? That it is not lawful for the Pontiff to hold empire, as neither for emperors to hold the pontificate. But even if the Pontiff does not hold empire, he can nevertheless, through the pontifical power itself, keep a heretical emperor from the Church, and, that he may not harm the Church, take the empire from him. For Zachary was not a king, and yet he could depose a king; nor was Leo III an emperor, and yet he could transfer the empire from one nation to another. Indeed, if the Pope were a king or an emperor, he could not depose an emperor or king by imperial or royal power, because an equal has no command over an equal; therefore what the Pope does, he does by the Apostolic, that is, the supreme spiritual power, as the Vicar of Christ, not as an earthly prince. From these things it appears how much a perverse attachment to one's own opinion harms the light of the mind; for Barclay, taken with love of his own opinion, thought that he clearly saw in the words of Hosius that of which we do not discern even a trace.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV. De falsa causa originis temporalis potestatis Pontificiae a Barclaio assignata. In quarto capite disserit Barclaius de ori¬ gine temporalis potestatis pontificiae : quasi jam exploratum esset, divino jure sola spi¬ ritualia ad Summum Pontificem pertinere. Sed quoniam id neque exploratum, neque verum est, facile potuissem totum hoc caput silentio praeterire, ut quod ad rem non faciat, vel certe solido fundamento careat. Yidea- (1) I Corinth. V, 12. 24 DE POTESTATE PAPjE mus tamen quid sit, quod hoc loco adfert Barclaius. « Duas res, inquit, potissimum invenio, qua; ansam Pontificibus tantam potestatem arrogandi videntur praebuisse. Una est in¬ gens ille honor, qui ut par erat, a principi¬ bus, et populis Christianis summo anima¬ rum Pastori deferebatur, et deferri adhuc debet, atque etiam praejudicata sanctitatis opinio de Sede illa beatorum Apostolorum Petri, et Pauli. » Et infra : « Alteram tantae juridictionis temporalis captandae ansam praebuit gl adius excommunicationis. » Respondeo : Frustra quaerit Barclaius unde tanta potestas Summis Pontificibus accesse¬ rit, cum ratio sit in promptu, quam et Do- ctores communi consensu, et ipsa generalia concilia tradiderunt, summa videlicet spiri¬ tualis potestas divinitus collata Apostolo Petro, ejusque successoribus super omnem Ecclesiam, ex ea siquidem manifeste sequi¬ tur, ut in ordine ad spiritualia, et vitam ae¬ ternam, possit Summus Pontifex de tempo¬ ralibus quoque disponere, ut capite superio¬ re explicatum est. Quod autem Berclaius di¬ cit, ex honore maximo, qui Summis Ponti¬ ficibus deferebatur, et praejudicata sanctita¬ te illius Sedis, captasse ansam Pontifices arrogandi sibi potestatem temporalem super reges et principes; falsum esse constat ex iis, quae supra Barclaius ipse scripsit : siqui¬ dem honor maximus, et praejudicata sancti¬ tas non defuit primis mille annis, immo tunc maxime viguit : et tamen Barclaius contendit, primum fuisse Gregorium VII, qui sibi potestatem temporalem in reges, et principes usurpavit, post annum millesi¬ mum, et septuagesimum ab adventu Salva¬ toris. Dicet fortasse, primis illis annis fuisse Pontifices optimos, sed postea factos dete¬ riores ad gloriam temporalis imperii aspira¬ re ccepisse. At Gregorius VII vir sanctissi¬ mus fuit, nec solum innocentia vitee, sed etiam miraculis clarus; cujus rei tot sunt te¬ stes, quot scriptores illius temporis, exceptis schismaticis, vel haereticis : quemadmodum etiam Innocentius III. et IV. qui hac potesta¬ te prseter c se tero s usi esse videntur, Pontifi¬ ces laudatissimi habiti sunt. Neque verum est Gregorium VII. fuisse primum, qui de tem¬ porali regno disponere coepit : nam et Gre¬ gorius primus, et secundus, et alii Pontifi¬ ces optimi, et laudatissimi ante Gregorium VII. hanc potestatem habere se testati sunt, ut paulo infra docebimus. Porro excommu¬ nicatio est quidem instrumentum, quo Pon¬ tifices plerumque uti solent ad coercendas hujus seeculi potestates : sed etiam sine isto instrumento non semel Pontifices maximi de temporalibus dignitatibus pro Ecclesiae uti¬ litate, et animarum salute disposuerunt ; ut cum Zacharias Childericum regem Franco¬ rum deponi mandavit, et Pipinum inungi, atque in solium exaltari jussit, et populos ab obedientia, et fidelitate Childerico praestita liberavit : et cum Hadrianus primus Garolo Magno regi Francorum dignitatem Patritia- tus Romani contulit : et cum Leo III. eum- dem Carolum, imperatorem Occidentis di¬ xit. Quare verum non est, excommunicatio¬ nis censuram ansam dedisse Pontificibus, ut potestatem temporalem sibi arrogarent. Sed placat notare nonnulla, quee in hoc, capite Barclaius non [sine magna temeritate effutiit. 