Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 24: Bellarmine's Fourth Reason for the Power of the 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 twenty-fourth chapter Barclay proposes the fourth reason which I had used to establish the power of the Supreme Pontiff in temporal matters, even to the removing of princes themselves in certain cases. This is the reason: When kings and princes come to the Church to become Christians, they are received with an express or tacit pact that they subject their sceptres to Christ, and promise that they will keep and defend the faith of Christ, even under pain of losing their kingdom; therefore when they become heretics, or harm religion, they can be judged by the Church, and even deposed from their principality, nor will any injury be done them if they are deposed. So far Barclay recites, although in my book more is added in confirmation of this reason.
He answers by admitting the antecedent and denying the consequence. “For,” he says, “although it is true that princes coming to the Church subject themselves and their sceptres to Christ, and either of their own accord make, tacitly or expressly, those promises which Bellarmine recounts, yet it is not true, nor does it follow, that they can be judged and deposed by the Church or the Supreme Pontiff if they break faith and neglect the pact and oath; because that supreme jurisdiction of Christ, and temporal power over all kings and the whole world, which he has as the Son of God, does not belong to the Church or the Pontiff, but only that power which Christ took to himself while he lived among men in human fashion; but Christ usurped no temporal dominion and power while he lived on earth as a man among men; and therefore neither the Church as Church, nor the Pope as head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, has any temporal power, as the same most learned man explains and proves at length in book 5 on the Pontiff, chapter 4.”
I answer: Barclay's argument, by which the consequence of my argument is attacked, has a bad consequence and a false antecedent; wherefore it fights without any strength, with mere noise of words. The consequence, I say, of his argument is bad, because even if the Church or the Pope did not have of themselves the power of deposing heretical princes, they would still have it from the sworn promise itself, and from the pact entered into with the princes themselves when they were admitted to the Christian Church; which can be illustrated by an example: for when kings entered into alliance with the Roman empire and swore fidelity to it, if afterwards the allied king went over to the enemies of the Romans, the Romans did not think they would do injury to that king if they deprived him of his kingdom; because although before the alliance was entered the Romans had no power over that king, yet the faith given and confirmed by oath gave them power. Then, the antecedent of Barclay's argument is false, as we have shown well enough so far in so lengthy a disputation, and it can be shown without any trouble from what Barclay admits in this place; for he admits that the Supreme Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, has that power which Christ had while as a man he lived among men. But Christ, although he refused to snatch any temporal kingdom from those who possessed it, and either to take it to himself or to hand it to others, yet whoever denies that Christ could have done it denies the Gospel itself; for what is it that the same Christ says in John 13: The Father hath given him all things into his hands? If he had all things in his hands, certainly he had power over all things; if he had power over all things, why could he not dispose of the temporal things of all men? Likewise in John 17 the same Lord says to the Father: As thou hast given him power over all flesh. Where by all flesh all men are understood. Christ the man, then, had on earth power over all men, and thereby over emperors too, and kings, and could, if he had wished, judge them, punish them, deprive them of kingdoms and empires; of which power he showed some example when he granted the demons to rush upon a huge multitude of swine, and to throw them all headlong into the sea to be drowned; nor did he fear lest perhaps he should injure those who from the destruction of so numerous a herd, which rose to two thousand, as Saint Mark witnesses in chapter 5, suffered no light loss. For the Lord judged it expedient for the glory of God to dispose of that temporal thing even with harm to the owners, that it might be known how great a multitude of unclean spirits had beset the man, and with what ease he himself had cast out so great a number of demons by his command alone.
What Barclay adds, that I taught that the Church as Church, or the Pontiff as head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, can have no temporal power, is a mere imposture. For I taught only that the power of the Pontiff is directly spiritual, but indirectly extends to temporal things, and even to the deposition of earthly princes themselves. And why, I beseech you, does Barclay labour so much in examining and refuting Bellarmine's reasons for confirming the pontifical power in temporal matters, if Bellarmine agrees with Barclay in denying the pontifical power in temporal matters? But the books, printed many times, exist, and the reader will easily be able to judge whether I in the same book fight against myself, or rather Barclay plays the impostor, relying on that saying of the noble poet: Deceit or valour, who would ask in an enemy?
