Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 9: Whether the Later Princes Could Be Deprived of Their Principality by the Church's Authority without Harm to the People; and Whether the Sentence of Gregory VII against the Emperor Henry Was Just or Unjust
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 ninth chapter Barclay sets about showing that the other part of the opinion of Franciscus Romulus is false, namely that the Church could, without harm to the people, deprive Childeric, Leo and Henry of their kingdom or part of their kingdom; and he proves it to be false because Pope Gregory VII did not depose the emperor Henry IV without great harm to the people, since, on the authority of Otto of Freising, wars, schisms and many other things of that kind were born of it. But Franciscus Romulus did not speak of Henry alone, but of Leo also and of Childeric. And it is established that the emperor Leo the Isaurian was fined part of the empire without any harm to the people; and the same is most manifestly established of the deposition of King Childeric and the raising of Pepin, to which two examples Barclay had nothing to answer; so, wrapping them in silence, he dwelt on Henry alone. And if we add also the transfer of the empire from the Greeks to the Franks, made by Pope Leo III without harm to the people, the number of three examples which Franciscus Romulus wished to bring forward will be complete. Since, however, it pleased Barclay to censure Franciscus Romulus over the deposition of Henry alone, as if he had either been ignorant of the histories or had wished to lie for some other reason, I answer that the Christian people did suffer some harms from the excommunication and deposition of Henry, but that the gains were greater than the harms, so that it can not undeservedly be said that the thing was carried through without harm to the people; for he cannot be said to suffer harm who makes a loss of the grain which he scatters in sowing into the furrows, if at harvest time he carries it back multiplied with rejoicing. Pope Gregory, holy and wise, saw that the provinces were full of concubinaries and simoniacs; he perceived that the emperors, against the sacred canons, and especially those of the eighth general synod, had claimed for themselves the investitures of bishoprics and monasteries. He set his mind to cleansing and freeing the Church, and although through many troubles and dangers, partly by himself, partly through his successors, he brought what he wished to a happy end; for he took their concubines from the priests, and brought it about that ecclesiastical benefices were given and received freely, and, what was the hardest of all, he recovered the investitures of the Churches, Henry V, son of Henry IV, freely renouncing them to Pope Callistus II. And that this was not done without manifest signs and heavenly prodigies the Abbot of Ursperg witnesses in his Chronicle.
But now it pleases me to discuss part by part what Barclay has noted against Gregory VII from Otto of Freising and other authors. First, then, he brings those words of Otto of Freising, book 6, chapter 35: “I read and read again the deeds of the Roman kings and emperors, and nowhere do I find any of them before this one (Henry IV) excommunicated by the Roman Pontiff or deprived of his kingdom; unless perhaps someone thinks it should be held as an anathema that Philip was for a short time placed among the penitents by the Roman bishop, and Theodosius was kept from the threshold of the Church by blessed Ambrose on account of a bloody slaughter.” I answer: Otto of Freising was indeed notable for learning, morals and nobility; yet by reading and reading again he did not find everything; for that the emperor Arcadius was excommunicated by Pope Innocent I on account of the expulsion of Saint John Chrysostom, Nicephorus witnesses, book 13, chapter 34, who also recites the very sentence of excommunication word for word; and the same excommunication Gregory VII mentions in the epistle to the bishop of Metz. That the emperor Leo the Isaurian too was excommunicated by Gregory II and again by Gregory III on account of the heresy of the Iconoclasts, and deprived of the tributes of Italy, the Greek and Latin historians witness, as we showed above.
Then Barclay recounts from the same Otto the evils which befell the Church on account of the excommunication of the emperor Henry IV, namely wars, schisms, the exile of the Pope, the killing of the emperor Rudolf chosen by Gregory, and other things of that kind; and having counted them up he exclaims: “Is this to restrain a prince without harm to the people?” I answer: when the Gospel of Christ began to be preached by the Apostles in Jerusalem, a great persecution arose against the Church; Stephen was stoned, James beheaded, Peter thrown into prison, the faithful scattered through various regions; and when the same Gospel began to be preached among the nations, the whole Roman empire was shaken, the gravest persecutions arose, goods were plundered, churches burned, incredible slaughters of the saints made through the whole world. I ask, then, whether the Gospel was preached with harm or with salvation to the peoples? If the matter is considered with the eyes of the flesh, the Gospel will seem to have brought not salvation but ruin to the peoples; but if the same matter is looked at with the eye of the mind cleansed by the light of faith, it will plainly appear that idolatry was driven from the world, the Church spread, the martyrs crowned, and in short all good things came to us through the Gospel. Something of this kind (as we said a little before) happened to the Church when Pope Gregory restrained the emperor Henry by excommunication.
Barclay goes on, and censures Gregory's deed in these words: “It may be that Gregory did it with a good mind (let God judge of the intention), but it cannot be that he did it rightly, prudently and by his office; and that he did not err largely, after the manner and counsel of men, when he attributed to himself what was surely not his, namely the power of deposing and removing the office of emperor, and of putting another in his place”; and below: “The fault of Pope Gregory in this business, then, seems to me very great.” I answer: boldly enough has Barclay passed sentence on the Lord's anointed, and his own judge and that of all Christians; nor did he speak at least doubtingly, or suspecting, or supposing, but precisely and absolutely, as of a thing settled and certain, he pronounced that it could not be that Gregory bore himself justly and prudently in this matter. But I show by these arguments that Barclay's opinion is false and rash, not to say sacrilegious and blasphemous.
First, it is established that Gregory's sentence was approved by all the bishops who sat with him in the Roman council. But who would believe that the Pontiff with the whole council passed so unjust and imprudent a sentence as Barclay says? Then, the judgment of Gregory VII was confirmed by all his successors, Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II, Gelasius II and Callistus II, in whose time peace was made between the priesthood and the kingdom; and yet all these saw the wars and schisms that arose on the occasion of Pope Gregory's sentence; which is a most certain argument that the sentence which Gregory passed was just and prudent, since so many most prudent and most just Pontiffs, with councils of bishops cooperating, and despising the persecution of the schismatics, undertook to defend and confirm it. Of Victor III, who sat next after Gregory, Leo of Ostia is witness in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, book 3, chapter 71, that the council of Benevento was celebrated by him, and in it the sentence of Gregory VII on investitures confirmed, with this clause: “If any of emperors, kings, dukes, princes, counts, or of any secular power whatever, shall presume to give a bishopric or any other ecclesiastical dignity, let him know that he is bound by the bond of the sentence.” Of Urban II, the next successor of Victor III, Berthold of Constance, a historian of his time, writes that in the synod of Benevento in the year of the Lord 1091 the sentence of excommunication against Guibert the antipope and all his accomplices, of whom the chief was the emperor Henry, was confirmed by Urban. Likewise in the year 1095 the same sentence was confirmed by the same Urban in the synod of Piacenza, before an innumerable multitude, and in the same year confirmed again in the general council of Clermont. Of Paschal II, the next successor of Urban II, the Abbot of Ursperg witnesses for the year 1102 that in the general Roman council the sentence of Gregory VII was confirmed by Paschal, and Henry excommunicated, and all adhering to him. The same Abbot also adds that he was himself present at Rome, and heard on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper from the mouth of the Pontiff himself when Henry was declared excommunicated. Of Gelasius II, the next successor of Paschal II, the same Abbot of Ursperg witnesses for the year 1118 that by him, through Cono, cardinal bishop of Palestrina, his legate, in the council of Cologne and another at Fritzlar, the decree of Paschal on the excommunication of the emperor Henry was confirmed. Of Callistus II, the next successor of Gelasius, the Abbot of Ursperg witnesses in the Chronicle, and also Abbot Suger in the life of Louis, king of the Franks, and also Roger in the English annals, that by Callistus in the council of Reims of four hundred Fathers the synodal decrees of his predecessors, namely Gregory, Victor, Urban, Paschal and Gelasius, were again confirmed.
