Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 6: Why in the First Seven Hundred Years the Supreme Pontiffs Did Not Depose Heretical or Apostate Kings
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 sixth chapter Barclay produces as an insoluble argument that there was neither use, nor example, nor any mention of such a pontifical power in the Church for about a thousand years, while meanwhile many Christian princes abused their kingdoms and empires impiously, cruelly, perversely, and to the great harm of the Church. Then he brings forward the solution to this argument of his which Franciscus Romulus gave twenty years ago to a similar argument, in the Answer to the Apology which was falsely entitled Catholic; and that solution, in the whole chapter and the following ones up to the twelfth, he strives very lengthily and with great clamour to refute in the most hateful way, so that in these six chapters he wished to act not the jurist or the theologian in dispute, but the tragic declaimer. Wherefore I shall write down in this place the whole answer of Franciscus Romulus, as Barclay reports it, and then I shall reply to the single parts of Barclay's confutation. Franciscus Romulus, then, speaks thus in the Apology, chapter 8:
“Now as to what the adversary objects in the fourth place about the custom of our ancestors, who endured many heretical princes, such as Constantius and Valens, Arians; Anastasius, a Eutychian; Heraclius, a Monothelite; and any others there may be; it is nothing to the point; for the Church ought not to abuse her power rashly and without consideration. Further, it happens not rarely that the power of certain kings, joined with wickedness and cruelty, is so great that ecclesiastical censure neither profits anything toward restraining them, and greatly harms the Catholic peoples, against whom princes once provoked rage the more. For what, I ask, would it once have profited the Church if she had tried to excommunicate and cast from the throne either the Ostrogothic kings in Italy, or the Visigoths in Spain, or the Vandals in Africa, although she could have done so with the best right? The same must be understood of Constantius, Valens and the others named above. For those were then such times that the bishops ought to have been ready rather to undergo martyrdom than to restrain princes. But when the Church saw some room opened for her power, either with the spiritual benefit of the princes themselves, or certainly without harm and ruin to the peoples, she was not wanting to herself, as the examples brought forward a little before show. For so the Church judged that Leo the Isaurian should be stripped of part of the empire, and Henry IV of the whole empire, and Childeric of the kingdom of France, so that thereafter in fact Leo lacked part of the empire, Henry the whole empire, and Childeric the kingdom. Therefore the Church did not tolerate those ancient emperors, Constantius, Valens and the rest, for the reason (as the adversary dreams) that they had lawfully succeeded to the empire; for otherwise she would also have borne with Leo and Henry and Childeric, who had succeeded no less lawfully; but because she could not restrain those without harm to the people, and could restrain these.”
This answer of Franciscus Romulus must be defended from the bites of Barclay, both because it bears most on our matter, and because it is that of a Catholic and learned man, whose book I saw long ago, printed not at Rome, as Barclay pretends, but in France; in what city I do not remember. Barclay, then, took for himself in the first place that part to be censured where it is said: Those were then such times that the bishops ought to have been ready rather to undergo martyrdom than to restrain princes. These words Barclay, with his usual modesty, says are false, and founded on sheer and astonishing lies. Then he adds that they seem to him unworthy to be brought forward by any Catholic, much less a theologian. Lastly he so interprets those words for the worse that he exclaims: “What then? have we fallen on those times in which bishops ought to be soldiers rather than martyrs, or to defend the law of God and the Church by battles rather than by preaching?” And having taken his occasion from this, through that whole chapter he raves with the greatest fury against the morals of bishops and cardinals. But we, passing over his reproaches and abuse, and leaving aside all his dog-like eloquence, shall answer briefly.