1. Primum est illud : « Sed hic lector mo¬ nendus est, sententiam illam omnium voci¬ bus celebratam, excommunicationem om¬ nem esse timendam ; cum hac exceptione intelligi debere, extra quam si manifeste constet esse injustam ; tunc enim nec curan¬ da, nec timenda est, modo absit ab excom¬ municato contemptus, et prsesumptio. » Hanc Barclaii doctrinam damnant omnes boni Scriptores, qui distinguunt inter ex¬ communicationem injustam, et nullam : et injustam, quidem docent cum S. Gregorio esse timendam ; nullam autem, non esse ti¬ mendam, nisi aliquando ob scandalum, quan¬ do videlicet nullitas excommunicationis nota non est. Ac ne singulos Doctores afferre ne- cesse sit, audiamus Martinum Navarrum, qui communem doctrinam hanc esse testa¬ tur. In Enchiridio cap. 27. num. 3. sic Na- varrus loquitur : Sententia excommunicatio¬ nis, quantumvis injusta, valet regulariter, et ob id Gregorius in cap. 1. 2. qusest. 3. dixit, timendam esse sive justa sit, sive in¬ justa, et infra : Ubi glossa, et ubique Docto¬ res aperte dicunt valere, et ligare excommu¬ nicationem injustam, et differre ab ea, quse est nulla. 2. Alterum est in illis verbis : o Cujus ge¬ neris excommunicationis illa videtur, quse in subditos profertur, eo quod regi, vel prin¬ cipi suo excommunicato pareant in iis, quee temporalis sunt jurisdictionis, et Dei man¬ datis non repugnant. » Hujus doctrina3 temeritatem, vel ex eo possumus demonstrare, quod per eam dam- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 25 natur sententia Innocentii IV. lata in Lugdu¬ nensi concilio : quae potest enim major esse temeritas, quam damnare manifestae inju¬ stitiae sententiam Summi Pontificis, in gene¬ rali concilio latam, et omnium consensu probatam ? 3. Tertium est in illis verbis : « Et vero Gregorius VII. partim publica offensa Hen- rici IV. imperatoris, partim privata injuria permotus, id juris dandi, et auferendi regna aperte sibi primus omnium asseruit. » Atqui falsum omnino est, quod Gregorius VII. primus omnium sibi asseruerit jus dandi, et auferendi regna : jam enim supra numeravimus sex Pontifices, qui ante Gre- gorium VII. idem fecerunt, videlicet Grego- rium primum, Gregorium secundum, Zacha- riam, Leonem tertium, Gregorium quartum, et Hadrianum secundum. Nam Gregorius primus privilegio supra citato apposuit illa verba : « Si quis autem regum, antistitum, etc. honore suo privetur. » Gregorius secun¬ dus imperatorem Leonem Isauricum vecti¬ galibus Italice privavit, teste Zonora, Cedre- no, et aliis. Zacharias Childericum a regno deposuit, et Pipinum in regnum exaltavit, testibus Annalibus Francorum antiquissi¬ mis, ubi sic legimus : « Data auctoritate sua (Zacharias) jussit Pipinum regem constitui.» Et infra : « Secundum Romani Pontificis sanctionem Pipinus rex Francorum appella¬ tus est. » Idem dicit Aimoinus, Eginarthus, Lambertus, Rhegino, Sigebertus, Herman- nus Contractus, Marianus Scotus, Abbas Urspengensis, Otho Frigensis et Albertus Chrantzius, quorum verba infra citabimus. Leo tertius a Grsecis ad Francos imperium Occidentis transtulit, quod testimoniis histo¬ ricorum, Pontificum , imperatorum et ipso¬ rum principum electorum probavimus in lib. i. de Translatione imperii. Gregorius IV. decretorum Francorum, quo Lodovico Pio imperium auferebatur, auctoritate sua re¬ scidit, et imperium Ludovico restituit, ut refert Marianus Scotus lib. m. Chronici, his verbis : « Ludovicus reginam Aquis obviam ei venientem jubente Papa Gregorio acce¬ pit : siquidem filii Ludovici non solum im¬ perium patri abrogaverant, sed etiam Judi- tham uxorem ei ademerant ; sed utrumque jubente Gregorio recepit. » Et Paulus Humi¬ lius lib. ii. de rebus gestis Francorum : « Lugduni, inquit, concilium Episcoporum, quo Ludovici imperatoris filii contraxerant, habitum, imperium patri abrogatum, quod decretum mox a Gregorio Pontifice Maximo rescissum est. » Denique Hadrianus secun¬ dus plus ducentis annis Gregorio septimo antiquior, cum accepisset, imperium Ludo¬ vici junioris imperatoris a Carolo Calvo rege armis tentari, scripsit ad Carolum minaces litteras, teste Antonio lib. v. cap. 24. qui sic ait : In epistolis Papae continebatur, ut reg¬ num quondam Lotharii , quod Ludovico imperatori spirituali ejus filio, haereditario ei jure debebatur, et quod ad eum post mor¬ tem ejusdem Lotharii rediit, vel homines in eo degentes, mortalium nullus invaderet, nullus commoveret, nullus ad se conaretur inflectere : quod si quis praesumeret, non solum per suae auctoritatis ministerium in¬ firmaretur, verum etiam vinculis anathema¬ tis obligatus nomine Christianitatis priva¬ tus, cum Diabolo omnino locaretur. » 4. « Quartum est in verbis sequentibus : Verum enim nihil aliud Gregorius eo facto quam cruentas, et furiosas tragoedias exci¬ tavit, nec infeliciter destinata vi, et armis prohibitus perfecit. » Hoc quoque falsum esse notissimum est, quoniam cruentas, et furiosas tragoedias non Gregorii decretum, sed Henrici inobedientia peperit : et quod potissimum optavit Grego¬ rius, ut videlicet investituras Episcoporum de manibus laicorum eriperet, partim per se, partim per successores omnino perfecit. Siquidem Gregorii sententiam, et decretum confirmarunt omnes ejus successores, Victor tertius, Urbanus secundus, Paschalis secun¬ dus. Gelasius secundus, et Calixtus secun¬ dus, cujus tempore imperatoribus cedentibus pax inter Sacerdotium, et regnum facta est: sic enim scribit Abbas Urspergensis in Chro¬ nico anni 1122 : « Ipse in cujus manu cor regis est, omnem animositatem Augusti sub Apostolicae reverentiae obedientiam, causa matris Ecclesiae etiam ultra spem plurimo¬ rum inflexit, » etc. Vide totum locum. o. Quintum, et ultimum est in illis verbis, ubi magnifice laudat Hosium episcopum Cordubensem, quem vocat virum magnum et nobilissimum Confessorem : atque ex ejus sententia constare dicit, Ecclesiam pri¬ mis temporibus, neque temporalem potesta¬ tem in principes habuisse, neque habere se credidisse : ac ne quidem ob haeresim, quod crimen gravissimum et perniciosissimum est. Sed nos Hosium virum magnum aliquan¬ do fuisse scimus, sed turpissime postea la- 26 DE POTESTATE PAPZE psum in Arianam hseresim non ignoramus. Id enim tradit Athanasius in epist. ad soli¬ tariam vitam agentes, et in Apologia secun¬ da ; Hilarius in lib. de Synodis ; Epiphanius hseresi 73; Sebadius in libro contra Arianos ; Sulpitius lib. n. Sacrae historiae ; Socrates lib. ii. cap. 26; Sozomenus lib. iv. cap. 5; Vigilius Martyr, in lib. v. adversus Euty- chetem ; denique Isidorus de viris illustri¬ bus in Gregorio Betico. Deinde Hosius quan¬ tumvis numquam lapsus fuisset, tamen non tanti faciendus est ab hominibus Catholicis, ut anteponatur conciliis generalibus, non uni, sed multis, et Doctoribus omnibus ini¬ tio a nobis citatis, qui communi consensu docent, propter hseresim posse a Summo Pontifice principes deponi, ac principatu privari. Addo postremo verba Hosii nihil omnino adversus communem sententiam fa¬ cere. Quid enim ille dixit? non licere Pon¬ tifici imperium gerere, ut neque imperato¬ ribus Pontificatum. Sed etiam si Pontifex imperium non gerat, potest tamen per ip¬ sam pontificalem potestatem imperatorem hsereticum ab Ecclesia arcere, ac ne Eccle- sise noceat, imperium illi abrogare. Neque enim Zacharias rex erat, et potuit tamen regem deponere : neque Leo III. imperator erat, et tamen imperium ab una gente ad aliam transferre potuit. Imo si Papa rex aut imperator esset, non potest imperiali, aut regia potestate imperatorem aut regem de¬ ponere, quia par in parem non habet impe¬ rium : proinde quod facit Papa, facit Apo- stolica, id est, suprema spirituali potestate, ut Christi Vicarius, non ut Princeps terre¬ nus. Ex his apparet quantum officiat lumini mentis pravus propriae opinionis affectus : Barclaius enim amore captus opinionis suae in verbis Hosii perspicue se id videre existi¬ mavit, cujus nos ne vestigium quidem cer¬ nimus.