Third, the judgment of Gregory VII was approved by all the good men who were then living, and who could know the justice or injustice of that cause far better than Barclay, who is more than five hundred years later. Marianus Scotus, who lived in Gregory's time, in the Chronicle of the year 1075: “Gregory,” he says, “having heard the just complaints and cries of the Catholics against Henry and the monstrousness of his crimes, kindled with the zeal of God, pronounced the said king excommunicated, chiefly on account of simony; which deed well pleased Catholic men; but greatly displeased the simoniacs and the favourers of the king.” So he, who speaks not of one or another, but in common of the multitude of Catholics approving the Pontiff's deed. Lambert of Hersfeld, who lived at the same time, in the history of German affairs: “The constancy of Hildebrand,” he says, “and his spirit unconquered against greed, shut out all the arguments of human deceit”; and below: “The signs and prodigies which were very frequently done through the prayers of Pope Gregory, and his most fervent zeal for God and the ecclesiastical laws, fortified him against the poisoned tongues of detractors.” So he, who confounds not only the detractors of his own time, but also Barclay the detractor; for Gregory would not have been so dear to God, nor would God have wrought so many miracles through him, if he had passed a sentence so unjust and so imprudent, and had been the cause of so many evils, as Barclay says. The same Lambert relates in the same place the horrible death of William, bishop of Utrecht, who detracted from Gregory as Barclay afterwards detracted: “Suddenly,” he says, “seized with a most grave sickness, with miserable wailing he cried out before all that by the just judgment of God he had lost both the present life and the eternal; because he had given his service with the utmost effort to the king in all that he had wrongly intended, and in hope of his favour had knowingly and wittingly heaped grave insults on the most holy Roman Pontiff, a man of Apostolic virtues, and innocent.” Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who lived at the same time, at the beginning of the book on leavened and unleavened bread, to Waleram: “To one who knows,” he says, “I speak briefly. If I were certain that your prudence did not favour the successor of Julius Caesar, and of Nero, and of Julian, against the successor and Vicar of Peter the Apostle, I would most gladly greet you as a most friendly and reverend bishop.” So he, who compares the emperor Henry with Julius Caesar the oppressor of the commonwealth, with Nero the persecutor of the Church, and with Julian the apostate and persecutor; and did not even dare to greet Bishop Waleram, whom he thought to favour Henry against Gregory; which he certainly would not do if he believed Gregory's sentence against the emperor to be unjust. The same Anselm, in epistle 8 to William, defends Gregory's sentence, and openly pronounces it just. Saint Anselm, bishop of Lucca, an author of the same time, a most holy man and famous for miracles, wrote an epistle to Guibert the antipope, whom the emperor Henry had set up against Pope Gregory, in which epistle he praises Gregory wonderfully. He wrote also an Apology for Gregory against the same Guibert, where among other things he refutes the argument which Barclay uses at this time, and which the antipope and his accomplices then used, namely that Gregory was the cause of the disturbances and of the blood shed, especially in Saxony, which blood he said cried out against Gregory and his followers, of whom this Saint Anselm was one. He speaks thus in book 1 of the Apology: “The blood of the Saxons does not cry out against us, but against you, with the whole world, which has shuddered at the corruption of your crime, heaven cries out, earth cries out, the whole Church of the just cries out, both that which still journeys and that which now reigns with Christ; Christ cries out, the Father cries out for the bride of his Son, the Holy Spirit cries out, who daily asks for her with unspeakable groanings,” and so on. Where he says most rightly that those disturbances and wars are not to be attributed to Gregory, who by his pastoral office tried to keep the wolves from the flock, but to the disobedience and obstinacy of those who raged against the Shepherd and the flock itself the more fiercely, the more humbly they ought to have obeyed God and his Vicar, who admonished and counselled them for their good.
For how horrible and intolerable Henry's crimes were is understood from the following testimony. Saint Gebhard, archbishop of Salzburg, who died three years after the death of Gregory VII, that is, in the year 1088, disputing with Wezilo, archbishop of Mainz, openly pronounced that the emperor was deprived by the Apostolic sentence, by no unjust judgment, both of the kingdom and of communion; and his opinion was so approved by a certain council that the contrary opinion of Wezilo was called a heresy; see the Abbot of Ursperg in the Chronicle of the year 1085. Stephen of Halberstadt, an author of the same time, in the epistle to Waleram, which Dodechin, the continuator of Marianus Scotus, relates for the year of the Lord 1090: “The lord Henry,” he says, “whom they call king, sells bishoprics and abbeys; for Constance, Bamberg, Mainz and several others for money; Regensburg, Augsburg, Strasbourg for the sword; the abbey of Fulda for adultery; the bishopric of Münster (which it is a crime to say and to hear) he sold for sodomitic uncleanness”; and below: “For which wicked evils, excommunicated by the Apostolic See, he can obtain neither kingdom nor any power over us, because we are Catholics.” Leo, bishop of Ostia, an author of the same time, in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino writes much of the justice, wisdom, zeal and other virtues of Gregory VII. But in book 3, chapter 53, he relates also a heavenly vision, by which God himself witnessed that the deeds of Gregory pleased him, which Barclay with the ancient schismatics has now dared to revile. A certain man, then, saw a most white dove over Gregory as he celebrated the sacred mystery of the Mass; and when he who saw it hesitated to disclose the vision, he was divinely ordered to reveal it in these words: “Go quickly, and make this known to the ears of the Pope, that he may constantly, by the strength of the Holy Spirit, carry out what he has begun.” Berthold, an author of the same time, a priest of Constance, in his Chronicle writes very much for the justice of the cause of Gregory VII; but among other things he relates this of Embriko, bishop of Augsburg: “Embriko, bishop of Augsburg, who at the past Easter swore fidelity to King Rudolf, caring nothing for perjury, adhered to Henry on his arrival, and one day, saying Mass in his presence, the wretched man laid on himself this condition, that the reception of the sacred oblation should turn to his judgment if his lord Henry usurped the kingdom unjustly. After this rash reception, in the short time that he survived until his death, he never rose from his bed in health; for about the kalends of July he died without ecclesiastical communion.” These are seven authors who lived in the very time of Gregory, to whom I shall add four others who flourished not long after. William, bishop of Tyre, in book 1 on the sacred war, chapter 13, speaking of the perverse morals of the emperor Henry: “Which,” he says, “the lord Pope, considering that it was done against all honesty, and weighing that ecclesiastical rights were trampled in that deed, once, twice and a third time admonished the same emperor to desist from so detestable a presumption; and when he could not call him back, admonished with saving precepts, he bound him with the bond of anathema.” Otto of Freising, as we noted above, confessed that Gregory VII was a most holy man, book 6, chapters 34 and 36, and book 7, chapter 1; and it cannot be that a man so holy should publicly pass an unjust sentence and never retract it, as in fact he did not retract it, as is clear from those words which, the same Otto being witness, book 6, chapter 36, Gregory pronounced as he died: “I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.” Dodechin, the continuator of Marianus Scotus, in the Chronicle of the year 1106: “It is manifestly established,” he says, “that Henry was a perverse man, and by just judgment cast out by the Church. For he sold all spiritual things”; and for the years 1090 and 1093 he relates so many and so horrible crimes of Henry that it is a wonder if anyone dares to affirm that he was unjustly condemned, which nevertheless Barclay boldly affirms. The Abbot of Ursperg, in the Chronicle of the year 1106, tells of the sudden death of Henry, as miserable to himself as it was joyful to all others: “It is miserable to say,” he says, “that a man of so great a name, so great a dignity and so great a spirit, who under the Christian profession had gained the world so greatly, did not deserve from any person among so many Christians, even like any poor man dead, a godly or compassionate mourning, but rather filled the hearts and mouths at once of all truly Christian men, both there and everywhere, with a report of exceeding boundless rejoicing, forgetful of himself. Israel did not sing more loudly to the Lord when Pharaoh was drowned, nor did Rome applaud a more august triumph for Octavian himself or any of the Augusti. For the bridle that was in the jaws of the peoples was turned for them into a song, like the voice of a hallowed solemnity.” So he, who certainly ought to be enough to stop the mouth of Barclay speaking wickedly. For how was Henry crushed by an unjust sentence of Gregory, and yet no one found in the whole Christian world to weep for his death, nay, who did not rejoice most vehemently, as once Israel when Pharaoh was drowned, or the Roman people when the prince triumphed? Was no one found in the whole world who perceived Henry's justice? no one who saw Gregory's injustice? But let us hear what the same writer says a little below: “This,” he says, “was the end, this the destruction, this the last lot of Henry, called by his own by the name of the fourth emperor of the Romans; but by Catholics, that is, by all who keep faith and obedience by the Christian law to blessed Peter and his successors, he was fittingly called at once arch-pirate and heresiarch, and also apostate, and persecutor more of souls than of bodies, as one who, content neither with natural nor with customary crimes, was infamous for having devised and practised new ones, unheard of for ages, and therefore some of them incredible.” And of these things enough; for if I wished to bring forward later authors for the justice and holiness of Gregory, there would be no end. Let the reader see what we wrote in book 4 on the Pontiff, chapter 13.
