Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 18: The Second Part of the Second Reason for the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters Is Defended
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 eighteenth chapter Barclay strives to refute the second part of the second reason, which was proposed at the beginning of the preceding chapter. The sum of the argument is this: One commonwealth, if it receives injury from another commonwealth, and is disturbed and harassed by its bad administration, can compel that commonwealth by arms, although it is not subject to it, to change the form of its administration; and, if need be, can depose its prince; therefore with greater reason the spiritual commonwealth, if it receives injury from the temporal, and is disturbed and harassed by it, will be able to command the temporal commonwealth subject to it to change the form of its administration, and, if need be, will be able also to depose the temporal prince.
To this argument Barclay answers what he had already answered before, that there are not two commonwealths, spiritual and temporal, but one with two powers, neither of which depends on the other. But since he saw that this solution was not solid, he admits that the body of churchmen, whose prince is the Pope, and the body of laymen, whose prince is the king, can be called two commonwealths set up within the bosom of the same Church; and this admitted, he answers that the former commonwealth, that of churchmen, has no arms but spiritual; the latter, of laymen, has no arms but bodily; and therefore they are not like two commonwealths which defend themselves with bodily arms, and one compels and subjects the other. But this solution is not more solid than the former; for although the arms of the spiritual commonwealth, which it uses by itself, are spiritual, yet bodily arms are also in its power, because sword is under sword; and the Church can call in the secular arm, and through it use the bodily sword. But besides, the spiritual arms themselves can compel the temporal commonwealth and its prince, because the spiritual prince can excommunicate the temporal prince, and free his subjects from subjection, and command them under pain of excommunication not to acknowledge the excommunicated prince as prince, but to choose another for themselves, or to adhere to the lawful successor.
Lastly Barclay adds: “Why many words? Even if we grant them their comparison and conclusion, nothing can be made of it except that the Pope has such a power of disposing of the temporal things of Christians, and of deposing their princes, as either the king of France is known to have over the English, the Spaniards or other neighbouring peoples injurious to him, or each of these over the affairs and kings of the French hostile to them; which of what kind and how great it is can be discerned only by the sword.” I answer: the comparison and reasoning which we used in proving the power of the Pontiff does not proceed from the like, but from the greater; for this is what we said: if by reason of injury alone one commonwealth can compel another not subject to it, and depose its prince, how much more will the spiritual commonwealth be able to compel the temporal subject to it, and depose its prince, if it receives from it such harm that it cannot provide for itself in any other way than by removing that prince and putting another in his place? So the power which the spiritual commonwealth has over the temporal is not like the power of the French over the English, or of the English over the French; but like the power which the spirit has over the flesh joined to it, or the head over the members adhering to it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. Defenditur secunda pars rationis secundse pro potestate Summi Pontificis in temporali¬ bus. In cap. 18. Barclaius refutare nititur se¬ cundam partem secundas rationis, quae ini¬ tio capitis superioris proposita fuit. Argu¬ menti summa haec est: Potest una respublica, si ab alia republica injuriam accipiat, et per ejus malam administrationem perturbetur, ac vexetur ; armis cogere rempub. illam quamvis alia non sibi subjectam, ut mutet formam administrationis suae ; et, si opus sit potest ejus principem deponere : igitur ma¬ jori ratione poterit respublica spiritualis, si a temporali injuriam accipiat, atque ab ea perturbetur, et vexetur, imperare reipubli- cse temporali sibi subjectae, ut mutet formam administrationis, et , si opus sit , poterit etiam principem temporalem deponere. Ad hoc argumentum Barclaius respondet, quod jam ante responderat , non esse duas respublicas, spiritualem, et temporalem, sed unam cum duabus potestatibus , quarum neutra pendet ab altera. Sed quoniam hanc solutionem videbat non esse solidam: admit¬ tit coetum Ecclesiasticorum, quorum prin¬ ceps est Papa, et coetum laicorum, quorum princeps est rex, posse dici duas respublicas intra ejusdem Ecclesiae sinum constitutas : et hoc admisso respondet, priorem rempubli- cam, id est, Ecclesiasticorum, non habere ar- manisispiritualia; posteriorem, laicorum, non habere arma nisi corporalia, et ideo non esse similes duabus rebuspublicis, quae armis corporalibus se defendunt, et una alteram cogit, et subjicit. Sed haec solutio non est priore solidior, quamvis enim arma reipublicae spiritualis, quibus ipsa per se utitur, sint spiritualia ; tamen arma corporalia sunt etiam in ejus potestate, quia gladius est sub gladio ; et potest Ecclesia invocare brachium saeculare, et per illud uti gladio corporali. Sed praeter¬ ea arma ipsa spiritualia possunt cogere remp. temporalem, et ejus principem, quia potest Princeps spiritualis excommunicare principem temporalem, et ejus subditos a subjectione liberare, et ipsis sub excommu¬ nicationis poena mandare , ut principem excommunicatum pro principe non agno¬ scant, sed alium sibi eligant, vel legitimo successori adhaereant. Addit postremo Barclaius : « Quid multis ? licet illis suam comparationem, conclusio¬ nemque concedamus, nihil inde effici potest > nisi Papam habere talem potestatem dispo¬ nendi de rebus temporalibus Christianorum, et eorum principes deponendi, qualem vel rex Franciae in Anglos , Hispanos, aliosve populos vicinos sibi injurios, vel horum sin¬ guli, in res, regesque Francorum ipsis infe¬ stos habere dignoscuntur: quae qualis, quan¬ taque sit, ferro tan tum cerni potest. » Respondeo : Comparatio, et ratiocinatio, qua nos usi sumus in comprobanda Pontifi¬ cis potestate, non procedit a simili, sed a majori, hoc enim est quod diximus, si po¬ test ratione solius injuriae una respublica, aliam non sibi subjectam cogere, et ejus IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS principem deponere : quanto magis poterit respublica spiritualis cogere temporalem sibi subjectam, ej usque principem deponere, si ab illa tale detrimentum accipiat, ut non possit alia ratione sibi prospicere, nisi prin¬ cipem illum removendo, atque alium sub¬ stituendo ? Itaque non est similis potestas, quam habet resp. spiritualis in temporalem, potestati Francorum in Anglos, vel Anglorum in Francos : sed potestati , quam habet spi¬ ritus in carnem sibi conjunctam, vel caput in membra sibi adhaerentia.