Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 8: Why the Church Did Not Depose Valentinian the Younger, an Arian
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 eighth chapter Barclay proves that the Church did not lack strength with which to depose the heretic Valentinian the Younger from the empire; but he labours in vain; for Franciscus Romulus, whose disputation Barclay undertook to refute, made no mention at all of that Valentinian; for he knew that it would have been easy for Saint Ambrose to cast him down, especially since the greatest Catholic prince was already in arms to restrain the heretic Valentinian, and the whole city of Milan, and even the soldiers themselves, stood with Ambrose. Why then, you will say, did Saint Ambrose tolerate the heretic Valentinian? The reason is at hand: because Valentinian was a boy, and began to persecute the Church not by his own judgment but following the authority of his mother. And Saint Ambrose hoped that the same Valentinian could easily be brought to follow the faith and piety of his father Valentinian the Elder, his brother Gratian, and also his colleague Theodosius, Catholic emperors. Which also shortly came to pass; for Valentinian came to his senses, and began so to honour Saint Ambrose that he had no one whom he trusted more, nor whom he regarded more; in short, he ever afterwards held him in the place of a father; all of which he will understand to be true who is willing to read the oration of the same Saint Ambrose delivered at the funeral of the emperor Valentinian. From which an answer is also given to what Barclay objects about the emperor Theodosius, who embraced Valentinian fleeing to him, and, having put Maximus to flight, restored him to the empire. “A thing worth noting,” says Barclay: “a heretic is put to flight by a Catholic, he flees to a Catholic for help; by whom he was both rebuked for his heresy, and, out of reverence for majesty, kindly received and restored to the kingdom; and because the Church did not praise rebellion for religion's sake against a lawful prince, Maximus was called neither the reformer of the empire nor the restorer of the Church, but a rebel and a tyrant.” I answer: Theodosius with the best right undertook to help Valentinian against Maximus; both because he perceived that he, seduced by his mother, could easily be brought back to the Catholic faith, which, as we said, was done at once; and because Theodosius had been called by Gratian, Valentinian's brother, to partnership in the empire, and so it was fair that he should not desert his benefactor's brother and colleague in the empire in so great a danger; and lastly because Maximus had usurped the empire not chiefly for religion, but out of lust for dominion, and had killed Gratian, the lawful prince. So Theodosius took up arms not against a defender of the Catholic faith, but against the murderer of an emperor and the unjust usurper of the empire.
These things explained, Barclay, exulting as if victory were won, says: “Since these things are so, I would have the adversaries now cease to impose upon us with their fiction, or at least say whence they drew it.” I answer: that cannot be called a fiction which all the doctors and the general councils themselves have handed down. And whence we drew it we have shown more than once, and shall show more clearly a little later.
Barclay adds: “It is established that all in that age thought that no temporal power belonged in any way, or for any cause, either to the Bishop of Rome or to the universal Church over them, but that they were to be left to the judgment of God alone as to temporal punishments”; and a little after: “As witness of this matter,” he says, “I produce first Tertullian, who, speaking of the emperors in the Apologeticus, says: They feel that God alone is he in whose power alone they are, from whom alone they are second, after whom first, before all gods and above all men; and in the book to Scapula: We honour the emperor, he says, in such a way as is both lawful for us and expedient for him, as a man second from God, and having obtained from God whatever he is, less than God alone; this he himself will also wish; for so he is greater than all, while he is less than the true God alone.” I answer: it is false that it is established that all the doctors in that age thought that no temporal power belonged in any way, or for any cause, either to the Bishop of Rome or to the universal Church over Christian princes. For the authors whom Barclay brings forward are both very few, and do not say what he affirms. Tertullian, who is cited in the first place, speaks of heathen princes, who ruled the whole Roman world and had not yet subjected their sceptres to Christ. So they could be called second from God in fact in the administration of temporal things. “But,” says Barclay, “the law of Christ deprives no one of his right; therefore kings and emperors, by coming to the Church, lose nothing of their temporal right.” It is true, they lose nothing, but rather gain much, since they are also temporal kings, which before they were not. But if, to attain the heavenly kingdom, they must be under the Vicar of Christ, so that it is no longer lawful for them to abuse the temporal power to their own ruin and that of others, they ought not to take it ill.
