Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 10: The Opinion of Otto of Freising on the Judgment of Pope Gregory VII Is Discussed
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 tenth chapter Barclay does what has been done already. For he returns to proving, by the authority of Otto of Freising, that it was not lawful for Pope Gregory to deprive the emperor Henry of communion or of the kingdom. And first he repeats what he had cited above from Otto, 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 excommunicated by the Roman Pontiff or deprived of his kingdom.” Then he adds from book 1 on the deeds of the emperor Frederick, chapter 1, “that it seemed a new thing to Otto of Freising that the emperor Henry was struck by the Roman Pontiff with the sword of anathema.” But to these we answered in the preceding chapter, and clearly showed that these things were not new.
He adds that it can be understood that Gregory's sentence was unjust from this, that Otto of Freising in the same place, that is, book 6, chapter 17, writes that from Gregory's decree “among other evils this followed, that Pope was set over Pope, and king over king.” “By which words,” says Barclay, “Otto shows that both were done by equal right, or rather by equal wrong, so that as Pope was unjustly set over Pope by the emperor, so also king was unjustly set over king by the Pope.” I answer: Otto writes indeed that on the occasion of Gregory's decree it came about that Pope was set over Pope and king over king; but that both were done by equal right, or by equal injustice, Otto does not say, nor could he say. For the lawful authority of the Head of the Church set king over king; the disobedience of a schismatic king set Pope over Pope. For that the emperor could by right depose a Pope and set another over him, I do not know whether Barclay could find even one Catholic man who has said or written it; but that the Pope can for just causes excommunicate and depose an emperor, very many Catholic authors have written, and many general councils have judged the same, whose testimonies we related in the prolegomena of this book, and touched on some in the preceding chapter. So Otto enumerates the evils which were born of Henry's excommunication and of his disobedience, but does not determine whether they were just or unjust; for some things can be evils and just, such as the evils of punishment, and such was the deposition of Henry; and others can be evils and unjust, such as the evils of fault, and such was the creation of the antipope Guibert, procured or done by the emperor.
Barclay goes on, and weighs those words of the same Otto of Freising from the same book 6, chapter 36: “Because therefore the kingdom, cut off from the Church in its prince, was grievously struck, the Church also, bereaved of so great a shepherd, who among all priests and Roman Pontiffs was of singular zeal and authority, had no small grief.” “What else does this mean,” says Barclay, “than that on account of the empire violated in the prince, the Church was violated in the Pontiff; or on account of the kingdom struck in the person of the prince, the Church was struck in the person of the Pontiff; between which, since he makes no distinction of right or wrong, and both could not be done justly, it follows that he thinks both were done unjustly.” I answer: Barclay did not understand Otto's words; for Otto does not speak of the deposition of Gregory from the pontificate as he speaks of the deposition of Henry from the empire. But he says that the empire was struck in the person of the prince, because the prince was excommunicated and deposed; and that the Church was struck in the person of the Pontiff, because, taken from men by death, he left great grief to the Church. Wherefore Barclay does not gather well that injustice came in both in the striking of the empire in the person of the prince and in the striking of the Church in the person of the Pontiff. For Henry was indeed deposed from the empire by the sentence of the Church, in which sentence justice and injustice could have place, and it is sufficiently established that that sentence was most just; but Gregory died of a natural sickness, where, if injustice has place, God will have to be called unjust, which is a huge blasphemy; for Gregory was not killed by Henry, as Henry was deposed by Gregory; but, as we said, he died of a natural sickness, piously and religiously; and natural death after original sin is from God; for he himself passed that sentence, and indeed a most just one: Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return, Genesis 3; and of God it is said: The Lord killeth and maketh alive, 1 Kings 2; and Wisdom 16: Thou art he, O Lord, that hast power of life and death; and Ecclesiasticus 11: Life and death are from God. Nor can it be said that Pope Gregory, by Otto's opinion, was killed by God in punishment of a sin committed in the deposition of the emperor; for the same Otto himself confesses that Gregory was a man of singular zeal; but even if Gregory had been killed by God in punishment of sin, still his death could not be called unjust, unless injustice were attributed to God.