Barclay goes on, and strives to prove that Henry ought not to have been excommunicated by Gregory, since so great a number of men had joined in the fellowship of Henry's crime; and to prove this he brings forward the opinion of Saint Augustine from book 3 against the epistle of Parmenian, chapter 2, which is related in the decree of Gratian, cause 23, question 4, canon Non potest. The words of Saint Augustine are these: “Correction by many cannot be wholesome except when he is corrected who has not a multitude for his fellows; but when the same disease has seized very many, nothing else remains to the good but grief and groaning, that by that sign which is revealed to holy Ezekiel they may deserve to escape unhurt from their devastation. Lest when they wish to gather the tares, they root up the wheat also with them; and lest they cleanse the Lord's crop not by diligence but by rashness, and be themselves rather counted among the refuse. And therefore the same Apostle, when he had now found many both unclean with luxury and defiled with fornications, writing to the same Corinthians in the second epistle, did not likewise command that they should not even take food with such men; for they were many, and it could not be said of them, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or a server of idols, or covetous, or any such thing, with such a one not so much as to eat; but he says, lest again when I come God humble me among you, and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness and luxury and fornication that they have committed; threatening that they were rather to be restrained by his mourning through the divine scourge, than by that correction, that the rest should abstain from their company”; and a little after: “In truth, if the contagion of sinning has invaded the multitude, the severe mercy of divine discipline is necessary; for counsels of separation (that is, of excommunication) are both empty and pernicious, and sacrilegious, because they become both impious and proud, and disturb the good who are weak more than they correct the bold who are bad.” “Since these things are so,” says Barclay, “no one, as I think, from a comparison of the doctrine of Saint Augustine, which is also the Church's, with the things done by Gregory against Henry, will fail to see clearly that the Pope greatly erred,” and so on. I answer: Barclay's rashness betrays itself on every side, when on account of one passage of Saint Augustine not well understood he dares so to condemn the synodal sentence of the Supreme Pontiff, confirmed by many other Pontiffs and councils, as to say that the Pope greatly erred. But let us show that not the Pope in judging, but Barclay in understanding, has vehemently erred.
First, Saint Augustine speaks of the correction or excommunication of one who has many fellows in the same crime, as is clear from those words: “But when the same disease has seized very many,” and so on, and from these: “Therefore the Apostle, when he had now found many both unclean with luxury and defiled with fornications,” and so on. But Gregory excommunicated Henry alone, on account of crimes proper to him alone, namely that he sold bishoprics and abbeys, and, admonished, refused to come to his senses; therefore the passage cited from Augustine or from Gratian is not to the point. Then, Saint Augustine speaks against Parmenian and the other Donatists, who had separated themselves from the universal Church, and said that they alone were the Church having neither spot nor wrinkle. And therefore Saint Augustine teaches that on account of the multitude of sinners a separation is not to be made, since there will always be bad with good until the consummation of the world. For then (as is said in Matthew 13) the angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just; and this is the reason why Saint Augustine said that counsels of such separation are not only empty and dangerous, but also sacrilegious and proud; because those who so separate themselves take on themselves the office of God, who alone can separate all the good from all the bad, which will be done on the last day; and meanwhile the good fish must be in the same net with the bad fish, and the wheat with the chaff on the same floor, and the tares with the grain in the same field. But Gregory took nothing of this kind on himself, but wished only to restrain by ecclesiastical censure a man who was publicly guilty of many and intolerable crimes. Third, what the Lord says in Matthew 13, Suffer both to grow until the harvest, is not so understood as if it were forbidden to purge the tares by excommunicating the incorrigible, killing evildoers, burning heretics, pursuing robbers and other pests of the Church or the commonwealth; otherwise David would have sinned gravely, who in Psalm 100 says: I slew all the sinners of the land; all princes would sin who daily hang thieves and robbers and highwaymen, and the more of them they know there are, the more diligently and with heavier punishments they strive to destroy and root them out; Pope Innocent III would have sinned with the Lateran council in excommunicating all heretics, although he was not ignorant that they were very many; the Catholic princes would have sinned who subdued by arms the Albigensian heretics, almost innumerable, and destroyed them even to extermination. Therefore when the Lord says, Suffer both to grow until the harvest, it may be that our Lord spoke not so much commanding as foretelling what would be. For he signified that there would always be bad with good, and that men would by no diligence bring it about that all the bad be separated from all the good; such as is also that saying of Isaiah 6: Hear, ye that hear, and understand not; see the vision, and know it not; blind the heart of this people, and make its ears heavy; which the Lord explains in Matthew 13: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive; for the heart of this people is grown gross, and so on. And the Apostle in Acts 28, citing the same passage of Isaiah: With the ear, he says, you shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive; for the heart of this people is grown gross, and so on. So the words of Isaiah, Hear, and understand not, signify this: you shall hear, and shall not understand; and that, blind the heart of this people, signifies, the heart of this people shall be blinded, or, as Saint John explains in chapter 12, The heart of this people is blinded. In this way Saint Augustine, in the explanation of the Psalms, teaches that all the evil imprecations which are expressed by way of command, such as, Pour out thy wrath upon the nations, and others like them, are predictions, not imprecations. Such expressions are also found in the Gospels, as John 2, Destroy this temple, that is, you will destroy it, or I shall permit you to destroy it; Matthew 23, Fill ye up the measure of your fathers, that is, you will fill it up, or I shall allow you to fill it up; John 13, That which thou dost, do quickly, that is, what you are turning over in your mind, to betray me, you will accomplish sooner than you think, and that by my permission. So then, Suffer both to grow until the harvest, seems to signify this: You will suffer, or permit, whether you will or not, both to grow until the harvest; for by all your diligence you will never bring it about that very many bad be not mixed with the good until the day of judgment; for then I shall send my angels, who shall separate the wicked from among the just. Fourth, I say that I approve the opinion of those who say that in this parable the separation of the bad, whether heretics or other wicked men, is forbidden not absolutely, but when there is danger lest the wheat be rooted up with the tares, that is, lest the godly be involved with the ungodly; otherwise it is lawful to pluck out the tares when there is no danger that the wheat be rooted up, and on the contrary there is danger lest by the mixture of the tares the wheat be corrupted. But this judgment does not belong to anyone whatever, but to the Father of the household, or to him whom Christ set over his household. Wherefore it did not belong to Barclay to judge whether Gregory VII did rightly when, by excommunicating Henry, he took care that a part of the tares should be plucked out; but it would belong to the Supreme Pontiff, if Barclay were still among the living, to chastise his rashness.