In the second place Barclay produces Ambrose, who in the Apology for David speaks thus: “He was indeed a king (David); he himself was held by no laws, because kings are free from the bonds of offences; for they are called to punishment by no laws, being safe by the power of their rule.” I answer: kings are free from political laws, both their own and those of preceding kings, because an equal has no power over an equal; yet they are not free from the laws of God and of the Church; and this we see to have been common also to the kings of the Old Testament, such as David was. For when King Uzziah wished to burn incense in the temple of the Lord, which was the office of the high priest, and, driven back by the priests, would not yield, he was at once struck with leprosy, and by the judgment of the priests was forced to dwell apart, and to cease from the administration of the kingdom, as is said in 2 Chronicles 26. Josephus adds, book 9 of the Antiquities, chapter 11, that from that time Uzziah lived as a private man, and was consumed by long grief. In almost a like way, when the Supreme Pontiff sees a Christian prince infected with the leprosy of heresy, he separates him from the assembly of the faithful by the sentence of excommunication, and, that he may not infect the rest, looses his subjects from the oath of fidelity, and if need be even commands, under the same penalty of excommunication, that they hold him not for their king, nor obey him as king.
Third, Barclay brings forward Gregory of Tours as a witness, who in book 5 of the history of the Franks, chapter 18, addresses the king in these words: “If any of us, O king, should wish to overstep the paths of justice, he can be corrected by you; but if you go beyond them, who will correct you? For we speak to you, but if you will, you hear; if you will not, who will condemn you, but he who has declared himself to be justice?” I answer: Gregory speaks of the power which kings have in fact of compelling private men, and which private men do not have of compelling kings. For King Chilperic had accused Praetextatus of Rouen as guilty of treason before the synod of Paris, in which Gregory of Tours sat with many others; and because Gregory understood that Praetextatus was innocent and was being oppressed by suborned false witnesses, he would in no way consent to his condemnation. So the king, knowing that Gregory alone resisted him, said to him: O bishop, you ought to bestow justice on all; and behold, I do not receive justice from you; but, as I see, you consent to iniquity, and that proverb is fulfilled in you, that a crow will not pluck out the eye of a crow. Then Gregory, wishing to show that it cannot happen that anyone should refuse to do justice to the king, since the king can compel him to do justice, but on the contrary that it can happen that the king should refuse to do justice, since no one can compel him to do justice, answered the words set out above: “If any of us, O king, should wish to overstep the path of justice, he can be corrected by you; but if you go beyond it, who will correct you?” And that this is the meaning of these words is clear not only from the preceding words, but also from the outcome of that cause; for when the king, by various arts and tricks, had tried to wring from the synod a sentence of condemnation against Praetextatus, and had not obtained it, he used force, threw him into prison, and when he tried to slip away, he was severely beaten and sent into exile, as Gregory tells in the same place, and also Aimoin, book 3 of the history of the Franks, chapter 26. Nor was this the end of the fury of Queen Fredegund, to please whom the king was contriving all this; for when afterwards Praetextatus had been restored to his see by King Guntram, by the treachery of the same queen he was killed by an assassin at the sacred altar, as the same Gregory witnesses, book 8, chapter 31; which Praetextatus began to be counted among the holy martyrs. This, then, is that power which kings have over bishops, namely to use force against justice and punish them if they wish; and which bishops do not have over kings, to compel them to obey, though lawfully condemned, unless they are helped by another and greater temporal power.
In the fourth place Barclay brings forward the testimony of Saint Gregory the Pope, who called himself the servant of the emperor, and confessed that power was given to the emperor from heaven over all men. Of which testimony enough has been said in the third chapter, and there is no need to repeat it.
