Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 7: Why the Church Did Not Depose the Emperors Constantius the Heretic and Julian the Apostate
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 seventh chapter Barclay sets about refuting those last words of Franciscus Romulus: “Therefore the Church did not tolerate those ancient emperors, Constantius, Valens and the rest, for the reason 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.” And he wonders that Bellarmine wrote this same thing in book 5 on the Pontiff, chapter 7. But that he may wonder the more, let him know that Saint Thomas thought this same thing in 2-2, question 12, article 2, to the first, where he says that the Church tolerated that the faithful should obey Julian the Apostate, because in her newness she did not yet have strength to restrain earthly princes. Barclay thinks, then, that the Church could easily, if she had wished, have cast from the throne both Constantius the Arian and Julian the Apostate, but did not do it because she knew that they had lawfully succeeded to the empire. His arguments are these. First, because the whole world in the time of Constantius was Christian, and the greatest part of it orthodox. “I say,” he says, “that it is most false that the Church could not restrain those as easily as these, not to say more easily, and without harm to the people, whether she had wished to attempt it by arms, or to use some art and the work of a devoted man. For already the whole world under Constantius was Christian (as is established from the epistle of Constantine the Great to the Church, related by Eusebius and Nicephorus), and the greatest part of it orthodox; so that strength for crushing the emperor was in no way lacking to them, if they had believed it lawful or godly to fight in arms against a lawful prince.”
I answer: first, it is not true that in the time of Constantius the whole world was Christian, nor does Constantine say this in that epistle. And if this were true, how would Symmachus, prefect of the City, in a long oration (which exists in Saint Ambrose among his epistles, the twenty-ninth and thirty-first) have tried to persuade the emperor Valentinian to restore their sacred rites to the Roman heathen? Why would Saint John Chrysostom, in the oration on Saint Babylas, and Theodoret, in the books on the cure of the Greek affections, have disputed so much against the heathen of their time? Why would Saint Augustine and Paulus Orosius have written against the complaints of the heathen, the one the books on the City of God, the other the history of the disasters which the Romans had suffered before Christ came? Lastly, the barbarians with whom the Romans continually fought in the East and North after the times of Constantine, the Parthians, Persians, Sarmatians, Goths, were they not for the greatest part heathen? Then, even if this were true, it still could not rightly be gathered from it that it was easy for the Church to restrain Constantius or Julian; for those emperors were most powerful, and led many armed legions, against which the unarmed multitude of the faithful could do nothing, especially since it had no Christian prince who would or could arm it, and lead it armed against the emperors. Certainly at this time in the empire of the Turks there are very many Christians, and perhaps more in number than the Turks themselves are; yet because they have neither a leader nor arms ready, they can do nothing against the king of the Turks; which was once the reason why neither the Italians could shake off the yoke of the Goths, nor the Africans that of the Vandals, nor the Gauls that of the Franks. But it was easy for the Supreme Pontiff Gregory to shut the Greek emperor Leo out from the rule of Italy, because his strength in Italy had been weakened, and the nobles of Italy most desired this very thing, that leave should be given them by the Pontiff to revolt from the impious emperor. By the same reasoning Pope Zachary could without any trouble deprive Childeric, king of the Franks, of the kingdom, since the Frankish nobles desired this very thing, and he himself, the power of managing affairs having been transferred to the Mayor of the Palace, languished in idleness and sloth. Lastly, Pope Gregory did not decree that the emperor Henry should be deposed before his most grave crimes, brought to him by the voices of the peoples, demanded justice, as Marianus Scotus and other historians of his time teach.