In the last place Barclay adds arguments from the history of Sigebert, to prove that Pope Gregory erred greatly in what he did against the emperor Henry. Pope Hildebrand (says Sigebert in the Chronicle of the year 1085), who is also Gregory VII, dies in exile at Salerno; of him I have found it thus written: “We wish you to know, who are anxious for the care of the Church, that the lord Apostolic Hildebrand, who is also Gregory, now placed at the last, called to himself one of the twelve cardinals, whom he loved much above the rest, and confessed to God and Saint Peter and the whole Church that he had greatly sinned in the pastoral care which had been committed to him to rule, and at the persuasion of the devil had stirred up wrath and hatred against the human race. Then at last he sent the said confessor to the emperor and to the whole Church, to wish him pardon, because he saw the end of his life, and was so soon to put on the angelic garment; and he released and dissolved the bonds of all his bans for the emperor and all the Christian people, living and dead, clerics and laymen, and ordered his own to leave the house of Theodoric, and the friends of the emperor to go up.” I answer: Sigebert, as Trithemius witnesses in the Catalogue of Writers, was one of the followers of the emperor Henry; therefore he deserves no credit, and without doubt what he writes in this place is false, since he has no certain author, or does not dare to name him. But we have a certain and most trustworthy author who writes that Gregory a little before his death said: “I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile”; which is wholly contrary to what Sigebert writes; for in these words he says he acted justly, in those that he sinned gravely. The words above are found in Otto of Freising, book 6, chapter 36. Berthold in the Chronicle for the year 1085, and Leo of Ostia in the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, book 3, chapter 64, describe the death of Gregory, and teach that he remained in the same constancy to his last breath, and was famous for great miracles, living and dead. Besides, the confirmation of Gregory's sentence against Henry, which we showed above was made by his five successors Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II, Gelasius II and Callistus II, most plainly teaches that what Sigebert wrote of the penitence of the same Gregory is a fable. Lastly, Sigebert's narration contradicts and fights against itself. For if Gregory acknowledged that he had sinned gravely in the pastoral care, and had done at the persuasion of the devil what he had done, how did he in the same place so boldly affirm that he was soon to be clothed in the angelic garment? Surely for so grave a sin he ought to have expected not the angelic garment, but the grave punishments of hell or of purgatory.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IX. An 'potuerint posteriores Principes sine detri¬ mento populi per Ecclesiae auctoritatem Prin¬ cipatu privari : et simul , justane, an inju¬ sta fuerit Gregorii VII sententia in Henri- cum imperatorem. In cap. 9. Barclaius aggreditur demon¬ strare falsam esse illam alteram partem sen¬ tentiae Francisci Romuli, quod videlicet Ec¬ clesia sine detrimento populi potuerit regno velparte regni privare Ghildericum, Leonem, et Henricum : probat autem id esse falsum, quia Henricum IY. Imperatorem Gregorius VII. Papa non sine magno populi detrimento deposuit, cum, Othone Frisingensi auctore, inde nata sint bella, schismata, et alia id ge¬ nus multa. Sed Franciscus Romulus non de uno Henrico loquutus est, sed de Leone quo¬ que et Childerico. Constat autem Leonem Isauricum imperatorem parte imperii mulcta- tum sine ullo populi detrimento : quod idem manifestissime constat de Childerici regis depositione, et Pipini exaltatione, ad quse duo exempla Barclaius nihil habuit quod respon¬ deret ; ideo silentio illa involvens, in solo Henrico demoratus est. Quid si addamus etiam translationem imperii a Graecis ad Francos sine populi detrimento a Leone III Pontifice factam completus erit nume¬ rus ternarius exemplorum quse Franciscus Romulus adferre voluit. Quia tamen Bar- claio placuit de solius Henrici depositione Franciscum Romulum reprehendere, quasi vel historias ignoraverit, vel alia de causa mentiri voluerit. Bespondeo, detrimenta ali¬ qua populum Christianum accepisse ex Hen¬ rici excommunicatione et depositione , sed emolumenta majora detrimentis fuisse, ut non immerito dici possit, sine detrimento populi rem illam esse peractam ; neque enim detrimentum pati dici potest, qui jacturam facit frumenti, quod seminando spargit in sulcos, si tempore messis multiplicatum cum exultatione reportet. Vidit Gregorius pontifex sanctus, et sapiens plenas esse provincias concubinariis, et simoniacis; animadvertit imperatores contra Canones sacros, ac prae- cipue Octavae Synodi generalis, investituras 37 Episcopatum, et Monasteriorum sibi vendi- casse. Adjecit animum ad Ecclesiam repur¬ gandam, et liberandam, et quamvis per mul¬ tas molestias, et pericula, partim perse, par- tim per successores, quod voluit ad felicem exitum perduxit, nam et Sacerdotibus abstu¬ lit concubinas, et beneficia ecclesiastica, ut gratis darentur et acciperentur, effecit, et, quod erat omnium difficillimum, investituras Ecclesiarum Henrico Y. II enrici VI. lilio, Cal- lixto II. Pontifici libere renunciante, recupe¬ ravit. Id quod sine manifestis signis, et pro¬ digiis coelestibus factum non fuisse, testatur Abbas Urspergensis in Chronico. Sed libet jam per partes discutere, quse Barclaius adversus Gregorium VII. ex Otho¬ ne Frisingensi, aliisque auctoribus annotavit. Primum igitur adfert illa verba Othonis Fri- singensis lib. vi. cap. 35. « Lego et relego Romanorum regum et imperatorum gesta, et nusquam invenio quemquam eorum ante hunc (Henricum VI.) a Romano Pontifice ex- communicatum, vel regno privatum ; nisi forte quis pro anathemate habendum ducit, quod Philippus ad breve tempus a Romano Episcopo interpoenitentes collocatus, etTheo- dosius a B. Ambrosio propter cruentam cae¬ dem a liminibus Ecclesiae sequestratus sit. » Respondeo : Fuit quidem Otho Frisingen- sis doctrina, moribus, et nobilitate insignis: sed tamen legendo, et relegendo non inve¬ nit omnia, nam Archadium Imperatorem ab Innocentio I. Pontifice propter ejectionem S. JoannisChrysostomi, excommunicatum fuis¬ se testatur Nicephorus lib. xni. cap. 34. qui et sententiam ipsam excommunicationis ad verbum recitat : ejusdem excommunicatio¬ nis meminit Gregorius VII. in epist. ad Epi¬ scopum Metenscm. Leonem quoque Isauri¬ cum imperatorem a