In the last place he brings forward Otto of Freising in the epistle to Frederick Barbarossa, whose words are these: “Kings alone, as set above the laws, reserved to the divine examination, are not restrained by the laws of the world; whence is that saying of one who was both king and prophet, To thee only have I sinned”; and soon after: “For since, according to the Apostle, it is a fearful thing for a mortal man to fall into the hands of the living God, yet for kings, who have no one above them but him whom they may fear, it will be the more fearful, the more freely they can sin than others.” I answer: Otto of Freising plainly speaks of the laws of the world, to which without doubt kings are not subject by a coercive subjection; for not only is it found in the words cited, they are not restrained by the laws of the world; but also a little before Otto speaks thus: “Besides, since no worldly person is found who does not lie under the laws of the world, and by lying under them is restrained, kings alone, as set above the laws,” and so on. But, adds Barclay, “kings by Otto's opinion have no one above them whom they may fear, except God; therefore they are free not only from the laws of the world, but also from the laws of the Church, at least as to temporal punishment; otherwise they would have above them the Supreme Pontiff, whom they might fear, and not God alone. Besides, by the same Otto's opinion, kings are reserved to the divine examination of God alone; therefore they are not subjected to the judgment of the Pope, at least in temporal matters.” I answer: Otto, a Catholic and godly bishop, did not mean to say that kings are not held by pontifical laws, or have not above them the Vicar of Christ, whom they may fear, or do not lie under the examination of the Supreme Pontiff at least in spiritual matters and as to spiritual punishments; for if he meant that, he would be a heretic. Therefore when he says that kings are reserved to the examination of God alone, and have no one above them whom they may fear except God, and are loosed from the laws, as set above the laws, it is necessary to add a restriction, either on the side of the laws or on the side of the punishment. Barclay gladly admits a restriction on the side of the punishment; but we say that the restriction is to be understood only on the side of the laws. This we prove, because in Otto's words a restriction on the side of the laws is found, since he says that they do not lie under the laws of the world, and again, that they are not restrained by the laws of the world; a restriction on the side of the punishment, namely temporal, is nowhere read in his words. Besides, Otto was not ignorant that King Childeric had been deposed by the Supreme Pontiff, and afterwards the emperor Henry deprived of authority by Pope Gregory VII; for he mentions both matters in his history, book 5, chapter 23, and book 6, chapters 34, 35 and 36, and does not censure the deed; indeed he seems to approve it, since he praises Gregory VII in these words, book 6, chapter 34: “Made a pattern to the flock, what he taught by word he showed by example, and, a brave athlete in all things, he did not fear to set himself as a wall for the house of the Lord”; and chapter 36: “The Church, bereaved of so great a shepherd, who among all priests and Roman Pontiffs was of singular zeal and authority, had no small grief.” Therefore the sense of Otto's words will be this, that kings are not held by the laws of the world, and as to those laws are reserved to the examination of God alone, and as to the same laws have no one above them whom they may fear except God.