Barclay afterwards adds another answer, since he was not so stupid as not to see that the former solution had no strength; he says, then: “All these things princes indeed promise to Christ, the Church accepting the promise as his bride, in whose bosom they are regenerated, or the Pontiff himself, not as a man but as the minister of Christ God, lending his vicarious service; and therefore the obligation is principally acquired to Christ himself through the Church or the Pope.” And below: “If they afterwards neglect or wholly despise the agreed pact, they can be punished by him alone in whose words they swore, who is the Lord of all temporal things, and whom alone they have as judge above them in temporal matters; not by him to whom the care only of spiritual things and of receiving the promise is committed.” I answer: the promise by which unbelieving princes, when they come to the Church, engage that they will be faithful, and will defend the Church, and will never withdraw from her or attack her, under pain of loss of the kingdom; a promise, I say, of this kind is indeed principally directed to Christ; but nevertheless not only Christ can punish transgressors immediately and by himself; but afterwards also the Vicar of Christ, who rules the Church by authority received from Christ, can punish the transgressors of the pact and oath; as we see daily that those who swear fidelity to an absent king before a viceroy, if perhaps they attempt defection, are at once punished by the viceroy himself; and clerics who promise obedience to an absent bishop before his vicar general, if perhaps they become contumacious, are by the same vicar committed to prison and punished.
“But,” says Barclay, “rarely does the king himself receive the oath of fidelity, but for the most part he carries out that business through the Chancellor. The Chancellor, therefore, when he admits the magnates, swearing in the king's words, to fiefs and dignities, plays those parts in the civil administration and temporal jurisdiction under the king which the Pontiff plays under Christ in the spiritual government of the Church, when he receives princes coming to her, with an oath of fidelity and piety toward God interposed. And as the former, though a client once received should afterwards break faith and commit the crime which they call felony, can for no cause take away the fief, since that belongs to the king alone and is in no way granted to the Chancellor; so neither can the latter deprive princes received into the Church, however gravely they afterwards offend and become deserters of the faith, of their kingdoms and dignities, or punish them temporally in any other way.” I answer: this whole reasoning is a deception of Barclay, in that he takes the Supreme Pontiff to be like a Chancellor, in whom there is no jurisdiction. Which comparison is very far from the truth; for the divine Scriptures attribute to the Pontiff true power and jurisdiction, and that most ample and supreme; for what is said in Matthew 16, Whatsoever thou shalt bind, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, sounds not the office of a chancellor, but the office of a president having jurisdiction. And that, Feed my sheep, in the last chapter of John, attributes to the Pontiff not the office of a chancellor in a kingdom, but that power over Christians which a shepherd has over sheep, who can certainly rule them, and bind them, and strike them with the staff, and compel them to all obedience. That also which the Apostle says in Acts, chapter 20: Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God, signifies not the office of a chancellor, but the office of a ruler and one set over. Lastly, that in Matthew 24: Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family? shows us not the office of a chancellor, but the office of the master of the house, who presides with power over the whole household. Wherefore the Supreme Pontiff ought to have been compared not to a chancellor, but to a viceroy in a kingdom, or a vicar in a bishopric, or a ruler in a city, or an overseer in a household, or the head in a body. And these things have been said by us on the supposition that that opinion of Barclay were to be admitted, that princes, when they come to the Church, promise fidelity and obedience to Christ alone; but that opinion is false, nor can we admit it by any reasoning; for princes promise obedience and fidelity, expressly or tacitly, not to Christ alone, but also to those who hold the place of Christ on earth. And to this pertains that confirmation of the argument which I subjoined to my fourth reason, and which Barclay reports at the end of chapter 24, and says, or pretends, that he does not know to what it pertains. “But what he subjoins to this fourth reason,” he says, “(for he is not fit for the sacrament of baptism who is not ready to serve Christ, and for his sake to lose whatever he has; for the Lord says, Luke 14: If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple), to what this looks I do not see; certainly no one denies this, but what then? Such a reason no more pertains to the purpose than what is most remote; as neither does that which follows in the same place (Besides, the Church would err gravely if she admitted some king who wished with impunity to favour any sect whatever, and to defend heretics, and to overthrow religion). This is most true, but, as I said, pertains nothing to the purpose; for the question here is not of that matter, but of the temporal power of the Church, or of the Supreme Pontiff.”