Gregorio II. et rursum a Gregorio III. excommunicatum propter has- resim Iconomachorum,et vectigalibus Italiae privatum testantur historici grseci, etlatini, ut supra demonstravimus. Deinde Barclaius ex eodem Othone com¬ memorat mala, quae ob excommunicationem Henrici IV. imperatoris Ecclesiae acciderunt, bella videlicet, schismata, exilium Papa), caedem Rudolphi imperatoris a Gregorio ele¬ cti, et alia id genus : et iis connumeratis exclamat : « Iloccine est Principem sine de¬ trimento populi coercere? » Respondeo : Quando Evangclium Christi praedicari coepit ab Apostolis in Hierusalem, coorta est persecutio magna in Ecclesiam, 38 DE POTESTATE PAPAS Stephanus lapidatus, Jacobus capite csesus, Petrus conjectus in carcerem, fideles dispersi per varias regiones : quando vero praedicari coepit idem evangelium inter gentes, commo¬ tum est Imperium Romanum universum, per¬ secutiones exortae gravissimae, direpta bona, incensae Ecclesiae, strages Sanctorum toto orbe terrarum incredibiles factae : quaero igitur an E vangel i um cum detrimento , an cum salute populorum praedicatum sit? si carnis oculis res consideretur, videbitur Evangelium non salutem, sed perniciem populis attulisse : sed si mentis oculo fidei lumine repurgato res eadem spectetur, perspicue apparebit idololatriam luisse de mundo pulsam, Eccle¬ siam propagatam, Martyres coronatos, deni- ' que bona omnia per Evangelium ad nos ve¬ nisse. Tale aliquid (ut paulo ante diximus) accidit Ecclesia?, cum Papa Gregorius Hen- ricum imperatorem excommunicatione coer¬ cuit. Pergit Barclaius , et factum Gregorii his verbis reprehendit : « Fieri potest, ut bono id animo fecerit Gregorius (Deus de inten¬ tione judicet), at fieri non potest, ut recte, prudenter, et ex officio fecerit; et quin lar¬ giter erraverit more, et consilio humano, cum id sibi tribueret, quod suum sane non erat, deponendi scilicet, et abdicandi impe¬ ratoris munus, inque ejus locum alterius substituendi potestatem»; et infra : « Culpa igitur Gregorii Papse permagna mihi in hoc negotio videtur. » Respondeo : Satis audacter Barclaius in Christum Domini, et suum, atque omnium Christianorum Judicem sententiam tulit: nec saltem dubitando vel suspicando, vel opinando locutus est; sed praecise, et abso¬ lute quasi de re explorata, et certa pronun- ciavit, fieri non posse, ut Gregorius in hac re juste, prudenterque se gesserit. At ego sententiam Barclaii falsam, et temerariam, ne dicam sacrilegam, et blasphemam his argumentis fuisse demonstro. Primum, constat sententiam Gregorii ab omnibus Episcopis, qui in concilio Romano cum illo sederunt, fuisse probatam. At quis credat, Pontificem ci^m universo concilio tam injustam, et imprudentem sententiam tulisse, ut Barclaius dicit? Deinde, judicium Gregorii VII. confirma¬ runt omnes ejus successores, Victor III, Ur¬ banus II, Paschalis II, Gelasius II, et Callix- tus II, cujus tempore pax facta est inter sa¬ cerdotium et regnum : et tamen omnes isti videruntbella et schismata exorta occasione sententise Papse Gregorii : quod argumentum certissimum est, justam, et prudentem fuisse sententiam, quam Gregorius tulit, cum tot prudentissimi, justissimique Pontifices con- / ciliis episcoporum cooperantibus, et spreta persecutione schismaticorum, defendendam, confirmandamque susceperint. De Victore tertio, qui proxime post Gre- gorium sedit, testis est Leo Ostensis in Chro¬ nico Cassinensi lib. m. cap. 71. ab eo cele¬ bratum fuisse Concilium Beneventanum, at¬ que in eo confirmatam sententiam Gregorii VII, de investituris cum illa clausula : « Si quis imperatorum, regum, ducum, princi- pum, comitum, vel cujusvis potestatis saecu¬ laris Episcopatum, vel quamvis aliam Eccle¬ siasticam dignitatem dare praesumpseris , seqtentise vinculo se adstrictum noverit. » De Urbano secundo, Victoris tertii proxi¬ mo successore, Bertoldus Constantiensis ejus temporis historicus scribit, in Synodo Bene¬ ventana anno Domini 1091. confirmatam ab Uihano sententiam excommunicationis in Guibertum Antipapam, et omnes e us com¬ plices , quorum praecipuus erat Henricus imperator. Ite manno l()9o. eamdem senten¬ tiam confirmatam ab eodem Urbano in sy¬ nodo Placentina, coram innumerabili mul¬ titudine, et anno eodem rursus confirmatam in concilio generali Claramoutano. De Paschali secundo, Urbani secundi pro¬ ximo successore, testatur abbas Urspergensis anno 1102. In concilio Romano generali a Paschali confirmatam fuisse sententiam Gre¬ gorii VII. et excommunicatum Henricum, et omnes illi adh erentes. Addit quoque idem Abbas, se praesentem Roma fuisse, et audi¬ visse feria quinta in Coma Domini ab ore ipsius Pontificis, cum Henricus excommuni¬ cabis denunciaretur. De Gelasio secundo, Paschalis secundi pro¬ ximo successore, testatur idem abbas Urs¬ pergensis anno 1118. ab eo per Cononem Episcopum Card. Praenestinum , Legatum suum in concilio Coloniensi, et altero Frites- latensi, confirmatum decretum Paschalis de excommunicatione imperatoris Henrici. De Callixto secundo, Gelasii proximo suc¬ cessore, testatur abbas Urspergensis, in Chro¬ nico, nec non Sugerius abbas in vita Ludo- vici regis Francorum, necnon Rogerius in annalibus Anglicanis, a Callixto in concilio Remensi Patrum quadringentorum iterum confirmata decreta synodalia praedecessorum IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 39 Gregorii videlicet, Victoris, Urbani, Pascha¬ lis et Gelasii. Tertio, judicium Gregorii septimi appro¬ batum fuit ab omnibus bonis, qui tunc vive¬ bant , quique longe melius scire poterant justitiam, vel injustitiam illius causae, quam Barclaius, qui plus quingentis annis poste¬ rior est. Marianus Scotus; qui tempore Gre¬ gorii vixit, in Chronico anni 1075: « Grego- rius, » inquit, « querimoniis et clamoribus Catholicorum justis, adversus Henricum, et scelerum ejus immanitatem auditis, zelo Dei accensus jam dictum regem excommunica- tum pronuntiavit , maxime propter simo- niam : quod factum Catholicis viris benepla¬ cuit; simoniacis vero, et fautoribus regis nimirum displicuit, » Haec illae, qui non de uno, aut altero loquitur, sed in commune de multitudine Catholicorum factum Pontificis approbante. Lambertus Schaphnaburgensis,qui eodem tempore vixit, in historia rerum Germanica¬ rum :« Hildebrandi, » inquit, « constantia, et invictus adversus avaritiam animus omnia excludebat argumenta humanae fallaciae; » et infra : « Signa, et prodigia, quae per ora¬ tiones Gregorii Papae frequentius fiebant, et zelus ejus ferventissimus pro Deo, et Eccle¬ siasticis legibus, eum contra venenatas detra¬ ctorum linguas communiebant. » Haec ille, qui non solum detractores sui temporis, sed etiam Barclaium