On the strength of these testimonies Barclay triumphs, saying: “If the asserters of the contrary opinion can bring forward so many testimonies of the ancient Fathers, nay, if they can bring forward even one, in which it is expressly written that the Church, or its head the Supreme Pontiff, has that temporal power over kings and secular princes, and can restrain them with temporal punishments in any way whatever, directly namely or indirectly, or fine them with the kingdom or a part of the kingdom, I for my part shall not refuse that the whole suit be judged according to them without appeal.” I answer: the authors produced by Barclay did not expressly write that Christian kings and princes cannot be restrained by the Church, or its head the Supreme Pontiff, with temporal punishments directly or indirectly, or fined with the kingdom or a part of the kingdom; and if they had written this expressly, we could set against Tertullian, brought forward by him, Saint Cyprian, who in book 1, epistle 3, orders that no dealings be joined with heretics; which Saint Irenaeus, older than Tertullian, had taught before, book 3, chapter 3, against heresies, saying: “So great fear had the Apostles and their disciples that they would not communicate even by word with any of those who had adulterated the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is a heretic, after one correction avoid.” To which opinion the testimonies of all the Fathers could be brought. From which it is plainly gathered that a heretical king, if it can be done, is not to be tolerated by the Church, but excommunicated, and the faithful people removed from his obedience, lest they be forced to serve him whom they are commanded to avoid, and to join dealings with him with whom they ought not even to mingle in conversation. Against Saint Ambrose we would set Saint Gregory Nazianzen, his contemporary, who in the oration to the people struck with fear and the governor in anger compared the spiritual power to the soul, the temporal to the flesh, and taught that the temporal power ought to be so subject to the spiritual as the flesh is subject to the soul. And this very thing is the foundation of our opinion. Against Saint Gregory of Tours we would set Saint Gregory of Rome, of the same age, who, as we said above, in two privileges put these words: But if any of kings, prelates, or judges, or any secular persons whatever, shall violate the decrees of this Apostolic authority and of our command, let him be deprived of his honour. Lastly against Otto of Freising we would set Gregory VII, almost a hundred years older, who expressly writes that a king of the world can for certain causes be deprived of his kingdom by the Apostolic See; see his epistle to the bishop of Metz. We would set also Saint Bernard and Hugh of Saint Victor, who flourished in Otto's time, whose testimonies we produced in the preface; besides Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventure, not much later in age than Otto of Freising, but far superior in learning and holiness, who most expressly teach what Barclay requires; see their testimonies brought forward above. Besides, against five testimonies of ancient writers we would set more than seventy testimonies of writers of various ages. Lastly, against five men brought forward by Barclay as witnesses we would set ten councils, of which two were without doubt general. Nor are councils, especially general ones, less to be believed because they were later; for the Church is the same, and the authority of councils is the same, whether they are earlier or later; and as in the council of Nicaea, three hundred years after the coming of the Lord, it was lawful for the Church to declare the Scriptures concerning the consubstantiality of the Son of God, and especially that one: I and the Father are one; so also it was lawful, after seven hundred years, for the same Church to explain the Scriptures concerning the power of the Supreme Pontiff, such as that one: 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. Wherefore if Barclay were willing to stand by his promise, the whole suit would be ended without appeal.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