Barclay adds that in the times of Constantius there was no lack, in Egypt and Libya and other places through Asia and Europe, of very many monks, in whom there was no less zeal than in him who stabbed Henry III, king of the Franks, who, if it had been lawful, could easily have taken Constantius out of the way. I answer: it does not belong to monks or other ecclesiastical men to commit slaughter, as is found in cause 23, question 8, canon 1 and following; and much less to kill kings by treachery. Nor have the Supreme Pontiffs been accustomed to restrain princes in that way. Their custom is first to correct in a fatherly way; then by ecclesiastical censure to deprive of the communion of the sacraments; lastly to absolve their subjects from the oath of fidelity, and to deprive them of the royal dignity and authority, if the matter so demands. The execution belongs to others. Wherefore Pope Innocent, when in the council of Lyons he had taken the empire from Frederick II, is reported to have said: “I have done what is mine; let God do and carry out concerning these things what he will.” Matthew Paris relates this under Henry III, relating the acts of the year of the Lord 1245.
He goes on then, and strives to show that it was easy for the Church to take out of the way Julian the Apostate and Valens the Arian, because their armies were for a great part Catholic and obedient to the bishops; and since she did not do it, it follows either that the Pontiffs of that time did not discharge their office, or that they believed it was not lawful for them to depose princes, though apostates or heretics. I answer: it was most difficult to depose Julian the Apostate, since he alone ruled the empire, nor is it true that his whole army was Christian; for Rufinus writes, book 2, chapter 1, that the whole of it was polluted with sacrileges, namely idolatrous sacrifices. For, as is written in the Tripartite History, book 7, chapter 1, Julian had made a law that all soldiers should sacrifice to idols or be cast out of the army. So the army was full of pagans, or of those who had fallen away from Christ. Nor is this at odds with what the adversary cites from Rufinus, Socrates and Theodoret, that when Jovian refused to take up the empire, because, being himself a Christian, he was unwilling to rule over pagans, the army cried out with one voice, We too are Christians. For that cry signified that most of them were Christians in heart and desire, not by open profession; otherwise Jovian would not have charged them with paganism, nor said that he was unwilling to rule over pagans. So if there were any Christians in Julian's army, they were hidden, and stained by communication with sacrilegious men, and were held for pagans. Of Valens the same can wholly be said; for although he had some few Catholics in his army, yet the multitude followed the errors of the prince. Nor is there any other reason why the Catholic emperor Valentinian tolerated his heretical brother Valens, except that it was not easy without a dangerous and doubtful war to cast him from the imperial throne.
Lastly Barclay adds two testimonies of the Fathers, one of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, oration 1 against Julian, whose words are: “He was restrained by the clemency of God and by the tears of Christians, which had now been shed many and by many, since they had this only remedy against the persecutor.” The other of Saint Augustine, in the tract on Psalm 124, who speaks thus: “Julian was an unbelieving emperor; was he not an apostate, wicked, an idolater? Christian soldiers served an unbelieving emperor; when they came to the cause of Christ, they acknowledged none but him who was in heaven; when he wished them to worship idols, to burn incense, they set God before him; but when he said, draw out the line, go against that nation, at once they obeyed; they distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, and yet for the sake of the eternal Lord they were subject even to the temporal lord.” I answer: Saint Gregory says there was no remedy against Julian's