Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 19: On the Opinion of Saint Bernard concerning the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters
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 nineteenth chapter Barclay strives to answer the testimony of Saint Bernard from book 4 on Consideration, chapter 4, which testimony I had brought forward to confirm my second reason. Because Saint Bernard in the place noted writes that “the material sword is to be drawn by the hand of the soldier, at the command of the emperor, but at the nod of the Supreme Priest,” Barclay affirms that by nod is not to be understood command or power, but assent; for wars are waged more happily when to the power of kings is added the assent of priests, whose part it is to judge whether a war is just or unjust. And he proves that by nod is not understood power, because if perhaps the emperor should wish to wage war with the Pontiff dissenting, Saint Bernard attributes to the Pontiff no power over the emperor; nay, he openly teaches that no power belongs to him, since he says that the material sword cannot be wielded by the Church, but only by the hand of the soldier and at the command of the emperor; and he confirms this opinion of his by the testimony of Gratian, cause 23, question 8, at the beginning, who writes that “the material sword is forbidden to Pontiffs, and only the spiritual is granted.”
I answer: that word, nod, can signify assent, especially when we answer someone asking for something by nodding; but when the nod precedes other causes, it usually signifies command, or rather a command so powerful and effective that without any other express order the nod alone is enough for accomplishing the thing. So it is taken in Genesis 42, where it is said: And Joseph was governor in the land of Egypt, and corn was sold by his nod to the peoples; and more clearly in 2 Kings, chapter 17: By the Lord's nod the profitable counsel of Ahithophel was defeated; where it would be ridiculous to understand assent by nod, since the Scripture speaks of the nod of God, who alone can turn the hearts of kings whithersoever he will; and in 2 Maccabees 8 the same Scripture says of God: He can destroy the whole world with one nod; and Job 26: The pillars of heaven tremble, and dread at his nod; to which is like that saying of the poet: He nodded, and with his nod made all Olympus tremble. And that in this place Saint Bernard understands by nod command, and not simple assent, is clear from this, that he sets in the first place among the efficient causes the nod of the Pontiff, then the command of the emperor, last the execution of the soldier; therefore as the soldier, by Saint Bernard's opinion, carries out the command of the emperor, so the emperor is moved to command the soldier by the nod, that is, the command of the Pontiff. Then, if that nod of the Pontiff were simple assent, Saint Bernard would not say that both swords are the Pontiff's; but that one is the Pontiff's, the other the emperor's. When therefore he says: “Both are yours; but not both are to be drawn by your hand,” he manifestly teaches that both are in the power of the Pontiff; but the one to be drawn by him immediately, the other mediately, that is, through another, but at his nod or command.
“But what if the emperor,” says Barclay, “should refuse to draw the sword at the priest's nod? nay, what if he should draw it plainly against the priest's nod? Does Saint Bernard in this case attribute to the priest any temporal power over the emperor?” I answer: if the emperor refuses to draw the sword at the priest's nod, or if he draws it against his nod, and the matter is necessary for the spiritual good, the Pontiff will compel him with the spiritual sword, that is, with ecclesiastical censures, to draw the material sword, or to put it back in the sheath; and if he is not moved by censures, and the necessity of the Church requires it, he will free his subjects from obedience, and take the rule from him. So he will show that sword is under sword, and that both swords belong to the power of the Church, though not in the same way.
“But,” says Barclay, “Saint Bernard teaches that no temporal power can belong to the Pontiff, since he says that the material sword (by which word the supreme temporal power is signified) cannot be wielded by the Church, but only by the hand of the soldier and at the command of the emperor; which same thing Gratian, almost a contemporary of Bernard, hands down more openly, cause 23, question 8, at the beginning.” I answer: Saint Bernard teaches only that the material sword is not to be drawn by a priestly hand, which we gladly confess; but he does not deny, nay, he rather affirms, that the material sword is under the spiritual sword, and is to be drawn at the nod of the Pontiff, or put back in the sheath. Gratian too teaches nothing else than that it is not lawful for clerics to use the material sword and kill men, which he confirms by many canons of Pontiffs and councils, and these things are true; but it cannot be gathered from them that the Pontiff has no power in temporal matters.