First, I say it is false what he himself assumes at the beginning of the chapter, that for about a thousand years there was neither use, nor example, nor any mention of such a pontifical power in the Church; for the examples of Gregory I, II and IV, and also of Zachary and Leo III, brought forward above, plainly show the contrary. Then I add that Franciscus Romulus did not divide his answer into two parts, as this man pretends; for it is one and simple answer, namely that the Church could not at that time use her power; therefore martyrdom was rather to be undergone than the faith denied. As also at this time, where the heathen prevail, as in the islands of Japan, or heretics, as in Britain, very many are encouraged to martyrdom, and in fact undertake martyrdom with the bravest spirit rather than let themselves be brought to the denial of the faith. I add lastly that the proper time of martyrdom is when the denial of the faith can be avoided neither by flight nor by just defence, but only by suffering. For the Lord in the Gospel never forbade repelling force by force; and flight he not only permitted, but even in a certain case, as when the necessity or greater benefit of the Church demands it, commanded, saying: When they shall persecute you in one city, flee into another, Matthew 10; nor did he order men to rush upon the swords of persecutors, but to bear with an even mind death inflicted for the confession of the faith. And indeed, as to flight, the command of the Lord is so plain, and the testimonies and examples of the holy Prophets and Apostles, which Saint Athanasius brings forward copiously in the Apology for his flight, that no doubt on this matter is left to Catholics. But that it is lawful to repel force by force, and by the right of war to drive off the persecution of either heathen or heretics, if strength is at hand, the wars of the Maccabees against Antiochus teach, who was busy compelling the people of God to idolatry; the wars of the Catholics against the heretics in Africa in the time of Saint Gregory teach, of which the same Saint Gregory speaks in book 1, epistle 77, to Gennadius the Exarch, where he praises him for pursuing the heretics with arms with great zeal, and rouses and exhorts him to go on manfully; the wars of the Catholics against the Albigensian heretics and Count Raymond of Toulouse their patron teach, where by the help of divine grace more than a hundred thousand were cut down in one battle by Count Simon of Montfort with a small band, as Paulus Aemilius writes in book 6 of the history of the Franks; and in our own time the wars of the Catholic Swiss against the heretical Zwinglian Swiss teach. For as John Cochlaeus writes in the Acts of Luther for the year 1531, the Swiss fighting for the Catholic faith, though they were inferior in number and strength, and superior only in the justice of their cause, gloriously conquered the heretics in five battles. But at the time when the Catholics began to be harassed by the Arian emperor Constantius, Saint Athanasius and other Catholic bishops, fleeing to Constans, the orthodox prince who ruled in the West, obtained threatening letters to Constantius, as is found in the Tripartite History, book 4, chapter 23, by which letters the persecution was for a time held back; but a little after, when Constans was dead and Constantius held the rule over the whole Roman world, since there was no one who dared to resist him, that time came in which the bishops ought to prepare for martyrdom, and not think of excommunicating or deposing the emperor. And this is the opinion of Franciscus Romulus, not that which Barclay fastens on him, as if he had meant that bishops once ought to have been martyrs, and now ought to be soldiers.