Ad CAPUT VIII. Cur Ecclesia non deposuit Valentinianum ju¬ niorem Arianum. In cap. 8. Barclaius probat, non defuisse vires Ecclesiae, quibus Valentinianum Junio¬ rem haereticum ab imperio deponeret : sed frustra laborat ; non enim Franciscus Ro¬ mulus, cujus disputationem Barclaius refel¬ lendam suscepit, de isto Valentiniano ullam mentionem fecit : sciebat enim facile fuisse S. Ambrosio illum dejicere, praesertim cum maximus princeps catholicus jam esset in armis, ut Valentinianum haereticum coerce¬ ret, et tota civitas Mediolanensis, et ipsi etiam milites ab Ambrosio starent. Cur igi¬ tur, inquies, S. Ambrosius Valentinianum haereticum toleravit ? Causa est in promptu, quia Valentinianus puer 'erat, et non pro¬ prio judicio, sed matris auctoritatem sequu- tus Ecclesiam persequi coepit. Sperabat vero S. Ambrosius facile posse adduci eumdem Valentinianum, ut Parentis sui Valentiniani senioris, et fratris Gratiani, necnon collegae Theodosii Catholicorum imperatorum fidem, et pietatem sequeretur. Quod etiam brevi contigit: resipuit enim Valentinianus, et S. Ambrosium ita colere coepit, ut nullum ha¬ beret, cui magis fideret, neque quem magis observaret : denique parentis loco illum deinceps semper habuit, quae omnia vera esse intelliget, qui orationem ejusdem S. Ambrosii in funere Valentiniani impe¬ ratoris habitam legere voluerit. Ex quo etiam respondetur ad id quod Barclaius ob¬ jicit de Theodosio imperatore, qui Valenti¬ nianum ad se confugientem complexus est, eumque fugato Maximo in imperium resti¬ tuit. « Res notatu digna, inquit Barclaius, hae¬ reticus a Catholico fugatur, ad Catholicum auxilii causa fugit : a quo et reprehensus est propter hseresim, et propter reverentiam Majestatis humaniter exceptus, atque in re¬ gnum restitutus : et quia Ecclesia rebellionem Religionis ergo, adversus legitimum princi¬ pem non laudavit, Maximus neque reforma¬ tor imperii dictus est, neque restaurator Ec¬ clesiae, sed rebellis, et tyrannus. » Respondeo : Theodosius optimo jure Va¬ lentinianum adjuvandum suscepit adversus 3 Tom. XII 34 DE POTESTATE VkVJE Maximum, tum animadvertit, illum a matre seductum facile posse ad fidem Catholicam reduci, quod ut (diximus) continuo factum est; tum quia Theodosius a Gratiano Valen¬ tiniani fratre ad imperii societatem vocatus fuerat, proinde sequum erat, ut benefactoris sui fratrem, et imperii collegam in tanto pe¬ riculo non desereret; tum denique quia ma¬ ximus non praecipue propter religionem, sed propter dominandi cupiditatem imperium usurpaverat, et Gratianum legitimum prin¬ cipem interfecerat. Itaque Theodosius non adversus defensorem Catholicae fidei, sed adversus parricidam imperatoris, et inju¬ stum imperii usurpatorem arma suscepit. His explicatis Barclaius, quasi parta victo¬ ria exultans, ait : « Haec cum ita sint, desi¬ nant nunc velim adversarii commento suo nobis imponere, aut saltem dicant, unde id hauserint? » Respondeo : Commentum dici non potest, quod omnes doctores, et ipsa concilia gene¬ ralia tradiderunt. Unde autem idhauserimus, non semel ostendimus, et paulo post clarius ostendemus. Subjicit Barclaius : « Constat omnes ea aetate sensisse, nullam vel Episcopo Roma¬ no, vel Ecclesiae universae temporalem pote¬ statem ullo modo, ullave ex causa in eos competere, sed solius Dei judicio, quantum ad poenas temporales relinquendos, » et pau¬ lo post : « Hujus, inquit, rei testem in primis Tertullianum produco, qui de imperatoribus loquens in Apologetico : Sentiunt, inquit, Deum esse solum, in cujus solius potestate sunt, a quo solo sunt secundi, post quem primi, ante omnes deos, et super omnes ho¬ mines, et in lihro ad Scapulani : Colimus, inquit, imperatorem sic, quomodo, et nobis licet, et ipsi expedit, et hominem a Deo se¬ cundum, et quicquid est a Deo consecutum, solo Deo minorem : hoc et ipse volet; sic enim omnibus major est, dum solo vero Deo minor est. » Respondeo : Falsum est, constare, omnes Doctores ea aetate sensisse, nullam vel Epi¬ scopo Romano, vel Ecclesiae universae tem¬ poralem potestatem ullo modo, ullave ex causa in principes Christianos competere. Auctores enim, quos Barclaius adducit, et paucissimi sunt, et non dicunt quod ipse af¬ firmat. Tertullianus, qui primo loco citatur, de principibus