detractorem confundit : neque enim Gregorius tam carus Deo fuis¬ set, neque per eum tot miracula Deus-patras- set, si sententiam tulisset tam injustam, et tam imprudentem, et tot malorum causa extitisset,ut Barclaius dicit. Idem Lambertus refert ibidem horribilem mortem Gulielmi Episcopi Trajectensis, qui Grcgorio detrahe¬ bat, ut Barclaius postea detraxit : « Repente» , inquit, « gravissima aegritudine correptus, miserabili ejulatu coram omnibus vocifera¬ batur, justo Dei judicio se et praesentem vo¬ tam amisisse, et aeternam : quod regi ad omnia quae perperam intendisset, operam suam summo annisu praebuisset, atque in spem gratiae ejus Romano Pontifici sanctissi¬ mo, et Apo^tolicarum virtutum viro graves contumelias sciens, et prudens innocenti ir- rogasset. » S. Anselmus Cantuariensis, qui eodem tempore vixit, initio libri de fermen¬ tato et azymo ad Waleramum : « Scienti, » inquit, « breviter loquor. Si certus essem prudentihm vestram non favere successori Julii Caesaris, et Neronis, et Juliani, contra successorem , et Vicarium Petri Apostoli , libentissime vos ut amicissimum, et reve¬ rendum Episcopum salutarem. » Haec ille, qui Henricum imperatorem comparat cum Julio Caesare oppressore reip.,cum Nerone persecutore Ecclesiae, et cum Juliano Apo¬ stata, et persecutore, et Waleramum Epi¬ scopum, quem favere existimabat Henrico contra Gregorium, ne salutare quidem au¬ debat : quod certe non faceret, si Gregorii sententiam adversus Imperatorem injustam esse crederet. Idem Anselmus, in epist. 8. ad Gulielmum, sententiam Gregorii defen¬ dit, et aperte justam esse pronuntiat. Sanctus Anselmus episcopus Lucensis ejusdem tem¬ poris auctor vir Sanctissimus, et miraculis clarus scripsit Epistolamad Guibertum Anti- papam, quem Henricus imperator Gregorio Papre opposuerat; in qua Epistola Grego¬ rium miritice laudat. Scripsit quoque Apo¬ logeticum pro Gregorio adversus eumdem Guibertum, ubi inter esetera refellit argu¬ mentum, quo utitur hoc tempore Barclaius, et quo tunc utebantur Antipapa , et ejus complices; quod videlicet fuent Gregorius causa turbarum, et sanguinis effusi, preeser- tim in Saxonia, quem sanguinem clamare dicebat adversus Gregorium, et ejus secta¬ tores, quorum unum erat hic sanctus Ansel¬ mus : sic autem loquitur, lib. i. Apologetici : « Non adversus nos clamat sanguis Saxo- num, sed contra vos cum universo mundo, qui sceleris vestri tabe inhorruit, clamat cce- lum, clamat terra, clamat omnis Ecclesia justorum, et quae adhuc peregrinatur, et quae jam cum Christo regnat; clamat Chri¬ stus, clamat Pater pro sponsa filii sui, clamat Spiritus sanctus, qui quotidie postulat pro ea gemitibus inenarrabilibus, etc. » Ubi re¬ ctissime dicit, turbas illas, et bella non esse tribuenda Gregorio, qui pro officio suo pa¬ storali arcere conatus est lupos a grege ; sed inobedientiae, et obstinationi eorum, qui in Pastorem, et gregem ipsum tanto ferocius saevierunt, quanto humilius Deo ejusque Vi¬ cario obedire salubriter admonentibus, et consulentibus debuerunt. Nam quam horrenda, et non toleranda fuerint Henrici scelera ex sequenti testimo¬ nio intelligitur, sanctus Gebehardus archi- cpiscopus Salsburgensis,quiobiittribus annis post mortem Gregorii VII. id est, anno 1088, disputans cum Wecilone archiepiscopo Ma- guntino, aperte pronuntiavit, imperatorem non injusto judicio tam regno, quam com- 40 DE POTESTATE PAPjE munione, Apostolica sententia, privatum : cujus sententia ita probata est a concilio quodam , ut contraria sententia Wecilonis liseresis sit appellata; vide abbatem Ursper- gensem in Cbronico anni 1085. Stephauus Halberstatensis ejusdem temporis auctor in Epistola ad Waleramum, quam refert Dode- chinus continuator Mariani Scoti ad annum Domini 1090 : « Dominus, » inquit, « Henri- cus, quem regem dicunt, episcopatus, et abbatias vendit : etenim Constantiensem, Bambergensem, Maguntinensem, et plures alios pro pecunia : Ratisponensem, Augu- stensem, Stratsburgensem, pro gladio ; ab~ batiam Fuldensem pro adulterio ; Monaste- riensem Episcopatum (quod dicere, et audire nelas est) pro sodomitica immunditia ven¬ didit; » et infra : « Pro quibus nefandis ma¬ lis ab Apostolica Sede excommunicatus, nec regnum, nec potestatem aliquam super nos, quia Catholici sumus, poterit obtinere. »Leo Ostiensis Episcopus, ejusdem temporis au¬ ctor, in Chronico Cassinensi multa scribit de Gregorii YI. justitia, sapientia, zelo aliisque virtutibus. Sed lib. m. cap. 53. refert etiam coelestem visionem, qua Deus ipse testatus est placere sibi facta Gregorii, quse nunc Barclaiuscum veteribus schismaticis vitupe¬ rare ausus est. Yidit igitur, quidam candi¬ dissimam columbam super Gregorium sa¬ crum missae mysterium celebrantem : quod visum cum is, qui vidit patefacere cunctare¬ tur, his verbis aperire divinitus jussus est : « Yade celeriter, et hoc ipsum auribus Pap® intimato, ut constanter vigore sancti Spiritus, quod coepit exequatur. » Bertholus ejusdem temporis auctor, presbyter Constantiensis in Chronico suo plurima scribit pro justitia causse Gregorii VII; sed inter csetera de Im- bricone Episcopo Augustano haec refert : « Imbrico Augustensis Episcopus, qui in praeterito pascha Rudolpho regi fidelitatem juravit, nil e perjurio curans, Henrico adve¬ nienti adhaesit, et apud illum quadam die missam faciens, hanc sibi conditionem miser imposuit, ut sacra oblationis perceptio in judicium ei proveniret, si Dominus ejusHen- ricus regnum sibi injuste usurparet. Post hanc temerariam perceptionem, parvo quod supervixit tempore usque ad mortem num- quam se sanum de lecto levavit : nam circa kal. Julii absque Ecclesiastica communione defunctus est. » Isti sunt auctores septem, qui ipso tempore Gregorii vixerunt, quibus addam quatuor alios, qui non diu postea flo¬ ruerunt. Gulielmus Episcopus Tyrensis in lib. i. de bello sacro cap. 13. de Henrici im¬ peratoris perversis moribus loquens : «Quod,» inquit, « Dominus Papa contra omnem fieri honestatem considerans, et jura in eo facto conculcari Ecclesiastica perpendens, semel, secundo, ac tertio eumdem Imperatorem commonuit, ut a tam detestabili desisteret praesumptione: quem praeceptis salutaribus commonitum, cum revocare non posset, vin¬ culo anathematis innodavit. » Otho Frisin- gensis, ut supra notavimus, Gregorium VII. virum sanctissimum fuisse confessus est, lib. vi. cap. 34. et 36. et lib. vii. cap. i. neque fieri potest ut vir tam sanctus injustam sen¬ tentiam publice ferret, neque eam unquam retractaret, sicut revera non retractavit, ut perspicuum est ex verbis illis, quae eodem Othone teste lib. vi. cap. 36. moriens Gre- gorius pronunciavit : « Dilexi justitiam et