Barclay goes on, and from book 1 on the deeds of Frederick, chapter 6, of Otto of Freising, strives to prove that the deposition of the emperor made by Gregory was unjust, because Otto calls the defection of Rudolf, duke of Swabia, from the emperor a rebellion; but it is called rebellion when an inferior falls away from a superior; but the emperor would not have been superior if he had been deposed by right; therefore by Otto's opinion he was not deposed by right. He proves the same from book 7 of the history, chapter 8, where Otto of Freising calls Henry IV emperor even after the deposition. I answer: he is said to rebel not only who falls away from a lawful prince, but also who falls away from a prince reigning in fact, though not by right; as also he is called king not only who reigns by right, but also who reigns in fact; for writers do not observe that propriety of words, so as to call no one king except him who reigns lawfully, nor say that anyone rebels except him who falls away from a lawful prince. In 4 Kings, chapter 18, it is set among the praises of Hezekiah, the best of kings, that he rebelled against the king of the Assyrians, where rebellion means defection from a king not lawful. In the same 4 Kings, chapter 9, Jehu, made king by God's command while King Joram was still living, is said to have conspired against his lord, and to have killed him with all his offspring; where conspiracy, which is something more than simple rebellion, is taken in a good sense; for he conspired against a king cast off and condemned by God. Wherefore the Lord said to Jehu, 4 Kings 10: Because thou hast diligently executed that which was right and pleasing in my eyes, and hast done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in my heart, thy children shall sit upon the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. We have it, then, that it is no wonder if Otto of Freising calls defection from a king already cast off a rebellion, since we have the very same manner of speaking in the divine letters. We can say the same of the name of king; for in 2 Kings, chapter 15, when Absalom, son of David, having driven out his father, had begun to reign in Jerusalem, and was not a lawful king but in truth a tyrant, yet David himself called him king when he said to Ittai the Gittite: Why comest thou with us? return, and dwell with the king. So also in 3 Kings, chapter 16, Zimri, having killed the lawful king, most unjustly usurped the kingdom for himself; and yet the Scripture says: Zimri rushing in struck him and slew him (King Elah), and reigned in his stead; and when he was king and sat upon his throne, he slew all the house of Baasha, and so on. And lest it seem a great thing to Barclay that Otto of Freising calls Henry emperor even after his excommunication and deposition, let him know that the same name is found in the Abbot of Ursperg and other writers, indeed even in Leo of Ostia himself, who was most devoted to Gregory VII. For in book 3 of the Chronicle of Monte Cassino, chapter 49, Henry is called emperor more than ten times by Leo of Ostia, and, Leo relating it, very often the abbot Desiderius, who succeeded Gregory in the pontificate, calls the same Henry emperor after his deposition, for no other reason than that in fact, though not by right, he ruled.