Barclay afterwards brings forward the words of Saint Ambrose from book 10 of the Commentaries on Luke, where these things are read: “The law does not forbid striking; and therefore perhaps to Peter offering two swords Christ says, It is enough, as if it had been lawful until the Gospel, that in the law there might be the instruction of equity, in the Gospel the perfection of goodness.” From this passage Barclay gathers that the material sword was granted to priests until the Gospel. I answer: we do not deny, as we said a little before, that after the Gospel it is not lawful for priests to draw the material sword with their own hand, unless perhaps in their own defence, or for another cause with the Pontiff dispensing; for the ordinary use of the material sword belongs to soldiers, not to priests. Yet in that place Saint Ambrose does not speak of priests alone, but of all Christians; and therefore Erasmus abused this passage to prove that war is forbidden to Christians. But Saint Ambrose favours neither Erasmus nor Barclay; for he teaches that in the law not only defence but also vengeance was lawful; in the Gospel defence is lawful, not vengeance; for these are his words: “O Lord, why do you order me to buy a sword, who forbid me to strike? unless perhaps that defence may be ready, not vengeance necessary, and I may seem to have been able to be avenged, but to have been unwilling. Yet the law does not forbid striking back” (for so it is to be read, striking back, not striking, as Barclay falsely cited) “and therefore perhaps to Peter offering two swords he says, It is enough, as if it had been lawful until the Gospel, that in the law there might be the instruction of equity, in the Gospel the perfection of goodness.” So he, who says that not defence is forbidden in the Gospel, but vengeance; and that striking back, not striking, is forbidden. And when Saint Ambrose says, “The law does not forbid striking back,” he seems to look to those words of the Lord in Matthew 5: You have heard that it hath been said to them of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say to you not to resist evil, and so on. Where it is not signified that vengeance was lawful to the ancients by their own authority, but by the authority of the public magistrate, and that not from desire of vengeance, but from love of justice; which same thing is lawful to Christians. But the good Master exhorts his own to perfection of life, as Ambrose says; which perfection consists in this, that they root out the roots of contentions, and, bearing with one another in charity, give no occasions for graver evils, such as wounds and killings, on account of which it is necessary that the public magistrates take vengeance on evildoers.
Barclay adds again that the words of the Gospel about the two swords in the literal sense do not signify the two powers, ecclesiastical and political; but for that reason we do not make our argument from the words of the Gospel, but from the words of Saint Bernard and Boniface VIII, who, expounding the words of the Gospel mystically, taught that by the two swords the two powers are to be understood. For Saint Bernard, whom Boniface followed, joined together two passages of the Gospel, one from chapter 18 of John: Put up thy sword into the scabbard; the other from chapter 22 of Luke: Behold, here are two swords; and indeed the former passage literally signifies that Christ was unwilling to be defended by Peter with the material sword, and to have his passion hindered; for that reason he added: The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? The latter passage depends on the preceding words, where the Lord had said: He that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword; for the disciples, thinking that the Lord by those words had ordered swords to be prepared, said: Behold, here are two swords. But the Lord says: It is enough; either ironically, as Theophylact expounds, as if he said, What are two swords against an armed cohort of soldiers? or, as others will have it, seeing that they had not understood, he imposed silence on them, saying: It is enough, you have said enough, be silent about this matter. For truly, when he said, He that hath not a sword, let him sell his coat and buy one, he did not order them to buy swords, but signified that they were about to come into such straits as those are in who think it good to sell a coat and buy a sword. Lastly, since the Apostles did not buy swords by selling their coats, it is a sign that this was not commanded them by Christ. But whatever may be of the exposition of this most obscure passage, Saint Bernard and Pope Boniface mystically, but aptly and elegantly, transferred what is said of the two swords to the two powers, ecclesiastical and political.