odi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.» Do- dechinus Mariani Scoti continuator in chro¬ nico anni 1106: « Henricum, » inquit, « ho¬ minem perversum, et justo judicio ab Eccle¬ sia electum constare manifeste. Vendidit enim omnia spiritualia»; et ad annum 1090 et 1093. tam multa, et tam horribilia scelera Henrici refert, ut mirum sit, si ullus audeat eum injuste damnatum affirmare, quod ta¬ men Barclaius audacter affirmat. Abbas Urspergensis in Chronico anni 1106. narrat, obitum Henrici repentinum, et tam misera¬ bilem ipsi, quam laetum omnibus aliis : « Mi¬ serabile, » inquit, « dictu est, tanti nominis, tantae dignitatis, tantique animi virum, sub professione Christiana mundum tantopere lucratum, nec ad instar cujuslibet pauperis defuncti, pium, vel compassivum luctum, a quavis inter tot Christianos persona prome¬ ruisse, sed potius universorum tam ibidem, quam ubivis vere Christianorum corda simul et ora infinito nimis tripudio, sui oblitos, rumore replesse. Non altius concinebat Israel Domino, Pharaone demerso, nec Augustiori ipsi Octaviano, sive ullo Augustorum applau¬ debat Roma triumpho. Frsenum enim quod erat in maxillis populorum, versum est illis in canticum, sicut vox sanctificat® solemni- tatis. » II®c ille, qui certe sufficere deberet, ut os Barclaii iniqua loquentis opprimeret. Quo modo enim Henricus injusta Gregorii sententia oppressus est, et nullus in toto or¬ be Christiano inventus est, qui mortem ejus defleret, imo qui non vehementissime gau¬ deret, ut olim Israel Pharaone demerso, vel IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 41 Romanus populus principe triumphante ? nullus in toto orbe repertus est, qui justitiam Henrici perpexerit ? nullus qui Gregorii in¬ justitiam viderit? Sed audiamus quid paulo infra idem scriptor dicat : « Hic, » inquit, « finis, hic interitus, haec sors ultima Hen¬ rici sub vocabulo quarti Romanorum impe¬ ratoris a suis appellati; a Catholicis vero, id est, cunctis B. Petro, suisque successoribus fidem, et obedientiam lege Christiana con¬ servantibus, archipirata simul, et haeresiarca, necnon et apostata, persecutorque plus ani¬ marum, quam corporum competenter dice¬ batur, utpote qui nec naturalibus, nec con¬ suetudinariis contentus sceleribus, nova, et a saeculis inaudita, ideoque nonnulla incre¬ dibilia excogitasse , et exercuisse infamaba¬ tur. » Ac de his satis : nam si vellem auctores posteriores adducere pro justitia, et sanctita¬ te Gregorii, nullus esset finis. Videat lector, quae scripsimus lib. iv. de Pontifice cap. 13. Pergit Baclaius, et probare nititur, non debuisse a Gregorio Henricum excommuni¬ cari, cum in societatem sceleris Henrici tan. tus hominum numerus coierit : adducit au¬ tem ad hoc probandum sententiam S. Augu¬ stini ex lib. m. cont. epist. Parmeniani cap. 2. quae relata est in decretum Gratiani 23. qu. 4. canon. Non potest. Verba S. Augusti¬ ni haec sunt : «Non potest esse salubris a multis correptio, nisi cum ille corripitur, qui non habet sociam multitudinem : cum vero idem morbus plurimos occupaverit, ni¬ hil aliud bonis restat, quam dolor, et gemi¬ tus, ut per illud signum quod Ezechieli san¬ cto revelatur illaesi evadere ab eorum vasta¬ tione mereantur. Ne cum voluerint colligere zizania, eradicent simul et triticum : nec per diligentiam segetem Domini purgent, sed per temeritatem, ipsi potius inter purgamenta numerentur. Ideoque idem Apostolus cum jam multos comperisset et immundos luxu¬ ria, et fornicationibus inquinatos, ad eosdem Corinthios in secunda epistola scribens, non itidem praecepit, ut cum talibus nec cibum sumerent : multi enim erant, nec dici de eis poterat, si quis frater nominatur forni¬ cator, aut idolis serviens, aut avarus, aut aliquid tale, cum ejusmodi nec cibum qui¬ dem sumere : sed ait, ne iterum cum ve¬ nero ad vos humiliet me Deus, et lugeam multos ex iis, qui ante peccaverunt, et non egerunt poenitentiam super immunditia, et luxuria, et fornicatione, quam gesserunt : per luctum suum potius eos divino flagello coercendos minans, quam per illam corre¬ ptionem, ut cseteri ab eorum conjunctione abstineant » ; et paulo post : « Revera si contagio peccandi multitudinem invaserit, divinai diciplinse severa misericordia neces¬ saria est : nam consilia separationis (hoc est communicationis) et inania sunt, et pernicio¬ sa, atque sacrilega, quia et impia, et super¬ ba fiunt, et plus perturbant infirmos bonos, quam corrigant animosos malos. » « Hsec cum ita sint», inquit Barclaius, « nemo, ut arbitror, ex collatione doctrinse S. Augustini, quae et Ecclesiae est, cum ge¬ stis a Gregorio in Henricum, non perspicue cernet, Papam magnopere errasse, etc. » Respondeo : Barclaii temeritas undecum¬ que se prodit, cum ob unum S. Augustini locum non bene intellectum, synodalem sententiam Pontificis Maximi, a multis aliis Pontificibus, et conciliis confirmatam ita damnare audeat, ut dicat, Papam magno¬ pere errasse. Sed ostendamus non Papam in judicando, sed Barclaium in intelligendo vehementer errasse. Primum, sanctus Augustinus loquitur de correptione, sive excommunicatione illius, qui multos habet socios in eodem crimine ; ut perspicuum est ex illis verbis : « Cum vero idem morbus plurimos occupaverit, etc et exiliis : « Ideo Apostolus cum jam multos comperisset, et immundos luxuria, et fornicationibus inquinatos, etc. » At Gre- gorius unum Henricum excommunicavit propter crimina illi uni propria, quod vide¬ licet venderet Episcopatus, et Abbatias, et admonitus resipiscere nollet non ergo facit ad rem locus ex Augustino, vel ex Gratiano citatus. Deinde loquitur S. Augustinus adversus Parmenianum, aliosque Donatistas, qui se¬ paraverant se ab Ecclesia universa, et se solos esse dicebant Ecclesiam non habentem maculam, neque rugam. Ideoque docet S. Augustinus propter multitudinem peccato¬ rum non esse faciendam separationem, cum semper futuri sint mali cum bonis usque ad mundi consummationem. Tunc enim (ut di¬ citur Matth. xm.) Exibunt Angeli , et separa¬ bunt malos de medio justorum (1) : atque hsec est causa, cur S. Augustinus dixerit, con¬ silia ejusmodi separationis non solum esse (I) Matth. XIII, 49. DE POTESTATE PAP^E 42 i inania, et periculosa, sed etiam sacrilega, et superba; quoniam qui ita separantur, assu¬ munt sibi officium Dei, qui solus potest se¬ parare omnes bonos ab omnibus malis, quod fiet in novissimo die : atque interim oportet pisces bonos esse in eodem rete cum pisci¬ bus malis, et triticum cum paleis in eadem area, et zizania cum frumento in eodem a- gro. Porro Gregnrius nihil tale sibi desum¬ psit, sed solum Ecclesiastica censura coer¬ cere voluit hominem, qui publice multorum, et