Barclay goes on and says: “There is also another passage of the same author, book 1 on the deeds of Frederick, chapter 8, in which he declares this very thing more plainly, namely that the Pope by that excommunication and deposition took away from Henry nothing of the right of the kingdom. For after he has told that Berthold, the son-in-law of Rudolf (whom, as has been said, the Pope had made king), his father-in-law being dead, usurped the duchy of Swabia as granted to him by his father-in-law; and on the other side that Henry, deposed by the Pope's judgment, granted the same duchy to a certain noble of Swabia named Frederick, who forced Berthold to terms of peace and to the surrender of the duchy, he adds: this Berthold, although in this business he yielded at once to the empire and to justice, is nevertheless reported to have been most vigorous and most brave. See how without any roundabout he affirms that empire and justice stood with Henry, against whom the Pontiff had long before passed the sentence of deposition.” I answer: Barclay brings forward in this place a suspect witness; for from this Frederick descended the emperor Frederick I, whose paternal uncle was Otto of Freising; and not only the paternal uncle of the emperor Frederick, but also the grandson of Henry IV. So Otto, lest he should injure his maternal grandfather, the emperor Henry IV, and the son of his half brother, the emperor Frederick I, wrote that Berthold yielded to the empire and to justice in the business of the duchy of Swabia. Which was also the reason why the same Otto chose the middle way in his history. For he praises Gregory VII exceedingly, book 6, chapter 34; for he could not with a safe conscience censure a man of most well known holiness; but Henry he does not make, as the other historians do, guilty of very many most shameful crimes, but most modestly notes his excess and his wanton life, book 7, chapter 11. But what he says in this place, that Berthold yielded to the empire and to justice, does not force us to think that Otto held that Henry was unjustly deposed by Gregory; for, as the same Otto tells, after a long dispute Frederick, helped by the emperor, forced Berthold to terms of peace, which were that Berthold should keep Zurich, the noblest town of Swabia, and yield the rest of Swabia to Frederick. Berthold yielded, then, to the empire as to the stronger, to which he could not be equal; he yielded also to justice, because in a doubtful matter he judged it just, keeping the name of duke and the noblest town, to yield the rest to the stronger. For if Berthold had thought that Swabia had been unjustly possessed by him, he ought to have given up the whole, and to have kept for himself neither the chief part nor the name of duke; which, on the same Otto's witness, he kept and handed on to his descendants. But if Barclay would have it that Otto held that Henry was unjustly condemned by Gregory, he will be at odds with the same Otto, who in book 6 of the history, chapter 34, says that Gregory was a brave athlete in all things, and did not fear to set himself as a wall for the house of the Lord; and in chapter 36 says that it was fitting that the emperor be struck with the sword of anathema; and in the same place relates that Gregory said at his death: I have loved justice and hated iniquity; and that the Church at the death of so great a shepherd, who among all Roman Pontiffs was of singular zeal and authority, had no small grief; and in book 7, chapter 1, he says: Gregory the Supreme Pontiff, of blessed memory, having died at Salerno, and so on. For these things in no way hang together with the opinion of a most grave injustice, such as the deposition of the emperor would have been if Gregory could not justly have deposed him; for this injustice alone would without doubt have spoiled all the praises of Gregory.