Again Barclay objects, this mystical exposition admitted: “It cannot be gathered that sword is under sword, or that both are in the hand of the Pontiff. For Saint Bernard does not say this; nor could he say it without calumny.” I answer: that sword is under sword Boniface says openly; and Saint Bernard says the same, but in other words; for when he affirms that both swords belong to the Pontiff, nay, that both are his, and that one is to be unsheathed by his hand, the other at his nod, he shows well enough that one is under the other, namely the material under the spiritual, and that both are in the hand, that is, in the power of the Pontiff.
At the end Barclay boasts that he has subtly noted something in the words of Saint Bernard which he does not know whether anyone else has observed before; namely why Saint Bernard said, To be unsheathed at your nod perhaps, though not by your hand; and a little after, repeating the same, left out that word, perhaps. Barclay writes, then, that “a distinction must be made between the Pontiff as he is Pontiff, and as he is such a man. For the Pontiff, as Pontiff, nods not absolutely but perhaps that the sword be unsheathed, that is, only then when it is useful to the Church, when with sound and sober counsel he has judged it expedient. But the Pontiff, as he is such a man, carrying on enmities with another, or desiring to satisfy an ambitious lust for dominion, absolutely orders the sword to be unsheathed.” But that subtlety was shown to Barclay not by sharpness of wit, nor by study of the Scriptures, but by hatred of the Pontiffs; certainly that subtlety would never have come into Saint Bernard's mind; for perhaps is not opposed to absolutely, nor can it be taken for sometimes, or for when it is truly expedient, except by one who, being himself perverse, perverts the very words too. Why then did he say perhaps at the beginning, and afterwards, repeating, leave it out? The answer is at hand: because at the beginning he had set down only two things, namely the nod and the execution; and since he doubted whether it became the Pontiff to nod to the soldier to brandish the sword, therefore he said: At your nod perhaps, not by your hand, to be unsheathed; but afterwards he set down three things, the nod of the Pontiff, the command of the emperor and the execution of the soldier, and because there could be no doubt that at the emperor's command the soldier should use the sword, he left out perhaps and put in surely. And of the opinion of Saint Bernard enough has been said.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX. De sententia S. Bernardi circa potestatem Pontificis Maximi in temporalibus. In cap. 19. Barclaius respondere nititur ad testimonium S. Bernardi ex lib. iv. de Consid. cap. 4. quod testimonium ad confir¬ mandam rationem meam soc undam ego ad¬ duxeram. Id quoniam S. Bernardus loco no¬ tato scribit, «gladium materialem exerendum esse manu milifis. ad jussum imperatoris, sed ad nutum Summi Sacerdotis» : Barclaius af¬ firmat, per nutum non debere intelligi impe¬ rium, vel potestatem, sed assensum : felicius enim bella geruntur, cum ad potestatem re¬ gum accedit assensus Sacerdotum, quorum est judicare, an bellum sit justum , vel inju¬ stum. Probat autem per nutum non intelligi potestatem, quoniam si forte imperator Pon¬ tifice dissentiente bellum gerere velit, san¬ ctus Bernardus non tribuit Pontifici potesta¬ tem ullam in imperatorem, immo aperte do¬ cet , nullam ei potestatem