ethnicis loquitur, qui toti orbi Romano imperabant, et nondum sceptra sua Christo subjecerant. Itaque secundi a Deo in rerum temporalium administratione de facto dici poterant : « At, inquit Bar¬ claius, lex Christi jure suo neminem privat, proinde reges, et imperatores accedendo ad Ecclesiam, nihil juris sui temporalis amit¬ tunt. » Verum est, nihil amittunt, sed multa lucrantur potius, cum et reges temporales sint, quod antea non erant. Sed si ad regnum coeleste adipiscendum, oporteat eos Vicario Christi subesse, ut jam non liceat illis tem¬ porali potestate abuti ad suam, et aliorum perditionem, moleste ferre non debent. Secundo loco Barclaius Ambrosium pro¬ ducit, qui in Apologia David sic loquitur : « Rex utique erat (David) nullis ipse legibus tenebatur, quia liberi sunt Reges, a vinculis delictorum : neque enim ullis ad poenam vocantur legibus, tuti imperii potestate. » Respondeo : Liberi sunt reges a legibus politicis, tum suis, tum preedecessorum re¬ gum, quia par in parem non habet potesta¬ tem : non sunt tamen liberi a legibus Dei, et Ecclesiae ; et hoc videmus etiam commune fuisse cum regibus testamenti veteris, qualis erat David. Siquidem cum rex Ozias thus adolere vellet in templo Domini, quod erat ofticium summi sacerdotis, et repulsus a sa¬ cerdotibus non acquiesceret, continuo lepra percussus est, et ad judicium sacerdotum coactus est habitare seorsiin, et a regni ad¬ ministratione cessare ; ut dicitur in 11 lib. Paralip. cap. xxvi. Addit Jusephus lib. ix. Antiquitatum cap. 11. ab eo tempore Oziam privatum vixisse, ac longo moerore consum¬ ptum. Simili fere modo, cum Principem Chri¬ stianum lepra hseresis infectum cernit Sum¬ mus Pontifex, segregat illum a coetu priorum per sententiam excommunicationis, ac ne cseteros inficiat, solvit ejus subditos a jura¬ mento fidelitatis, atque si opus sit, jubet etiam sub eadem excommunicationis poma, ne illum pro rege habeant, neve ilii ut regi pareant. Tertio Barclaius Gregorium Turonicum testem adducit, qui in lib. v. hist. Franco¬ rum cap. xviii. his verbis alloquitur regem : « Si quis de nobis, o rex, j ustitiee tramites transcendere voluerit, a te corripi potest : si vero tu excesseris, quis te corripiet? loqui¬ mur enim tibi, sed si volueris, audis, si au¬ tem nolueris, quis te condemnabit, nisi is, qui se pronunciavit esse justitiam? » Respondeo : Loquitur Gregorius de pote¬ state, quam habent reges de facto cogendi homines particulares, et quam non habent IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 35 homines particulares ad cogendos reges : accusaverat enim rex Childericus Praetexta¬ tum Rothomagensem tamquam reum maje¬ statis, apud Parisiensem Synodum, in qua cum aliis multis Gregorius Turonicus sede¬ bat : et quoniam Gregorius Praetextatum in¬ nocentem esse, et a subornatis falsis testibus gravari intelligebat, condemnationi ejus as- sentiri nullo modo volebat. Itaque sciens rex unum Gregoriumsibi resistere, dixit illi : 0 Episcope, justitiam cunctis largiri debes : et ecce ego justitiam a te non accipio ; sed ut video consentis iniquitati, et impletur in te proverbium illud, quod corvus oculum corvi non eruet. Tum Gregorius demonstrare volens, fieri non posse, ut aliquis nolit regi justitiam facere, cum rex possit eum cogere, ut justitiam faciat; sed econtrario fieri posse, ut rex nolit justitiam facere, cum nemo pos¬ sit eum cogere, ut justitiam faciat : respon¬ dit verba superius posita : « Si quis de no¬ bis, o rex, justitiae tramitem transcendere voluerit, a te corripi potest : si vero tu ex¬ cesseris, quis te corripiet?» Atque hanc esse sententiam horum verborum, non solum perspicuum est ex verbis praecedentibus ; sed etiam ex eventu illius causae, nam, cum rex variis artibus, et dolis conatus e-set ex¬ torquere a Synodo sententiam damnationis contra Praetextatum, et non obtinuisset ; vi adhibita, conjecit eum in carcerem, et cum is elabi voluisset, graviter caesus in exilium missus est, ut eodem loco narrat Gregorius, et etiam Aimoinus, lib. m. hist. Francorum cap. xxvi. Neque