Lastly Barclay, since he had nothing else to bring from Otto, and yet could not rest, repeats what he had said above, that kings by Otto's opinion have no one above them except God whom they may fear. He repeats also what he had most wordily lamented above, that many evils on the occasion of the excommunication of the emperor Henry rushed upon the world, and especially upon the Church. To all of which we have already answered before, and it does not please me to repeat the same in vain. At the end of the chapter he produces the words of Gregory VII by which, when he deposed Henry, he prayed the Apostles Peter and Paul to confirm his sentence, pronounced by their authority, that all might understand that the son of iniquity fell from the empire not by chance, but by their work. This prayer Barclay says was not heard by the Apostles, “since nothing but ill luck befell the Pontiff, and the authors and favourers of the pontifical party, while meanwhile Henry triumphed and held the empire.” I answer: that Gregory's prayer was wholly heard, the greatest miseries witness which by God's hand crushed Henry. For first, abandoned by a great part of Germany, thrown at the Pontiff's feet, he was compelled to implore mercy with the most abject prayers. Then he fought long with two rivals, Rudolf and Hermann, with doubtful fortune of war. Afterwards, committed to prison by his own son, he was forced to resign the crown, the sceptre and the other insignia of the emperors. Slipping away from there he betook himself to Liège, whence he witnessed to his incredible misery in his own letters, which exist in the Abbot of Ursperg. Lastly, carried off by a sudden death, he found no one to weep for his death, while on the contrary the whole world exulted with the greatest joy at his unhappy end, as we related above from the Abbot of Ursperg. This, namely, is the triumph of Henry which Barclay pretends. Further, that the pontifical party always advanced for the better, the Lord cooperating with signs and prodigies, and at last wholly prevailed, is established from what all the historians tell of Callistus II and Henry V, and especially the Abbot of Ursperg in the Chronicle of the year 1120 and following.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X. Discutitur sententia Othonis Frisingensis de judicio Gregorii septimi Pontificis. In decimo capite actum agit Barclaius. Re¬ dit enim ad probandum auctoritate Othonis Frisingensis, non licuisse Gregorio Pontific1 imperatorem Henricum communione , vel regno privare. Ac primum repetit, quse su¬ pra citaverat ex Othone, lib. iv. cap. 35. « Lego, et relego Romanorum regum, et imperatorum gesta , et nusquam invenio quemquam eorum ante hunc a Romano Pon¬ tice excommunicatum, vel regno privatum.» Deinde addit ex lib. i. de gestis Friderici imperatoris, cap. 1. « novum esse visum Othoni Frisingensi, quod Hernicus impera¬ tor a Pontifice Romano, anathematis gladio percussus fuerit. » Sed ad haec respondimus capite superiore : atque ista non esse nova luculenter ostendimus. Addit, ex eo posse intelligi sententiam Gregorii fuisse injustam, quod Otho Frisin¬ gensis eodem loco, id est, lib. vi. cap. 17. scribit ex decreto Gregorii « inter alia mala illud consecutum esse, ut Papa super Papam, et rex super regem poneretur. » « Quibus verbis, » inquit Barclaius, « ostendit Otho, utrumq: e pari jure, seu potius pari injuria factum esse, ut sicut injuste Papa super Pa¬ pam ab imperatore, ita etiam injuste re;c super regem a Papa positus sit. » Respondeo : scribit quidem Otho , occa¬ sione decreti Gregorii factum esse, ut Papa super Papam, et rex super regem ponere¬ tur; sed utrumque pari jure, vel injustitia pari, factum esse Otho non dicit, neque di¬ cere potuit. Nam regem super regem posuit auctoritas legitima Capitis Ecclesiee ; Papam super Papam posuit inobedientia schismatici regis : quod enim jure possit imperator Pa¬ pam deponere, et alium superponere, nescio an si vel unum Barclaius inveniret virum Catholicum, qui dixerit, aut scripserit : quod autem possit Papa imperatorem excommu¬ nicare, et deponere justis de causis, scripse¬ runt auctores Catholici plurimi, et idipsum censuerunt concilia multa generalia, quorum testimonia retulimus in prolegomenis hujus libri, et nonnulla attigimus capite superiore. Itaque Otho enumerat mala, quas nata sunt 44 DE POTESTATE PAPiE ex Henrici excommunicatione, et ejusdem inobedientia;* sed non determinat, an ea ju¬ sta