I answer: to what these things pertain, and that they bear most on the matter proposed, I show thus. Let us imagine some unbelieving king coming to the Church, and, instructed by Barclay, speaking thus: I desire to be made a citizen of the saints through baptism, and I solemnly promise that I will subject my sceptre to Christ, defend his Church with all my strength, and never fall from my holy purpose; yet I protest that if perhaps I break faith, if I turn out a heretic, an apostate, a pagan, if I try to persecute and utterly overthrow the Catholic religion, I refuse to be punished with a temporal punishment by the Church or her President, but by Christ alone; and if perhaps the President of the Church by a sentence of excommunication should drive me from the assembly of the godly, I will that nonetheless the faithful sons of the Church be bound to serve and obey me as king, and that they can in no way be absolved from the bond of this obedience. I ask Barclay now whether a king of this kind can be admitted by the Church to baptism as fit? He will affirm it, I think; but he will be laughed at by the prudent. For if someone wished to be granted citizenship in an earthly city, and protested that, if he should become a traitor to the city, he refused to be punished by the governor of the city, but only by the king, remaining in a distant region, immediately; who would not laugh? Certainly he who ought to be ready, according to the Gospel, to expose his own life for the faith of Christ, ought he not much more to be ready to lose an earthly kingdom? But it is ridiculous to say: I am ready to be deprived of my kingdom if I break faith; but I refuse to be deprived by the sentence of men; I will that the sentence be pronounced by angels from heaven. Certainly the Church too would be very imprudent if she admitted into her bosom one who wished to rage with impunity against the members of the Church, and refused that the faithful people could be freed from his tyranny by any authority of mortal men.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIV. Defenditur ratio quarta Bellarmini pro po¬ testate Pontificis in temporalibus. In cap. 24. proponit Barclaius rationem quartam, qua ego usus fueram ad stabilien¬ dam potestatem Summi Pontificis in tempo¬ ralibus usque ad ipsos Principes in certis casibus abdicandos. Haec est autem ratio. Quando reges, et principes ad Ecclesiam ve¬ niunt, ut Christiani fiant, recipiuntur cum pacto expresso, vel tacito, ut sceptra sua subjiciant Christo, et polliceantur, se Christi fidem servaturos, et defensuros etiam sub poena regni perdendi : ergo quando fiunt haeretici, aut Religioni obsunt, possunt ab Ecclesia judicari, et etiam deponi a princi¬ patu, nec ulla fiet eis injuria si deponantur. Hucusque recitat Barclaius, quamvis in meo libro plura addantur ad confirmationem hu¬ jus rationis. (I) Mare. V. 32 ; X, 12. 78 DE POTESTATE PAP^ Respondet autem admittendo antecedens, et negando consequentiam. « Nam, inquit, licet verum sit Principes ad Ecclesiam ve¬ nientes se sceptraque sua Christo subjicere, et vel ultro ea promissa seu tacite seu ex¬ presse facere, quae Bellarminus commemo¬ rat : non tamen verum est, nec inde sequi¬ tur, eos judicari, et deponi posse ab Ecclesia, vel Summo Pontifice, si fidem fallant, et pactum, ad jusjurandum negligant : quia suprema illa Christi jurisdictio, et potestas temporalis in reges omnes, et mundum uni¬ versum, quam habet, ut Dei filius, non com¬ petit Ecclesiae, vel Pontifici, sed tantum illa potestas, quam Christus sibi assumpsit, dum inter homines humano more versaretur : at Christus nullum temporale dominium, et