persecution but tears, because the Church did not have strength with which she could resist his tyranny. For that reason the goodness of God had to be implored with tears, because help could not be expected from elsewhere. Nor would Saint Gregory have denied that the political power ought by right to be subject to the spiritual power of the Pontiffs, since he left this very thing written in express words in the oration to the people in fear and the governor in anger; wherefore in this place he speaks of fact, not of right. Saint Augustine rightly says that Christian soldiers served the unbelieving emperor Julian, because at the beginning of his reign he tolerated Christians; nor did he allow only soldiers to be Christians, but even permitted the Catholic bishops whom Constantius the Arian had banished to return to their sees, as Rufinus relates, book 1, chapter 27; afterwards, however, as we cited from the Tripartite, he compelled all either to sacrifice to idols or to leave the army; at which time Jovian and Valentinian preferred to throw off the belt of military service rather than sacrifice to idols; for which God, who renders a hundredfold in this life, a little after gave to each of them a royal diadem in place of the military belt. Further, Barclay wrongly interprets those words, “when they came to the cause of Christ”; for he says that the cause of the Church is the cause of Christ, and therefore, if it were lawful to depose an apostate emperor, the Christian soldiers ought, at the Church's command, to have turned their arms against Julian himself. But Saint Augustine himself interprets his own words when he says: “When Julian wished them to worship idols, they set God before him.” This, then, Saint Augustine calls the cause of Christ; and although the cause of the Church is also the cause of Christ, yet the Christian soldiers were not bound to turn their arms against their emperor, though an apostate and a persecutor, unless he had first been judged an enemy; and the Church judged that he was rather to be tolerated than provoked, since she did not have strength enough to depose him, as Saint Thomas answers to this very argument in 2-2, question 12, article 2.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Ad CAPUT VII. Cur Ecclesia Constantium haereticum , et Ju¬ lianum Apostatam imperatores non depo¬ suit. In septimo capite refutare Barclaius ag¬ greditur verba illa postrema Francisci Ro¬ muli. « Itaque veteres illos imperatores Constantium, Valentem, et caeteros, non ideo toleravit Ecclesia, quod legitime in impe¬ rium successissent : alioqui enim Leonem etiam, et Henricum, et Chiklericum, qui non minus legitime successerant, pertulisset ; sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non poterat, istos poterat ». Et miratur, hoc idem scripsisse Bellarminum, lib. v. de Pon¬ tifice, cap. 7. Sed ut magis minetur, sciat hoc idem sensisseS. Thomamin2. 2. quaest. 12. art. 2. ad primum, ubi jdicit Ecclesiam tolerasse, ut fideles obedirent Juliano Apo¬ statae, quia in sui novitate, nondum habebat vires compescendi principes terrenos. Exi¬ stimat igitur Barclaius, Ecclesiam facile po¬ tuisse , si voluisset, tum Constantium Aria- num, tum Julianum Apostatam de solio de¬ turbare ; sed id non fecisse, quod sciret illos legitime in imperium successisse. Argu¬ menta ejus haec sunt. Primum, quia totus orbis tempore Constantii Christianus erat, et ejus pars maxima Orthodoxa. « Falsissi¬ mum, inquit, esse dico, non potuisse Eccle¬ siam coercere illos aeque facile, atque istos, ne dicam facilius, et sine detrimento populi, sive id armis tentare, sive arte aliqua, et hominis devoli opera uti voluisset. Jam enim totus orbis sub Constantio Christianus fuit (ut ex epist. Constantini magni ad Ecclesiam, ab Eusebio, et Nicephoro relata constat) et ejus pars maxima Orthodoxa : ita ut vires illis ad opprimendum imperatorem nequa¬ quam defuerint, si fas, aut pium credidis¬ sent armis adversus legitimum principem decertare. » Respondeo : Primum, verum non est, tempore Constantii totum orbem fuisse Chri¬ stianum, neque hoc dicit in