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI, Cur primis septingentis annis Summi Ponti¬ fices non deposuerunt reges haereticos, vel apostatas. In 6. cap. Barclaius producit tamquam argumentum insolubile, quod neque usus, neque exemplum, neque mentio ulla talis Pontificiae potestatis annis circiter mille in Ecclesia fuerit : cum multi interea principes Christiani impie, crudeliter, perverse, et magno Ecclesiae detrimento regnis, atque im¬ periis abuterentur. Deinde adfert solutionem ad hoc suum argumentum, quam ante annos viginti ad argumentum simile dedit Fran- ciscus Romulus in Responsione ad Apolo- giarn, quee falso Catholica inscribebantur : et eam solutionem in toto capite, et sequen¬ tibus usque ad duodecim prolixe admodum, et magnis clamoribus odiosissime refellere nititur, ut in his sex capitibus non jurecon¬ sultum, aut theologum disputatorem : sed tragicum declamatorem agere voluerit. Qua¬ re adseribam hoc loco responsionem inte¬ gram Francisci Romuli, ut eam Barclaius refert, deinde respondebo ad singulas par¬ tes Barclaianae confutationis. Sic igitur lo¬ quitur Franciscus Romulus in Apologia cap. 8 : « Jam vero quod quarto loco adversarius objicit de majorum nostrorum consuetudine, qui Principes multes haereticos passi sunt, ut Constantium, et Valentem, Arianos ; Ana¬ stasium Euthychianum ; Heraclium Mono- thelitam, et si qui sunt alii, ad rem nihil facit ; neque enim Ecclesia temere, et incon¬ siderate potestate sua debet abuti. Porro non raro accidit, ut tanta sit quorumdam regum cum improbitate, ac saevitia juncta potentia, ut Ecclesiastica censura, neque ad eos coercendos quicquam prosit, et Catho- 30 DE POTESTATE PAPJE licis populis, in quos principes irritati magis sseviunt, plurimum obsit. Quid enim, quseso, profuisset quondam Ecclesiae, si tentasset, vel Ostrogothos reges in Italia, vel in Hispa¬ nia Visegothos, aut Vandalos in Africa ex¬ communicare, ac de solio deturbare, quam¬ vis id facere optimo jure potuisset ? Quod idem de Constantio, Valente, et aliis supra nominatis intelligi debet. Siquidem ea tunc erant tempora, ut potius ad martyrium sub¬ eundum Episcopi, quam ad Principes coer¬ cendos parati esse deberent. At ubi vidit Ecclesia suse potestati locum aliquem ape¬ riri, vel cum ipsorum Principum spirituali utilitate, vel certe sine detrimento, et per¬ nicie populorum : non sibi defuit, ut exem¬ pla paulo ante allata demonstrant. Sic enim Ecclesia Leonem Isauricum imperii parte, et Henricum quartum toto Imperio, et Childe- ricum regno Francise, spoliandos esse j di¬ cavit, ut re ipsa deinceps, et Leo parte Im¬ perii, et Henricus Imperio toto, et Childe- ricus regno caru erit. Itaque veteres illos Im¬ peratores Constantium, Valentem, etcseteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia (ut adversarius somniat) quod legitime in Imperium succes¬ sissent; alioqui enim Leonem etiam, et Hen¬ ricum, et Childerioum, qui non minus legi¬ time successerant, pertulisset ; sed quod il¬ los sine populi detrimento coercere non po¬ terat, istos poterat » . Hsec responsio Francisci Romuli a morsi¬ bus Barclaii vindicanda est, tum quia ad rem nostram maxime facit, tum quia est hominis Catholici, et eruditi, cujus librum jam olim vidi non Romse excusum, ut Barclaius fingit ; sed in Gallis ; qua urbe non memini. Ergo Barclaius partem illam reprehendendam pri¬ mo loco sibi desumpsit, ubi dicitur: Ea tunc erant tempora, ut potius ad martyrium sub¬ eundum Episcopi, quam ad Principes coer¬ cendos parati esse deberent. Quse verba Barclaius pro sua modestia dicit, falsa esse, et in meris, mirisque mendaciis fundata. Deinde addit, ea indigna sibi videri, quse ab ullo Catholico, nedum Theologo in medium adterantur. Denique ita in partem deterio¬ rem ea verba interpretatur, ut exclamet : « Quid enim ? an nos incidimus in ea tem¬ pora, quibus Episcopi milites potius quam martyres esse debeant ? aut legem Dei, at¬ que Ecclesiam prseliis, quam