potestatem usurpavit, dum in terris, ut homo inter homines ageret, ac proinde neque Ec¬ clesia, ut Ecclesia, neque Papa, ut caput Ec¬ clesiae, et Vicarius Christi ullam temporalem potestatem, ut pluribus explicat, et probat idem vir doctissimus lib.n. de Pontif. cap. 4.» Respondeo : Argumentum Barclaii, quo mei argumenti consequentia oppugnatur , malam habet consequentiam, et falsum an¬ tecedens ; quare sine viribus ullis solo stre¬ pitu verborum pugnat. Consequentia, in¬ quam. ejus argumenti mala est, quoniam et¬ iamsi Ecclesia, vel Papa non haberet ex se potestatem principes luereticos deponendi, haberet tamen ex ipsa promissione jurata, et ex pacto inito cum ipsis principibus, quando ad Ecclesiam Christianam admissi sunt : id quod exemplo illustrari potest : quando enim reges cum Romano imperio societatem ini¬ bant, et fidelitatem illi jurabant, si postea rex socius ad hostes Romanorum deficiebat, non existimabant Romani injuriam se illi regi facturos, si eum regno privarent : quoniam tametsi ante initam societa em, nullam ha- beient Romani potestatem in eum regem, tamen fides data, et juramento firmata po¬ testatem illis dabat. Deinde falsum est ante¬ cedens argumenti Barclaiani, ut hucusque satis ostendimus disputatione tam prolixa, et ex iis, quse Barclaius hoc loco admittit, nullo negotio demonstrari potest : admittit enim habere Summum Pontificem, ut Chri¬ sti Vicarium, eam potestatem, quam Christus habuit, dum ut homo inter homines vixit. Christus autem, quamvis noluerit, ullum temporale Regnum eripere iis, qui ea possi¬ debant, idque vel sibi assumere, vel aliis tradere ; tamen qui negat potuisse Christum id facere, Evangelium ipsum negat : quid enim est quod idem Christus dicit Joan. xm. Dedit ei omnia Pater in manus ? Si habuit omnia in manus, certe super omnia potesta¬ tem habuit : si super omnia potestatem ha¬ buit, cur non potuit de temporalibus rebus omnium hominum disponere ? Item Joan. xvii. Idem Dominus ait Patri, Sicut dedisti ei potestatem omnis carnis. Ubi per omnem carnem omnes homines intelliguntur. Habuit igitur Christus homo in terris potestatem super omnes homines, ac per hoc super im¬ peratores etiam, et reges, potuitque eos, si voluisset, judicare, punire, regnis, imperi¬ isque privare : cujus potestatis exemplum aliquod ostendit, cum daemonibus concessit ut in ingentem pecorum multitudinem ir¬ ruerent, eosque omnes in mare suffocandos praecipitarent : neque timuit ne forte injuria afficeret eos, qui ex interitu tam numerosi gregis, qui ad duo millia ascendebat, teste S. Marco cap. v, non levem jacturam patie¬ bantur. Judicavit enim Dominus expedire ad gloriam Dei, ut de re illa temporali dispo¬ neret etiam cum detrimento dominorum, ut sciretur quanta multitudo spirituum immun¬ dorum hominem obsedisset, et quanta faci¬ litate ipse tantum numerum daemonum solo imperio ejecisset. Quod addit Barclaius, me docuisse, Eccle¬ siam, ut Ecclesiam, vel Pontificem, ut caput Ecclesiae et Christi Vicarium, nullam tempo¬ ralem potestatem habere posse; mera im¬ postura est. Ego enim solum docui, Ponti¬ ficis potestatem directe spiritualem esse, sed indirecte extendi ad temporalia, atque ad ipsam etiam principutn terrenorum deposi¬ tionem. Et cur, obsecro, tantum laborat Barclaius in examinandis, et refellendis Bel- larmini rationibus pio confirmanda Ponti¬ ficia potestate in temporalibus, si Bollarmi- nus cum Barclaio convenit in abneganda Pontificia potestate in temporalibus ? Sed libri ssepius recu. i extant, et facile poterit lector judicare, utrum ego in eodem libro mecum ipse pugnem, an potius Barclaius impostorem agat, ea sententia nobilis poetae fretus : Dolus, an virtus, quis in hoste requirat ? Addit postea Barclaius aliam responsionem, quoniam non erat tam stupidus, ut non vi¬ deret priorem solutionem nullas vires ha¬ bere, ait igitur : « Quae omnia promittunt IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 79 quidem Principes Christo, acceptante pro¬ missionem Ecclesia, tamquam ejus sponsa, in cujus sinu regenerantur, aut ipso Pontifice non ut homine, sed ut Christi Dei ministro vi¬ cariam operam praebente ; ac proinde ipsi Christo per Ecclesiam, vel Papam obligatio principaliter acquiritur » . Et infra : « Si pa¬ ctum conventum postea neglexerint, aut prorsus contempserint, ab eo solo puniri possunt, in cujus verba jurarunt, quique omnium rerum temporalium Dominus est, et quem supra se Judicem in temporalibus solum habent ; non autem ab eo, cui rerum tantummodo spiritualium, et recipiendae pro¬ missionis cura commissa est ». Respondeo : Promissio, qua principes in¬ fideles, cum ad Ecclesiam veniunt, pollicen¬ tur se fideles futuros, et Ecclesiam defensu¬ ros, neque ab ea unquam recessuros, aut eam oppugnaturos, sub poena privationis reg¬ ni ; promissio, inquam, ejusmodi principa¬ liter quidem ad Christum dirigitur ; sed ta¬ men trangressores non solus Christus imme¬ diate, et per se punire potest : sed postea etiam Christi Vicarius, qui auctoritate a Christo accepta Ecclesiam regit, trangresso¬ res pacti, et juramenti punire, quemadmo¬ dum quotidie videmus, eos qui absenti regi coram prorege fidelitatem jurant, si forte de¬ fectionem moliatur ab ipso prorege continuo puniri ; et clericos, qui absenti Episcopo, coram ejus vicario generali obedientiam spondent, si forte contumaces efficiantur, ab eodem Vicario carceribus mancipari, et ple¬ cti. « At, inquit Barclaius, raro rex ipse fide¬ litatis jusjurandum acceptat, sed ut pluri¬ mum per Cancellarium id opus oxequitur- Cancellarius itaque cum Magnates in verba regis jurantes ad feuda, et dignitates admit¬ tit, eas in civili administratione, et jurisdi¬ ctione temporali sub rege partes obit, quas Pontifex sub Christo in spirituali guberna¬ tione Ecclesiae, cum principes ad eam venien¬ tes interposito fidelitatis, et pietatis erga Deum sacramento, recipit. Et ut ille quidem clienti semel recepto dicet postea fidem fran¬ gat crimenque committat, quod felloniam vocant) ex nulla causa feudum auferre po¬ test, quod solius regis sit, minimeque can- Gellario concessum. Ita neque hic receptos in Ecclesiam principes, quantumvis graviter postea delinquant, fidei que desertores fiant, regnis et dignitatibus privare, aut alio modo temporaliter punire potest. » Respondeo : Haec tota ratio deceptionis Barclaii, quod summum Pontificem Cancel¬ lario similem esse ducit, in quo nulla est ju¬ risdictio. Quae similitudo longissime abest a veritate : siquidem Scripturae divinae veram potestatem, et jurisdictionem, eamque am¬ plissimam, et supremam Pontifici tribuunt : nam quod dicitur Mattii, xvi : Quodcumque li¬ gaveris , et quodcumque solveris , non officium cancellarii, sed officium praesidis jurisdictio¬ nem habentis sonat. Et illud : Pasce oves meas, Joan. ult. non officium cancellarii in regno, sed potestatem illam Pontifici tr ibuit in Chri¬ stianos, quam habet pastor in oves, qui eas utique regere, et ligare, et baculo ferire, et ad omnem obedientiam cogere potest. Il¬ lud etiam quod Apostolus in Actis cap. xx. dicit : Attendite vobis , et universo gregi , in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit Episcopos re¬ gere Ecclesiam Dei : non officium cancella¬ rii, sed officium rectoris, et praepositi signifi¬ cat. Denique illud Matth. xxiv. Quis putas est fidelis servus , quem