fuerint, vel injusta : possunt enim aliqua esse mala, et justa, qualia sunt mala poenae ; et talis fuit depositio Henrici : possunt quo¬ que alia esse mala, et injusta, qualia sunt mala culpae, et talis fuit creatio Antipapae Guiberti ab imperatore procurata, vel facla. Pergit Barclaius, et ponderat illa verba ejusdem Othonis Frisingensis ex eodem lib. vi. cap. 3G. a Quia ergo in principe suo re¬ gnum ab Ecclesia praecisum graviter per¬ cussum fuit, Ecclesia quoque tanto Pastore, qui inter omnes Sacerdotes, et Romanos Pontifices praecipui zeli, et auctoritatis erat, orbata dolorem non modicum habuit. Id, inquit Barclaius, quid aiiud sonat, quam propter violatum in principe imperium, vio¬ latam fuisse in Pontifice Ecclesiam, sive pro¬ pter percussum regnum in persona principis, percussam fuisse Ecclesiam in persona Pon¬ tificis; inter quae cum nullum juris, aut in¬ juriae discrimen faciat, nec possit utrumque juste fieri, consequens est utrumque injuste factum esse existimet. » Respondeo : Non intellexit Barclaius verba Othonis : non enim loquitur Otho, de depo¬ sitione Gregorii a Pontificatu ; quemadmo¬ dum loquitur de depositione Henrici ab im¬ perio. Sed dicit, percussum fuisse imperium in persona principis, quia princeps excom- municatus, et depositus fuit : percussam au¬ tem fuisse Ecclesiam in persona Pontificis ; quia per mortem subtractus ab hominibus dolorem magnum Ecclesiae reliquit. Quare non bene colligit Barclaius, tam in percus¬ sione imperii in persona principis, quam in percussione Ecclesiae in persona Pontificis injustitiam intervenisse. Nam Henricus qui¬ dem per sententiam Ecclesiae depositus fuit ab imperio ; in qua sententia justitia, et in¬ justitia locum habere non potuit, et satis constat, sententiam illam fuisse justissimam : Gregorius autem naturali morbo extinctus est, ubi si locum habet injdstitia, Deus inju¬ stus dicendus erit, quae est ingens blasphe- mia : non enim Gregorius occisus fuit ab Henrico, quemadmodum Henricus depositus fuit a Gregorio ; sed, ut diximus, naturali morbo, pie, et religiose obiit : mors autem naturalis post originale peccatum a Deo est • ipse enim sententiam illam, et quidem ju¬ stissimam tulit : Pulvis es , et in pulverem re¬ verteris , Gen. m, et de Deo dicitur: Dominus mortificat , et vivificat, II Ileg. n, et Sap. xvi : Tu es Domine , qui vitae. , et mortis habes po¬ testatem , et Ecclesiastici xi. Vita , et mors a Deo est (1). Neque dici potest, Gregorium Papam, ex sententia Othonis, occisum fuisse a Deo in poenam peccati commissi in depo¬ sitione imperatoris : nam ipse idem Otho fa¬ tetur, Gregorium fuisse hominem praecipui zeli; sed etiam si Gregorius in poenam pec¬ cati occisus fuisset a Deo, non tamen injusta mors ejus dici posset, nisi Deo injustitia tri¬ bueretur. Pergit Barclaius, et ex lib. i. de gestis Fri- derici, cap. 6. Othonis Frisingensis, probare nititur, injustam fuisse depositionem impe¬ ratoris per Gregorium factam, quia Otho de¬ fectionem Rudolphi ducis Sueviae ab impe¬ ratore rebellionem appellat : rebellio autem dicitur, cum inferior deficit a superiore; sed imperator superior non fuisset, si jure de¬ positus fuisset; igitur non jure depositus erat ex Othonis sententia. Idem probat ex lib. vn. historice cap. 8. ubi Otho Frisingensis Hen- ricum quartum imperatorem vocat, etiam post depositionem. Respondeo : Rebellare dicitur non is so¬ lum, qui a principe legitimo deficit ; sed et¬ iam qui deficit a principe regnante de facto, quamvis non de jure : quemadmodum etiam rex dicitur non solum, qui jure regnat; sed etiam qui de facto regnat; non enim ubi Scriptores proprietatem illam vocabulorum observant, ut neminem dicant regem, nisi qui regnat legitime, neque rebellare ullum dicant, nisi qui a legitimo principe deficit, lib. IV Reg. cap. xvm. ponitur in laudibus Ezechice regis optimi, quod rebellaverit con¬ tra regem Assyriorum, ubi rebellio