ea epistola Con¬ stantinus. Etsi hoc esset verum, quomodo Symmachus prsefectus Urbis longa oratione (quae exstat apud S. Ambrosium inter Epi¬ stolas ejus vigesimam nonam, et trigesimam primam) persuadere conatus fuisset Valen¬ tiniano imperatori, ut sacra gentilibus Ro¬ manis restitueret ? Cur S. Joannes Chryso- stomus in orat, de sancto Babyla, et Theo- doretus, in libris de curandis Grsecorum af¬ fectionibus tam multa disputassent adversus gentiles sui temporis ? Cur S. Augustinus, et Paulus Orosius scripsissent contra quere¬ las gentilium, ille libros de Civit. Dei : iste historiam cladium, quas Romani antequam Christus advenisset acceperant ? Denique Barbari, cum quibus post tempora Constan¬ tini ad Orientem, et Septentrionem Romani assidue decertabant. Parthi, Persae, Sarma¬ tae, Gothi, nonne maxima ex parte gentiles erant ? Deinde etiamsi hoc esset verum ; non tamen inde recte colligi posset, facile fuisse Ecclesiae coercere Constantium, vel Julianum : nam imperatores illi potentissimi erant, et multas legiones armatas ducebant, adversusquas nihil poterat inermis multitudo fidelium, praesertim cum principem aliquem Christianum non haberet, , qui vellet, aut 32 DE POTESTATE PAPHi posset eam armare, et armatam ducere ad¬ versus imperatores. Hoc certe tempore in imperium Turearum plurimi sunt Christiani, et fortasse plures numero, quam ipsi Tureae sint : tamen quia neque ducem, neque arma in promptu habent, adversus Turearum re¬ gem nihil possunt ; quae causa fuit olim, cur neque Itali jugum Gothorum, neque Afri¬ cani Wandalorum, neque Galli Francorum excutere possent. At Leonem imperatorem Graecum facile fuit Summo Pontifici Grego- rio excludere ab imperio Italiae, quoniam vires ejus in Italia debilitatae erant, et Pro¬ ceres Italiae hoc ipsum maxime expetebant, ut facultas eis a Pontifice daretur deficiendi ab imperatore impio : pari ratione Childeri- cum regem Francorum nullo negotio potuit Zacharias Pontifex regno privare, cum id ipsum Proceres Franci cuperent, et ipse po¬ testate rerum gerendarum ad Magistrum Palatii translata otio desidiaque langueret. Denique Henricum imperatorem non ante Gregorius Papa deponendum esse decrevit, quam gravissima ejus crimina vocibus po¬ pulorum ad eum delata justitiam postula¬ rent, ut Marianus Scotus aliique ejus tempo¬ ris historici docent. Addit Barclaius, temporibus Constantii non defuisse in JSgypto , et Lybia, aliisque locis per Asiam', et Europam Monachos permultos, in quibus non minor zelus erat quam in illo, qui Henricum tertium Franco¬ rum regem confodit, qui, si licuisset, facile Constantium de medio tollere potuissent. Respondeo : Non pertinet ad Monachos, aut alios Ecclesiasticos viros ceedes facere, ut habetur 23. q. 8. can. 1. et seq. ; multo autem minus per insidias reges occidere. Neque Summi Pontifices consueverunt ista ratione principes coercere. Ipsorum mos est, primum paterne corripere, deinde per censuram Ecclesiasticam Sacramentorum communione privare ; denique subditos eorum a juramento fidelitatis absolvere, eosque dignitate, atque auctoritate regia, si res ita postulat, privare. Executio ad alios pertinet. Quare Innocentius Pontifex cum in concilio Lugdunensi Friderico II imperium abrogasset, dixisse fertur : a Ego, quod meum est, feci ; faciat, et prosequatur super his Deus, quod voluerit. » Id refert Matthaeus Paris in Henrico III, referens acta anni Do¬ mini 1245. Pergit deinde, et nititur, facile fuisse Ec¬ clesiae tollere de medio Julianum Apostatam, et Valentem Arianum, quia exercitus eorum magna ex parte Catholici erant, et Episcopis obedientes, quod cum non fecerit, sequitur, aut Pontifices illius temporis non esse fun¬ ctos officio suo, aut credidisse non sibi licere principes, quamvis apostatas, aut haereticos deponere. Respondeo : Julianum Apostatam difficil¬ limum fuit deponere , quoniam ipse solus imperium regebat, neque verum est totum ejus exercitum fuisse Christianum : scribit enim Ruffinus, lib. ii. cap. 1. totum fuisse pollutum sacrilegiis, sacrificiis videlicet ido- lolatricis. Nam, ut scribitur in Historia tri¬ partita, lib. vii. cap. 1. legem