competere, cum dicat materialem gladium ab Ecclesia exer¬ ceri non posse, sed tantum manu militis, et jussu imperatoris : et confirmat hanc sen¬ tentiam suam testimonio Gratiani, 23. qu. 8. in principio, qui scribit, «Pontificibus inter¬ dictum esse gladium materialem, et solum spiritualem esse concessum. » Respondeo : Yox illa , nutus, significare potest assensum, praesertim quando alicui petenti aliquid, annuendo respondemus : sed quando nutus praecedit alias causas, impe¬ rium significare solet, vel potius imperium ita potens, et efficax , ut sine alio expresso mandato solus nutus ad rem efficiendam si^. 63 satis : sic accipitur Genes, xlii. ubi dicitur : Et Joseph erat. Princeps in terra EEgypti, et ad nutum ejus frumenta populis vendebantur , et clarius lib. II Reg. cap. xvn. Domini nutu dissipatum est consilium Achitophel utile ; ubi ridiculum esset, per nutum intelligere assen¬ sum , cum Scriptura loquatur de nutu Dei, qui solus potest corda regum vertere quo¬ cumque voluerit, et II Machab. vili, eadem Scriptura de Deo dicit : Potest universum mun¬ dum uno nutu delere , et Job xxvi. Colu¬ mnae coeli contremiscunt , et pavent ad nutum ejus (1) : cui simile est illud poetae : Annuit el tolum nutu tremefecit Olympum. Quod autem hoc loco per notum intelligat S. Bernardus imperium , et non simplicem assensum , perspicuum est ex eo quod pri¬ mo loco inter causas efficientes ponit nutum Pontificis, deinde jussum imperatoris, ulti¬ mo exeeutionem militis ; proinde quemadmo¬ dum miles ex sententia S. Bernardi exequi- tur jussum imperatoris, ita imperator move¬ tur ad jubendum militi ex nutu, id est, jussu Pontificis. Deinde si nutus ille Pontificis esset simplex assensus, non diceret S. Bernardus utrumque gladium esse Pontificis ; sed unum esse Pontificis , alterum imperatoris. Cum er^o dicit : « Uterque tuus est; sed non uter- que tua manu exerendus » , manifeste docet utrumque esse in potestate Pontificis; sed unum ab ipso immediate , alterum mediate, id est, per alium; sed nutu sive jussu ipsius exerendum. « Sed quid si imperator (inquit Barclaius) nolit ad nutum Sacerdotis gladium stringere ? immo quid si plane contra nutum Sacerdo¬ tis strinxerit ? numquid aliquam S. Bernar¬ dus hoc casu potestatem temporalem sacer¬ doti tribuit in imperatorem? » Respondeo : Si nolit imperator ad nutum sacerdotis gladium stringere, vel si contra nutum ejus strinxerit, et res sit ad bonum spirituale necessaria , coget illuni Pontifex gladio spirituali, id est, censuris ecclesiasti¬ cis gladium materialem stringere, aut in va¬ ginam recondere : et si censuris non move¬ bitur, et Ecclesim necessitas id requirat, li¬ berabit subditos ejus ab obedientia, eique imperium abrogabit. Ita ostendet gladium esse sub gladio, et utrumque gladium ad (1) Gen. XLII, 6 ; II Reg. XVII, 14; II Machab. VIII, 18 ; Job. XXVI, H. Tom. XII 5 t)E POTESTATE PAILE 66 potestatem Ecclesiae pertinere, quamvis non eodem modo. (t At », inquit Barclaius, « sanctus Bernar- dus nullam temporalem potestatem Ponti¬ fici competere posse docet, cum dicat, ma¬ terialem gladium (quo verbo summa pote¬ stas temporalis significatur) ab Ecclesia exerceri non posse; sed tantum manu mili¬ tis, et jussu imperaturis : quod idem aper¬ tius tradit Gratianus Bernardi fere coaeta¬ neus, 23, quaest. 