dicitur defectio a rege non legitimo. Eodem lib. IV Reg. cap. ix. Jehu jussu Dei rex factus, vi¬ vente adhuc Joram rege, dicitur conjurasse contra dominum suum, eumque occidisse cum omni progenie, ubi conjuratio, quae ali¬ quid amplius est, quam simplex rebellio, in bonam partem accipitur : conjuravit enim contra regem a Deo abdicatum, et damna¬ tum. Quare dixit ad Jehu Dominus IV Reg. x. Quia studiose egisti quod rectum erat , et placebat in oculis meis , et omnia quae erant in corde meo fecisti contra domum Achab, filii tui usque ad quartam generationem sedebunt super thronum Israel (2). Habemus igitur non (1) Gen. III, 19 ; II Reg. II, 6; Sap. XVI, 13 ; Eccl. XI, 14. — (2) IV Reg. X, 30. IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 45 esse mirum, si Otho Frisingensis, rebellio¬ nem appellat defectionem a rege jam abdi¬ cato, cum eumdem ipsum loquendi modum habeamus in divinis litteris. Idem dicere pos¬ sumus de nomine regis : nam lib. II Rcg. cap. xv. cum Absalon filius David ejecto Pa¬ tre regnare coepisset in Hierusalem, neque rex legitimus, sed tyrannus revera esset : tamen David ipse regem ipsum appellabat, cum diceret ad Ethai Gethceum, cur venis nobiscum ? revertere , et habita cum rege (I) : sic etiam lib. III Regum cap. xv. Zambri, occiso rege legitimo regnum sibi injustissime usurpavit : et tamen Scriptura dicit : Ir¬ ruens ergo Zambri percussit , et occidit eum (regem Eia) et regnavit pro eo : cumque 're¬ gnasse t, et sedisset super solium ejus percussit omnem domum Baasa , etc. Ac ne magnum videatur Barclaio, quod Otho Frisingensis vocet imperatorem Hernicum, etiam post excommunicationem, et depositionem : sciat idem nomen inveniri apud Abbatem Ursper- gensem, aliosque Scriptores, immo et apud ipsum Leonem Ostiensem, qui addictissimus erat Gregorio VII. Nam lib. nr. Chronici Cassinensis cap. 49. plus quam decies Hcn- ricus imperator dicitur a Leone Ostiense, et Leone referente, saepissime Desiderius ab¬ bas, .qui Gregorio in Pontificatu successit, eumdem Henricum post abdicationem, im¬ peratorem appellat, non alia de causa, nisi quia re ipsa, quamvis non jure imperabat. Pergit Barclaius, et ait : « Est et alius ejusdem auctoris locus lib. i. de gestis Fri- derici cap. 8. in quo id ipsum manifestius declarat, Papam scilicet per illam excommu¬ nicationem, et abdicationem nihil juris regni Henrico ademisse. Nam postquam narravit, Bertolfum Rudolphi generum (quem, ut di¬ ctum est, Papa regem creaverat) perempto socero, ducatum Suevise, tamquam sibi a socero concessum usurpasse; et ex altera parte Henricum, Papae judicio depositum, concessisse eumdem ducatum nobili cuidam Sueviae, cui Friderico nomen : qui Bertol¬ fum ad pacis conditiones, et ad exfestuca- tionem ducatus adegit, addit, Bertolfus iste, quamvis in hoc negotio imperio simul, et justitiae cesserit, tamen strenuissimus, et fortissimus fuisse traditur. En ut nihil cir¬ cuitione usus affirmat, imperium, et justi¬ tiam ab Henrico stare, in quem Pontifex sententiam depositionis multo ante tulerat.)) Respondeo : Testem hoc loco Barclaius suspectum adducit : nam ab isto Friderico Fridericus primus imperator descendit: cu¬ jus imperatoris patruus fuit Otho Frisingen¬ sis ; nec solum patruus Friderici imperato¬ ris ; sed etiam nepos Henrici quarti. Itaque Otho, ne avum maternum, Henricum quar¬ tum imperatorem, et filium fratris uterini Fridericum primum imperatorem laederet, scripsit, Bertolfum imperio, justitiaeque ces¬ sisse in negotio ducatus Sueviae. Quae etiam causa fuit, cur idem Otho in historia sua mediam viam elegerit. Nam Gregorium VII eximie laudat lib. vi. cap. 34. neque enim poterat salva conscientia, reprehendere ho¬ minem notissimae sanctitatis : iJenricum autem, non ut eseteri historici, turpissimo¬ rum plurimorumque criminum reum facit; sed modestissime excessum ejus vitamque lascivam notat, lib. vn. cap. 11. Quod autem