intolerabilium criminum reus erat. Tertio, quod Dominus ait Matth. xm. Si¬ nite utraque crescere usque ad rnessem (1) ; non sic intelligitur , quasi prohibitum sit, pur¬ gare zizaniis, excommunicando incorrigibi- les, necando maleficos, comburendo haere¬ ticos, persequendo latrones, aliasque Eccle¬ siae, vel reipub. pestes : alioqui graviter peccasset David. qui in Psal. c. dicit : Inter¬ ficiebam. omnes peccatores terree : peccarent principes omnes, qui quotidie suspendunt fures, ct latrones, ac viarum grassatores, et quo plures esse ccgnoverint, eo majori dili¬ gentia, gravioribusque suppliciis delere, at¬ que extirpare conantur : peccasset Inno¬ centius Ili Pontifex cum Lateranensi con¬ cilio excommunicans omnes haereticos, quamvis plurimos esse non ignoraret : pee- cassent principes Catholici, qui haereticos Al- bigenses, pena innumerabiles armis domue¬ runt, et usque ad internecionem deleverunt. Igitur cum Dominus ait: S inite utraquecre- scere usque ad mcssem, potest fieri, ut Do¬ minus noster non tam imperando quam praedicendo quod futurum erat, loquutussit. Significavit enim semper fore malos cum bonis, neque ulla diligentia effecturos ho¬ mines, ut omnes mali ab omnibus bonis se¬ parentur, qualis est etiam illa loquutio, Isaiae vi : Audite audientes , et nolite intelligere ; vi¬ dete visionem , et nolite cognosce? e: excseca cor populi hujus , et aures ejus aggrava; quod explicat Dominus Matth. xm. Auditu audie¬ tis , et non intelligetis , et videntes videbitis , et non videbitis : incrassatum enim est cor populi hujus , etc. Et Apostolus Act. xxvm. citans eumdem locum Isaiae : Aure, inquit, audie¬ tis , et non intelligetis , et videntes valebitis , et non percipietis : incrassatum enim est cor popu¬ li hujus , etc. Itaque verba Isaiae : Audite et nolite intelligere , hoc significant, audietis, et non intelligetis : et illud, excxca cor populi hujus , significat, excaecabitur cor populi hujus, sive, ut explicat S. Joan. cap. xii. Excaecatuni est cor populi hujus (2) . Hoc modo S. Augustinus in Psalmorum explicatione omnes imprecationes malas, quae expri¬ muntur per modum imperandi, ut : Effunde iram tuam in gentes , et alias similes, docet esse praedictiones, non imprecationes. Tales etiam locutiones inveniuntur in Evangeliis, ut Joan. ii. Solvite templum hoc , id est, sol¬ vetis, vel permittam ut solvatis. Matth. xxm, Implete mensuram patrum vestrorum , id est, implebitis, vel, sinam ut impleatis. Joan. xm. Quod facis , fac citius (3) id est, quod mente agitas ut me tradas, citius implebis quam putas, idque me permittente. Sic igitur, Si¬ nite utraque crescere usque ad rnessem , hoc videtur signilicare, Sinetis, sive permittetis, velitis nolitis, utraque crescere usque ad mes- sem : nam omni vestra diligentia numquam perficietis ut mali permulti cum bonis per¬ mixti non sint usque ad diem judicii : tunc enim mittam Angelos meos, qui separabunt malos de medio justorum. Quarto dico, approbare me sententiam eorum, qui dicunt prohiberi in hac parabola, separationem malorum, sive h emeticorum, sive afiorum iniquorum, non absolute ; sed quando periculum est, ne cum zizaniis era¬ dicetur triticum, id est, ne cum impiis invol¬ vantur pii ; ahuquin licitum esse, zizania evellere, quando non est periculum, ut era¬ dicetur triticum, et contra periculum est, ne ex commixtione zizaniorum triticum corrum¬ patur. Sed hoc judicium non pertinet ad quoscumque; sed ad Patrem familias, sive ad illum, quem Christus constituit super fami¬ liam suam. Quare ad Barclaium non perth nebat judicare, an Gregorius VII. recte fe¬ cisset, cum excommunicando Ilenricum, partem zizaniorum evellendam curavit; sed ad Pontificem maximum pertineret, si Bar- claius adhuc esset in vivis, ejus temeritatem castigare. Addit ultimo loco Barclaius argumenta ex historia Sigeberti, ut probet, Gregorium Pa¬ pam valde errasse in iis, quse egit adversus Ilenricum imperatorem. Hildebrandus Papa (inquit Sigebertus in Chronico anni 1085.) qui et Gregorius AGI. apud Salernum exulans moritur ; de hoc ita scriptum reperi : « Vo- (1) Matth. XXIII, 30. — (2) Isaiae VI, 9 ; Matth. XIII, 15; Joan. XII, 40. — (5) Joan. II, 19; Matth. XXIII, 32 ; Joan. XIII, 27. » IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 43 lumus vos scire, qui Ecclesiasticse curee sol¬ liciti estis, quod Dominus Apostolicus Hilde- brandus, qui et Gregorius, nunc in extremis positus ad se vocavit unum de duodecim Cardinalibus, quem multum diligebat prse caeteris, et confessus est Deo, et S. Petro, et toti Ecclesiae, se valde peccasse in Pastorali cura, quae ei ad regendum commissa erat, et suadente Diabolo contra humanum genus iram, et odium concitasse. Tunc demum mi¬ sit praedictum confessorem ad imperatorem, et ad totam Ecclesiam, ut optaret illi indul¬ gentiam, quia finem vitae suae aspiciebat, et tam cito induebat se angelica veste : et dimisit, ac dissolvit vincula omnium banno- rum suorum imperatori, et omni populo Christiano, vivis, et defunctis, clericis, et lai- cis, et jussit suos abire de domo Deodorici, et amicos imperatoris ascendere. » Respondeo : Sigebertus, teste Trithemio in Catalogo Scriptorum, unus fuit ex sectato¬ ribus Henrici imperatoris, propterea nullam fidem meretur, et sine dubio falsum est, quod hoc loco scribit, cum certum auctorem non habeat, aut indicare non audeat. Nos autem habemus auctorem certum fideque dignissimum qui scribit, Gregorium paulo ante mortem dixisse : « Dilexi justitiam, et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exi¬ lio ; » quae sunt omnino contraria iis, quae scribit Sigebertus ; nam in hisjusf.e se egisse, in illis graviter se peccasse dicit : Rabentur autem verba supradicta apud Othonem Fri- sengensem lib. vi. c. 36. Bet toldus in Chro¬ nico ad annum 1085. et Leo Ostiensis in Chronico Cassirrensi, lib. m. c. 64. descri¬ bunt mortem Gregorii, ac docent eum in ea¬ dem constantia permansisse usque ad ulti¬ mum spiritum; et miraculis magnis, vivum, et mortuum claruisse. Piseterea confirmatio sententiae Gregorii in Henricum, quam su¬ pra demonstravimus factam a quinque suc¬ cessoribus ejus Victore III., Urbano II. , Pa¬ schali II., Gelasio II. et Callixto II., apertissi¬ me* docet, fabulam esse, quam Sigebertus scripsit de poenitentia ejusdem Gregorii. De¬ nique ipsa sibi narratio Sigeberti contradicit, ac repugnat. Nam si Gregorius graviter pec¬ casse se agnoscebat in pastorali cura, et sua¬ dente Diabolo se fecisse, quse fecerat : quo¬ modo tam audacter ibidem affirmabat, se mox veste angelica induendum? certe ob peccatum tam grave non vestem Angelicam; sed gehennse, aut purgatorii graves poenas expectare debuisset.