hic finis furoris fuit Fre- degundis reginae, in cujus gratiam rex omnia illa moliebatur, nam cum postea per Gun- trannum regem Praetextatus in suam sedem resfitutus fuisset, dolo ejusdem reginae per sicarium quemdam ad altare sacrum Prae¬ textatus occisus fuit, teste eodem Gregorio lib. vili. cap. 31 ; qui Praetextatus inter sanctos martyres haberi coepit. Haec igitur est illa potestas, quam reges in Episcopos habent, ut videlicet vi adhibita contra justi¬ tiam in illos, si velint, animadvertant; et quam non habent Episcopi in reges, ut eos quam vis jure damnatos obtemperare cogant, nisi ab alia temporali potestate majori ju¬ ventur. Quarto loco adducit Barclaius testimonium «* sancti Gregorii Papse, qui se famulum im¬ peratoris appellavit, et imperatori coelitus datam potestatem super omnes homines fas¬ sus est. De quo testimonio satis multa dicta sunt capite tertio, neque opus est illa repe¬ tere. Ultimo loco adducit Othonem Frisingen- sem in epistola ad Fridericum ./Enobarbum, cujus hsec sunt verba: « Soli reges, utpote constituti supra leges, divino examini reser¬ vati, saeculi legibus non cohibentur : unde est illud tam regis, quam Prophetae, Tibi soli peccavi : et mox : Cum enim juxta Apo¬ stolum homini mortali horrendum sit inci¬ dere in manus Dei viventis ; regibus tamen, qui nullum praeter ipsum supra se habent, quem metuant, eo erit horribilius, quo ipsi possunt caeteris peccare liberius. Respondeo : Otho Frinsingensis aperte loquitur de legibus saeculi, quibus sine dubio reges subjecti non sunt, subjectione eoacti- va : nam non solum in verbis citatis habe¬ tur, socculi legibus non cohibentur; sed etiam paulo ante sic loquitur Otho : « Prae¬ terea cum nulla inveniatur persona mundi- alis, quoe mundi legibus non subjaceat, sub¬ jacendo coerceatur, so i reges, utpote con¬ stituti supra leges etc. » At, addit Barclaius, « Reges ex Othonis sententia nullum habent supra se. quem timeant, nisi Deum ; ergo non solum a legibus saeculi ; sed etiam a le¬ gibus Ecclesiae, saltem quoad temporalem poenam liberi sunt, alioqui haberent supra se Summum Pontificem, quem timerent, et non solum Deum. Praeterea ex ejusdem Othonis sententia, reges divino solius Dei examini reservantur : non igitur judicio subjiciuntur Papae, saltem in temporalibus.» Respo-ndco : Otho Episcopus Catholicus, et pius, non voluit dicere, reges non teneri legibus Pontificiis, vel non habere super se Christi Vicarium, quem timeant, vel non subjacere summi Pontificis examini saltem in rebus spiritualibus, et quoad poenas spi¬ rituales ; si enim id vellet, haereticus esset. Ergo cum ait, reges solius Dei examini re¬ servari, et non habere super se, quem ti¬ meant, nisi Deum, et solutos esse legibus, ut¬ pote supra leges constitutos ; necesse est re¬ strictionem addere, vel ex parte legum, vel ex parte poenae. Barclaius libenter ad rittet restrictionem exparte poenae; sed nos dici¬ mus restrictionem subintelligendam esse so¬ lum ex parte legum. Id probamus, quia in verbis Othonis invenitur restrictio ex parte legum, cum dicat, eos non subjacere mundi legibus, et rursum, saeculi legibus non cohi¬ beri : restrictio ex parte poenae, temporalis videlicet, in verbis ejus, nusquam legitur. 36 DE POTESTATE PA1VE Praeterea non ignorabat Otho Childericum Regem a Summo Pontifice fuisse depositum, et postea Henricum imperatorem a Gregorio Papa VII. exanctoratum, nam utriusque rei meminit in Historia sua, lib. v. cap. 23. lib. vi. cap. 34. 