tulerat Julia¬ nus, ut omnes milites sacrificarent idolis, aut de militia ejicerentur. Itaque plenus erat exercitus Paganis, aut iis, qui a Christo de¬ fecerant. Neque his repugnat, quod adver¬ sarius citat ex Ruffmo, Socrate, et Theodo- reto ; Joviano recusante imperium sumere, quod ipse Christianus cum esset, Paganis imperare nolebat, exercitum una voce cla¬ masse, et nos Christiani sumus. Siquidem ea vox significabat, plerosque illorum corde, ac voto Christianos fuisse, non manifesta professione : alioqui Jovianus, non eis obje¬ cisset paganismum, neque dixisset, se nolle imperare Paganis. Itaque si qui erant in ex¬ ercitu Juliani Christiani, occulti erant, et communicatione sacrilegorum maculati, Pa¬ gani habebantur. De Valente idem omnino dici potest : quamvis enim paucos quosdam in excercitu suo Catholicos haberet, tamen multitudo , Principis sequebatur errores. Neque alia causa est, cur Valentinianus Ca¬ tholicus imperator fratrem Valentem haere¬ ticum toleraret, nisi quia non facile erat sine periculoso, et ambiguo bello de imperatorio solio illum dejicere. Subjungit postremo Barclaius duo Patrum testimonia, unum S. Gregorii Nazianzeni, orat. 1. in Julianum, cujus verba sunt : « Co¬ ercitus est Dei clementia, et lacrymis Chri¬ stianorum, quae multae jam, et a multis erant effusae, cum solum hoc contra persecutorem haberent remedium. » Alterum, S. Augu¬ stini, tract. in Psal. cxxiv. qui sic loquitur: « Julianus extitit infidelis imperator, nonne extitit apostata, iniquus, idololatra ? Milites Christiani servierunt infideli imperatori : ubi veniebant ad causam Christi, non agnosce¬ bant, nisi illum, qui in coelo erat ; quando volebat ut idola colerer.t, ut thurifi carent, praeponebant illi Deum : quando autem di- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 33 cebat, producere aciem, ite contra illam gentem, statim obtemperabant, distingue¬ bant Dominum aeternum a Domino temporali, et tamen subditi erant propter Dominum aeternum etiam Domino temporali. » Respondeo : S. Gregorius dicit nullum adversus Juliani persecutionem fuisse reme¬ dium praeter lacrymas ; quoniam non ha¬ bebat Ecclesia vires, quibus illius tyrannidi resistere posset. Ideo enim lacrymis Dei benignitas imploranda erat ; quoniam aliun¬ de auxilium expectari non poterat. Neque negavisset S. Gregorius, potestatem politi¬ cam jure subjectam esse debere spirituali Pontificum potestati, cum hoc ipsum disertis verbis scriptum reliquerit, in Oratione ad populum pertimescentem, et Preesidem ira¬ tum : quare hoc loco de facto loquitur non de jure. Sanctus Augustinus recte dicit : Mi¬ lites Christianos servivisse Juliano impera¬ tori infideli, quoniam initio imperii sui tole¬ rabat Christianos ; nec solos milites Christia¬ nos esse patiebatur ; sed etiam Episcopos Catholicos, quos Constantius Arianus rele¬ gaverat, ad sedes suas reverti permisit, ut refert Ruffinis, lib. i. cap. 27 ; postea tamen, ut ex Tripartita citavimus, cogebat omnes, aut idolis sacrificare, aut militia excedere : quo tempore Jovianus, et Valentinianus cingulum militiae abjicere, quam idolis sa¬ crificare maluerunt ; propter quod Deus, qui reddit centuplum in hac vita, utri que paulo post, pro cingulo militiae regium diadema donavit. Porro Barclaius perperam inter¬ pretatur illa verba : « Ubi veniebant ad cau¬ sam Christi » : dicit enim, causam Ecclesiae esse causam Christi ; et ideo si licitum esset Imperatorem Apostatam deponere, debuis¬ sent milites Christiani, jubente Ecclesia, in ipsum Julianum arma convertere. At S. Augustinus verba sua ipse interpretatur, cum ait : « Quando volebat Julianus, ut ido¬ la colerent, praeponebant illi Deum ». Hanc igitur vocat causam Christi S. Augustinus : quamvis autem sit etiam Christi causa, Ec¬ clesiae causa, tamen non tenebantur milites Christiani in imperatorem suum, quamvis Apostatam, et persecutorem arma conver¬ tere, nisi antea hostis judicatus esset : Ec¬ clesia vero tolerandum potius censuit, quam irritandum, cum satis virium ad eum depo¬ nendum non haberet, ut sanctus Thomas ad hoc ipsum argumentum respondet in 2. 2. qu. 12 artic. 2.