8, in principio. » Respondeo : S. Bernardus solum docet? gladium materialem non esse exerendum manu sacerdotali, quod nos libenter fate¬ mur; sed non negat, immo potius affirmat, gladium materialem subesse gladio spiri¬ tuali, et nutu Pontificis exerendum, vel in vaginam esse condendum. Gratianus quoque nihil aliud docet, nisi non licere clericis ma¬ teriali gladio uti, et homines interficere, quod multis canonibus Pontificum et con¬ ciliorum confirmat, qu^e vera sunt; sed non potest inde colligi, non habere Pontificem potestatem ullam in temporalibus. Adducit postea Barclaius verba sancti Am¬ brosii ex lib. x. Commentariorum in Lucam, ubi haec leguntur : « Lex ferire non vetat : et ideo fortasse Petro duos gladios offerenti, sat est, dicit Christus, quasi licuerit usque ad Evangelium, ut sit in lege aequitatis eruditio, in Evangelio bonitatis perfectio. » Ex quo loco colligit Barclaius, materialem gladium Sacerdotibus, usque ad Evangelium fuisse concessum. Respondeo : Non negamus, ut paulo ante diximus, sacerdotibus post Evangelium, non licere propria manu gladium materialem stringere : nisi forte in defensionem pro¬ priam, aut ob aliam causam dispensante Pontifice : usus enim ordinarius materialis gladii militum est, non sacerdotum. Nec ta¬ men eo loco sanctus Ambrosius de solis sa¬ cerdotibus, sed de Christianis omnibus loqui¬ tur : et ideo Erasmus hoc loco abusus est ad probandum prohibitum esse bellum Christia¬ nis. Cseterum S. Ambrosius, neque Erasmo, neque Barclaio favet : docet enim intege fuisse licitam non solum defensionem, sedetiam vin¬ dictam , in Evangelio defensionem licitam esse; non vindictam : haec enim sunt ejus verba : «0 Domine, cur emere me jubes gla¬ dium, qui ferire me prohibes? nisi forte ut sit parata defensio, non ultio necessaria, et videar potuisse vindicari; sed noluisse. Lex tamen referire » (sic enim legendum est, non ferire, ut Barclaius falso citavit) « non vetat; et ideo fortasse Petro duos gladios offerenti, sat est dicit, quasi licuerit usque ad Evangelium, ut sit in lege [equitatis eru¬ ditio, in Evangelio bonitatis perfectio » . Hsec ille, qui non defensionem in Evangelio prohiberi dicit, sed vindictam : et referire, non ferire vetitum. Cum autem S. Ambro¬ sius dicit : « Lex referire non vetat », respi¬ cere videtur ad illa verba Domini Matth. v. Audistis quia dictum est antiquis , oculum pro oculo , dentem pro dente; ego autem dico vo¬ bis non resistere m.alo , etc. (l).Ubi non signi¬ ficatur, licitam fuisse vindictam antiquis auctoritate propria; sed auctoritate magi¬ stratus publici, eamque non vindictae cu¬ piditate; sed amore justitiae : quod idem Christianis licet. Sed Magister bonus hor¬ tatur suos ad vitae perfectionem, ut Am¬ brosius dicit : « Quae perfectio in eo consi¬ stit, ut radices contentionum extirpent, et supportantes invicem in charitate non dent occasiones gravioribus malis, ut vulneribus, et caedibus, ob quae necesse sit, ut publici magistratus vindictam de malefactoribus sumant. » Addit rursus Barclaius, verba Evangelii de duobus gladiis in sensu litterali non signifi¬ care duas potestates, Ecclesiasticam et po¬ liticam : sed ideo nos non facimus argumen¬ tum ex verbis Evangelii ; sed ex verbis S. Bernardi, et Bonifacii VIII, qui mystice Evan¬ gelii verba exponentes per duos gladios duas potestates intelligi docuerunt. S. enim Ber¬ nardus, quem Bonifacius secutus est, duo loca Evangelii simul junxit, unum ex cap. xviii Joannis : Mitte gladium tuum in vagi¬ nam : alterum ex cap. xxn Lucae : Ecce duo gladii hic: et quidem prior locus ad litteram significat, no!uisse Christum a Petro defendi gladio materiali, et impediri passionem suam : ideo enim subjunxit : Calicem quem dedit mihi Pater, non vis ut bibam illum ? Posterior locus dependet a verbis superioribus, ubi Dominus dixerat : Qui non habet, vendat tuni¬ cam, et emat gladium , existimantes enim Discipuli, Dominum per ea verba jussisse gladios parari, dixerunt : Ecce duo gladii hic. Dominus autem ait : Satis est; vel ironice : ut exponit Theophilactus, quasi diceret, Quid sunt duo gladii adversus co¬ ti) Matth. V, 38, 39. IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 67 hortem militum armatam? vel ut alii vo¬ lunt, videns eos non intellexisse, imposuit eis silentium dicens : Sa.is es f satis loquuti estis, tacete de hac re. Vere enim cumdixit, Qui non habet gladium, vendat tunicam, et emat eum, non jussit, ut emerent gladios ; sed significavit ad eas angustias eos esse ven¬ turos, in quibus sunt, qui existimant, bonum esse vendere tunicam, et emere gladium. Denique cum Apostoli non emerint gladios venditis tunicis, signum est, hoc non fuisse illis a Christo mandatum. Sed quidquid sit de expositione hujus obscurissimi loci, S. Bernardus, et Pontifex Bonifacius mystice, sed apposite, et eleganter, quae dicuntur de duobus gladiis ad duas potestates, Eccle¬ siasticam et politicam, transtulerunt. Rursus Barclaius objicit, admissa hac my¬ stica expositione: a Non potest colligi gla¬ dium esse sub gladio, vel utrumque in manu Pontificis esse. S. enim Bernardus hoc non dicit ; nec potuit sine calumnia dicere. » Respondeo : Gladium esse sub gladio, Bo¬ nifacius aperte dicit : Sanctus autem Ber¬ nardus idem dicit. Sed aliis verbis : nam cum affirmat utrumque gladium ad Ponti¬ ficem pertinere, immo utrumque ipsius esse, et unum manu ejus, alterum nutu ejus eva¬ ginandum, satis ostendit, unum esse sub alio, materialem videlicet sub spirituali, et utrumque esse in manu, id est, in potestate Pontificis. Ad extremum Barclaius gloriatur se subti¬ liter aliquid in verbis S. Bernardi notasse, quod nescit an ullus alius antea animadver¬ terit; cur videlicet S. Bernardus dixerit, Tuo fors.tan nutu, et si non tua manu evaginan¬ dus : ac paulo post eadem repetens omiserit il¬ lud, forsitan. Scribit ergo Barclaius, «distin¬ guendum esse inter Pontificem, ut Pontifex est, et ut talis homo est. Pontifex en ini, ut Pon¬ tifex, non absolute, sed forsitan annuit, ut gladius evaginetur, id est, tunc solum, cum id Ecclesiae utile est, cum sano, et sobrio consilio id judicaverit expedire. Pontifex autem, ut talis homo es£, inimicitias cum alio gerens, vel ambitiosam dominandi cu¬ piditatem explere cupiens, absolute gladium evaginari mandat. » Sed istam subtilitatem demonstravit Bar. claio non acumen ingenii, neque studium Scripturarum; sed odium in Pontifices; certe ea subtilitas S. Bernardo numquam venisset in mentem : neque enim, forsitan, opponitur, absolute ; neque accipi potest pro, aliquando, vel pro, quando vere expedit; nisi apud eum, qui perversus ipse cum sit, vocabula quoque ipsa pervertit. Cur ergo initio dixit, forsitan, postea, repetens omisit? responsio est in promptu : quia initio non posuerat ni d duo quaedam, videlicet nutum, et exeeutionem : et quoniam dubitavit, an deceret Pontificem annuere militi, ut gla¬ dium vibraret: ideo dixit : Tuo forsitan nutu, non tua manu evaginandus : postea vero tria posuit, nutum Pontificis, jussum impe¬ ratoris et exeeutionem militis, et quia du¬ bium esse non poterat, ut ejus jussu miles gladio uteretur, omisit forsitan, et substi¬ tuit sane : ac de sententia S. Bernardi satis multa dicta sunt.