hoc loco dicit, Bertolfum imperio ; justitiee- que cessisse : non cogit, ut existimemus, sensisse Othonem, injuste Henricum a Gre¬ gorio fuisse depositum : nam, ut idem Otho narrat, post longam disceptationem coegit Fridericus ab imperatore adjutus Bertolfum ad conditiones pacis, quae erant, ut Bertol¬ fus retineret Turegum nobilissimum Sue¬ viae oppidum, reliquam Sueviam Fride¬ rico cederet. Cessit ergo Bertolfus, im¬ perio , tamquam potentiori , cui par esse non poterat; cessit etiam justitiae, quo¬ niam in re dubia justum esse censuit, retento nomine ducis, et oppido nobilissi¬ mo, reliqua cedere fortiori. Nam si Bertol¬ fus existimasset injuste a se possessam fuisse Sueviam, debuisset totum dimittere, et neque partem praecipuam, neque ducis nomen sibi retinere ; ut eodem teste Othone retinuit, ad posterosque transmisit. Quod si Barclaius velit, Othonem sensisse, Henricum a Gregorio injuste fuisse damnatum, repu¬ gnabit eidem Othoni, qui lib. vi. histor. cap. 34. dicit, Gregorium fuisse fortem per omnia athletam, murumque se pro domo Domini opponere non timuisse, et cap. 36. dicit, gladio anathematis imperatorem fe¬ riri decuisse : et ibidem refert Gregorium iri morte dixisse : Dilexi justitiam, et odi iniquitatem : et, Ecclesiam in obitu tanti Pastoris, qui inter omnes Romanos Pontifi¬ ces praecipui zeli, et auctoritatis erat, non modicum dolorem habuisse; et lib. vir. c. 1. (1)11 Reg. XV, 19,10. 46 DE POTESTATE PAPiE ait : Defuncto apud Salernum Beatar memo¬ riae Gregorio Summo Pontifice, etc. Ista enim nullo modo cohserent cum opinione gravissimae injustitiae, qualis fuisset deposi¬ tio imperatoris, si eum juste Gregorius de¬ ponere non potuisset : haec enim sola inju¬ stitia omnes Gregorii laudes sine dubio cor¬ rupisset. Postremo Barclaius cum non haberet aliud, quod ex Othone adferret, nec tamen quie¬ scere posset, repetit quod supra dixerat, re¬ ges ex Othonis sententia non habere ullum, praeter Deum super se, quem timeant. Re¬ petit quoque quod supra verbosissime de¬ ploraverat, multa mala occasione excom¬ municationis Henrici imperatoris in orbem terrarum, ac praecipue in Ecclesiam irruisse. Ad quae omnia jam ante respondimus, neque libet eadem frustra repetere. In extremo capite producit in medium verba Gregorii VII quibus cum Hernicum deponeret, precatus est Apostolos Petrum, et Paulum, ut sententiam suam ex eorum auctoritate prolatam confirmarent, ut om¬ nes intelli gerent, iniquitatis filium non for¬ tuito, sed ipsorum opera ex imperio ceci¬ disse. Hanc precationem elicit Barclaius non fuisse ab Apostolis auditam; « cum nihil non infaustum Pontifici, pontificia; parti au¬ ctoribus, et fautoribus acciderit, triumphante interi m, et imperium tenente Hernico. » Respondeo : Precationem Gregorii omni¬ no exauditam fuisse, testantur aerumnae ma¬ ximae, quse llenricum divinitus oppresse¬ runt. Primum enim a magna parte Germa¬ niae destitutus ad Pontificis pedes abjectus misericordiam demississimis precibus implo¬ rare compulsus est. Deinde, cum duobus aemulis, Rudolpho, et Ilei manno diu ambi¬ guo marle certavit. Postea a proprio filio carceri mancipatus, coronam, sceptrum, et reliqua imperatorum insignia resignare coa¬ ctus est. Inde elapsus Laeodium se recepit, unde miseriam suam incredibilem propriis litteris, quae apud Urspergensem Abbatem exstant, testatus est. Denique repentina morte sublatus neminem invenit, qui ejus mortem defleret : cum e contrario mundus totus ob ejus infelicem exitum summo gaudio exul- taret, ut supra ex Abbate Urspergensi retu¬ limus. Hic videlicet est triumphus Henrici, quem fingit Barclaius. Porro pontificiam partem semper in melius profecisse, coope- rante Domino signis, et prodigiis, et tandem omnino praevaluisse, constat ex iis, quae de Callixto secundo, et Henrico quinto omnes historici narrant, ac praesertim abbas Ur- spergensis in Chronico anni 1120, et sequen¬ tibus.