prsedicationi- nibus defendere » ? Atque hinc accepta oc¬ casione toto illo capite adversus mores Epi¬ scoporum, et Cardinalium maximo furore bacchatur. Sed nos conviciis et maledictis praeteritis, et tota ejus canina eloquentia praetermissa, breviter respondebimus. Pri¬ mo falsum esse dico, quod initio capitis ipse sumit, annis circiter mille, neque usum, ne¬ que exemplum, neque mentionem ullam talis Pontificiae potestatis in Ecclesia fuisse : si¬ quidem Exempla Gregorii primi, secundi, et quarti, nec non Zachariae, et Leonis III. su¬ pra allata contrarium evidenter ostendunt. Deinde addo, Franciscum Romulum non di¬ visisse responsionem in partes duas, ut iste fingit ; una est enim, et simplex responsio, videlicet non potuisse Ecclesiam illo tem¬ pore uti potestate sua ; ideo subeundum fuisse martyrium potius, quam fidem abne¬ gandam. Quemadmodum etiam hoc tempore ubi ethnici praevalent, ut in insulis Japonis ; vel haeretici, ut in Britannia, plurimi ad mar¬ tyrium animantur, et reipsa martyrium for ¬ tissimo animo suscipiunt potius, quam ad fi¬ dei abnegationem perduci se sinant. Adjun¬ go postremo tempus martyrii proprium illud esse, cum neque fuga, neque justa defensione sed sola passione abnegatio fidei declinari potest. Neque enim Dominus in Evangelio vim vi repellere unquam prohibuit ; fugam autem non modo permisit, sed etiam in certo casu, ut cum Ecclesise necessitas, vel major utilitas id postulat, imperavit dicens: Cum vos persequentur in una civitate , fugite in aliam, Matth. x. (1); neque in gladios perse¬ cutorum irruere, sed mortem pro fidei con¬ fessione illatam tolerare sequo animo jussit. Et quidem quod attinet ad fugam tam evi¬ dens est mandatum Domini, et testimonia, atque exempla sanctorum Prophetarum, et Apostolorum, quse copiose adducit S. Atha- nasius in Apologia pro fuga sua, ut nulla de hac re dubitatio Catholicis relicta sit, quod autem liceat vim vi repellere, et jure belli persecutionem sive gentilium, sive hsereti- corum propulsare, si vires adsint, docent bella Machabeorum adversus Antiochum, qui populum Dei ad idololatriam compellere satagebat, docent bella Catholicorum adver¬ sus hsereticos in Africa tempore S. Gregorii, de quibus loqmtur idem S. Gregorius, lib. i. epist. 77. ad Gennadium Exarchum, ubi eum laudat, quod magno zelo hsereticos ar¬ mis persequeretur, eumque excitat, et hor- (1) Matth. X, 23. IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 31 tatur, ut viriliter pergat, docent bella Catho¬ licorum adversus haereticos Albigenses, et Tholosanum Comitem Raymundum patro¬ num ipsorum, ubi divina adjuvante gratia plus centum millibus uno praelio a Simone Comite Monfortio cum exigua manu caesi sunt, ut scribit Paulus fiEmilius lib. vi. histo¬ riae Francorum, docent nostro tempore bella Helveticorum Catholicorum adversus Helve¬ ticos haereticos Zwinglianos. Nam ut scribit Joannes Cocbleus de Actis Lutheri anno 1331 . Helvetii pro fide Catholica pugnantes, cum numero, et viribus essent inferiores, et sola justitia causae superiores, quinque prae¬ liis haereticos gloriose vicerunt, quo tempore autem Catholici a Constantio Ariano impe¬ ratore vexari ceperunt, ad Constantem Prin¬ cipem Orthodoxum, qui in Occidente impe¬ rabat S. Athanasius aliique Episcopi Catho¬ lici confugientes litteras impetrarunt minaces ad Constantium, ut habetur in historia tri¬ partita, lib. iv. cap. 23. quibus litteris ad tempus repressa persecutio est ; sed paulo post Constante defuncto, et Constantio in toto orbe Romano imperium obtinente, cum nemo esset, qui illi resistere auderet ; tem¬ pus illud advenit, quo Episcopi ad martyrium parari non autem de imperatore excommu¬ nicando, vel deponendo cogitare deberent. Atque haec est sententia Francisci Romuli, non ea, quam illi Barclaius attingit, quasi voluerit olim Episcopos martyres esse de¬ buisse, nunc milites esse debere.