constituit Dominus supra familiam suam (1) ? non officium cancellarii nobis ostendit, sed officium magistri domus, qui toti familiae cum potestate praeest. Quare summus Pontifex non cancellario, sed pro- regi in regno, vel vicario in Episcopatu, vel rectori in civitate, vel praeposito in familia, vel capiti in corpore comparari debuit : et haec quidem a nobis dicta sunt, si admitten¬ da esset sententia illa Barclaii, quod princi¬ pes cum ad Ecclesiam veniunt, soli Christo fidelitatem, et obedientiam spondeant : sed ea sententia falsa est, neque eam admittere ulla ratione possumus, spondent enim prin¬ cipes obedientiam, et fidelitatem expresse vel tacite, non Christo solum, sed etiam iis, qui Christi locum in terris gerunt. Atque huc pertinet illa confirmatio argumenti, quam ego rationi meae quartae subjeci, et quam Barclaius in extremo cap. 124. refert et quor¬ sum pertineat, ignorare se dicit, aut fingit. « Quod autem, inquit, huic quartae ratio¬ ni subjicit : (nam non est idoneus Sacramento Baptismi, qui non est paratus Christo servire, et propter ipsum amittere quicquid habet : ait enim Dominus Luc. xiv. Si quis venit ad me , et non odit patrem , et matrem , et uxorem , adhuc autem , et animam suam , non po¬ test meus esse discipulus). Id quorsum spe- (I) Matth. XVI, 19; Joan. XXI, 17; Act. XX, 28; Mat. XXIV, 45. 80 DE POTESTATE PAPJi ctet, non video : nemo certe hoc negat, sed quid inde? talis ratio non magis ad institu¬ tum pertinet, quam quod remotissimum est : ut nec illud, quod ibidem sequitur. (Praeter¬ ea Ecclesia graviter erraret, si admitteret aliquem regem, qui vellet impune fovere quamlibet sectam, et defendere haereticos, et evertere Religionem.) Est hoc verissimum, sed ut dixi, nihil ad institutum pertinet : non enim de ea re hic quaestio est, sed de pote¬ state temporali Ecclesia, sive Summi Ponti¬ ficis . » Respondeo : Quorsum ista pertineant, et quod ad rem propositam maxime faciant, ita ostendo. Fingamus regem aliquem infidelem ad Ecclesiam venire, et a Barclaio institu¬ tum ita loqui : Ego civis Sanctorum per Ba¬ ptismum effici cupio, et sancte promitto, sce¬ ptrum meum Christo velle subjicere, Eccle¬ siam ejus pro viribus defendere, et numquam a sancto proposito deficere : protestor ta¬ men, quod si forte fidem fregero, si haereti¬ cus, si apostata, si paganus evasero, si Re¬ ligionem Catholicam persequi, et funditus evertere conatus fuero : nolo ab Ecclesia, vel ejus Praeside, sed a solo Christo poena temporali puniri : et si forte Praeses Ecclesiae per sententiam excommunicationis me de coetu piorum expulerit, volo ut nihominus fideles Ecclesiae filii mihi, ut regi servire et obcdire teneantur, neque ab hujus obedien- tiae vinculo absolvi ullo modo possint. Quaero nunc a Barclaio, an ejusmodi rex ab Eccle¬ sia, ut idoneus, ad Baptismum possit admit¬ ti? affirmabit opinor ; sed a prudentibus ir¬ ridebitur. Nam si quis civitate terrena donari vellet, et protestaretur, si proditor civitatis fieret, nolle se a praeside civitatis, sed a solo rege in longinqua regione manente, imme¬ diate posse puniri : quis non rideret ? Certe qui paratus esse debet, juxta Evangelium, vitam propriam exponere pro Christi fide, nonne magis paratus esse debet regnum ter¬ renum amittere ? ridiculum autem est, dice¬ re, paratus sum regno privari, si fidem fre¬ gero; sed nolo privari per sententiam homi¬ num, volo per Angelos de coelo sententiam pronuntiari. Certe etiam Ecclesia valde esset imprudens, si in gremium suum admitteret eum, qui vellet impune grassari in Ecclesiae membra, et nollet fidelem populum posse per ullam hominum mortalium auctoritatem a sua tyrannide liberari.