3o. 36. neque reprehendit factum : immo videtur probare cum his verbis laudet Gregorium VII. lib. vi. cap. 34. (< Forma, inquit, gregis factus, quod verbo docuit, exemplo demonstravit, ac fortis per omnia athleta murum se pro domo Domini ponere non timuit, » et cap. 36. « Ecclesia, inquit, tanto Pastore, qui inter omnes Sacer¬ dotes, et Romanos Pontifices praecipui zeli, et auctoritatis erat, orbata dolorem non mo¬ dicum habuit. » Igitur sensus verborum Othonis hic erit, reges legibus saeculi non teneri, et quantum ad eas leges solius Dei examini reservari, et quantum ad easdem leges neminem super se habere, quem me¬ tuant, nisi Deum. Propter haec testimonia triumphat Bar- claius dicens: « Si contrarbe opinionis asser¬ tores tot antiquorum Patrum testimonia, immo si vel unum proferre possint, quo di¬ serte scriptum sit, Ecclesiam, vel ejus caput summum Pontificem habere temporalem illam potestatem in reges, et principes sae¬ culares, et posse eos temporalibus poenis quo¬ quo modo, directe scilicet, vel indirecte coer¬ cere, aut regno, regnive parte mulctare, non equidem recusabo, quominus lis tota secun¬ dum ipsos sine provocatione judicetur. » Respondeo: Auctores a Barclaio producti, non diserte scripserunt, reges, et principes Christianos non posse ab Ecclesia, vel ejus capite Summo Pontifice poenis temporalibus directe, vel indirecte coerceri, aut regno, regnive parte mulctari : et si hoc diserte scripsissent possemus nos Tertulliano ab ip¬ so allato S. Cyprianum opponere, qui lib. i. epistol. 3. jubet cum haereticis nulla com¬ mercia copulari : quod antea S. Irenaeus Ter- tuliano antiquior docuerat, lib. m. cap. 3. adversus haereses dicens : « Tantum Aposto¬ li, et horum discipuli timorem habuerunt, ut neque verbo tenus communicarent alicui eo¬ rum, qui adulteraverant veritatem ; quem¬ admodum, et Paulus ait, Haereticum ho¬ minem post unam correptionem devita. » In quem sententiam omnium Patrum testi¬ monia possent adduci. Ex quibus aperte col¬ ligitur, haereticum regem, si id fieri possit, non esse ab Ecclesia tolerandum, sed ex- I 7 communicandum , et fidelem populum ab ejus obedientia removendum, ne cogatur ei servire, quem vitare jubetur, neque cum eo commercia copulare, cum quo ne colloquium quidem miscere deberet. S. Ambrosio, S. Gregorium Nazianzenum opponeremus ejus sequalem, qui in Oratione ad populum timo¬ re perculsum, et Praesidem irascentem, comparavit spiritualem potestatem animae, temporalem carni, ac docuit, ita subjectam esse debere potestatem temporalem spiritu¬ ali, ut caro subjecta est animae. Atque hoc ipsum est fundamentum sententiae nostrae. S. Gregorio Turonico opponeremus, S. Gre¬ gorium Romanum aetatis ejusdem, qui, ut supra diximus, in duobus privilegiis illa ver¬ ba apposuit : Si quis autem regum, antistitum, aut judicum, aut quarumcumque saeculari¬ um personarum hujus Apostolicae auctorita¬ tis, et nostrae praeceptionis decreta violave¬ rit, honore suo privetur. Denique Othoni Frisingensi opponeremus Gregorium VII. centum fere annis antiquiorem, qui diserte scribit, posse regem saeculi a Sede Aposto- lica certis de causis regno privari ; vide Epistolam ejus ad Episcopum Metensem. Opponeremus etiam S. Bernardum, etHugo- nem de S. Victore, qui Othonis tempore flo¬ ruerunt, quorum testimonia in praefatione produximus ; praeterea S. Thomam, et S. Bonaventuram, qui Othone Frisingensi, non multum aetate inferiores, sed doctrina, et sanctitate longe superiores, disertissime do¬ cent, quod Barclaius requirit : vide testimo¬ nia ipsorum supra allata. Praeterea, quinque testimoniis veterum scriptorum opponere¬ mus plasquam sepfuagenta testimonia scri¬ ptorum variarum aetatum. Denique quinque hominibus a Barclaio in testes adductis opponeremus decem concilia, quorum duo generalia fuisse non dubium est. Neque ideo conciliis, praesertim ge¬ neralibus, minus credendum est, quia po¬ steriora fuerunt : nam eadem est Ecclesia, et conciliorum eadem est auctoritas, sive priora sunt, sive posteriora : et quemadmo¬ dum in concilio Nicaeno post annos trecentos ab adventu Domini licitum fuit Ecclesiae scripturas de filii Dei consubstantialitate de¬ clarare, ac illam praecipue : Ego et Pater unum sumus; sic etiam licitum fuitpost annos septingentos eidem Ecclesiae scripturas de potestate Summi Pontificis explicare, qualis illa est : Quicquid ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, et quicquid solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis. Qua- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS re si Barclaius pollicitationi suae stare vellet, lis tota sine provocatione finita esset.