Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 25: Bellarmine's Fifth 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 twenty-fifth chapter Barclay examines my fifth reason, and first reports it in these words: The fifth and last reason is from the pastoral care and office. When it was said to Peter, he says, Feed my sheep, in the last chapter of John, there was given him every faculty which is necessary to a shepherd for protecting the flock; but to a shepherd a threefold power is necessary: one concerning wolves, that he may keep them off by every means he can; another concerning rams, that if at any time they harm the flock with their horns he may shut them up; the third concerning the rest of the sheep, that he may give to each fitting pasture; therefore the Supreme Pontiff has this threefold power. These things recited, Barclay adds: “From this principle and foundation three arguments, as it seems to him, are deduced which press. But that he may not go further, I answer first to that very foundation, that it is wholly true, and stands for me, and that from it the contrary of what he asserts is most beautifully gathered.” So he, who after many empty words weaves this syllogism: “Christ, in commending his sheep to Peter, gave him every power necessary for protecting the flock. But he did not give him temporal power; therefore temporal power is not necessary for protecting the flock.”
I answer: if by temporal power Barclay wishes to understand a power which is in itself properly and formally temporal, the argument can be admitted; but I deny that it follows from it that a power is not necessary to the Supreme Pontiff which, although in itself spiritual, can nevertheless be extended to temporal things, as they are referred to spiritual things and subordinated to them. But if by temporal power he understands the power of disposing of temporal things in order to spiritual, then I say that the assumption is false; and I add that Barclay's syllogism labours under that fault than which none is better known in the art of reasoning; for it assumes, and asks to be granted, the very thing that is in question. For it assumes that temporal power was not given to Saint Peter, as if this very thing were not what he strives to prove in his whole book. And certainly, if it were lawful to dispute in that way, I too could reason thus: Christ gave Peter only that power which is necessary for protecting and feeding the flock; but he gave a spiritual power which is extended to temporal things, as they are referred to spiritual; therefore a power of that kind is necessary for protecting and feeding the flock. But let us hear another syllogism of Barclay, not unlike the former. “Then,” he says, “we proceed in this way. It is absurd that the Supreme Pontiff, so far as he is the successor of blessed Peter, should have more power than Peter had. But Peter had no temporal power over Christians; therefore neither has the Supreme Pontiff now, so far as he is his successor.” And lest here too it be objected that he assumes what was to be proved, he proves the assumption from Bellarmine, book 5 on the Pontiff, chapter 6, where he says that the spiritual and temporal power are like spirit and flesh; and as spirit and flesh can be joined, as in man, and separated, as in angels and beasts, so also the spiritual and temporal power can be joined, as they now are among Christians, and separated, as they were in the time of the Apostles, when there was no political prince in the Church. From these Barclay gathers thus: “If these powers were separated in the time of the Apostles, as they truly were by right and in fact, it necessarily follows that Saint Peter had no temporal power; otherwise it would be false that they were separated.” This argument Barclay makes so much of that a little below he says: “And indeed these reasons are plainer than that anyone could without fraud resist and fight against them; so that it is a wonder that learned men, and others godly, are so blinded by a certain inconsiderate zeal that they do not hesitate to embrace and follow doubtful things for certain, obscure for clear, twisted for straight, and lastly things involved and entangled in many controversies and contradictions for plain.” So he, who to the end of the chapter goes on to proclaim his reverence toward the Apostolic See, to reprove our blindness, and to repeat, after his manner, much of what he had said before.
I answer: it was most truly said by Bellarmine that the spiritual or ecclesiastical power is most like the spirit, and the temporal or political the flesh; which comparison, before Bellarmine, Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Hugh of Saint Victor, Saint Thomas, Alexander of Hales, Thomas of Walden and others used to explain this matter. Nor was it less truly said that those powers were separated in the time of the Apostles, in the way that the angelic spirit is separated from flesh, and the flesh of brutes is separated from spirit; but are now joined, in the way that spirit and flesh are joined in men. But from these things it is rightly gathered that Saint Peter had the Apostolic power, that is, the spiritual and ecclesiastical, supreme and most ample, and did not have the royal or imperial power, or any other merely temporal and political; but it is not rightly gathered that the spiritual power of Saint Peter could not have extended itself to all temporal things, and to directing and correcting kingdoms and empires themselves, if kings and emperors had become Christians. So the difference between the Apostolic time and ours is not about the power, which was always the same in Saint Peter and in his successors, but about the subject matter, or about the use of the power; for then the Apostolic power was not exercised in directing kings, because there were no kings in the Christian Church, of which Church the shepherd and ruler is the Vicar of Christ; but now that same power is exercised in directing and correcting kings, since there is no lack in the Church of kings and political princes.
And to illustrate the matter by examples: certainly human spirits separated from bodies are the same as they were before, when they animated bodies, and have that very same power which they had before; and yet now, separated, they do not rule bodies as they ruled them before, and again after the resurrection they will rule them. So too angelic spirits, whether good or bad, while they assume no bodies, exercise no power over the members of a body; but when they either join to themselves airy bodies, or enter into human bodies, they move those bodies at their nod, and command and govern them; and yet no one will be so imprudent as to think that angels acquire a new power when they assume bodies. By the same reasoning, when in the human body some member is cut off and separated from the rest of the body, the spirit cannot move that member and rule over it; not because power is lacking to the spirit, but because the member is lacking in whose moving the spirit might be exercised. Lastly, at the beginning of the Christian Church, before the Apostles ordained deacons, the Apostles could not use deacons and command them; but after they were ordained, the Apostles used them and commanded them. Shall we then grant that some ecclesiastical power was lacking to the Apostles before deacons began to be in the Church? We shall grant it altogether, if we play the fool with Barclay, who from a lack of matter gathers a lack of power. From these things it appears how light are the arguments of Barclay, which in his own judgment seemed indissoluble demonstrations.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXV. Defenditur quinta ratio Bellarmini pro pote¬ state Summi Pontificis in temporalibus. In cap. 2o. Barclaius excutit rationem meam quintam, ac primum eam refert his verbis : Quinta et postrema ratio est ex cura, et officio pastorali. Cum Petro dictum est, inquit, Pasce oves meas , Joan. ult., data est illi facultas omnis, quae pastori necessaria ad gregem tuendum : at pastori necessaria est potestas triplex, una circa lupos, ut eos arceat omni ratione, qua poterit : altera circa arietes, ut si quando cornibus laedant gregem, possit eos recludere : tertia circa oves reliquas, ut singulis tribuat convenien¬ tia pabula ; ergo hanc triplicem potestatem habet Summus Pontifex. His recitatis subjungit Barclaius : « Ex hoc principio, et fundamento tria, ut illi vi¬ detur, argumenta urgentia deducuntur. Sed ne longius abeat, respondeo in primis ad istud ipsum fundamentum, totum verum esse, ac pro me stare, atque inde contrarium ejus, quod ipse asserit bellissime colligi. » Haec ille, qui post multa inania verba texit hunc syllogismum : « Christus commendando suas oves Petro dedit omnem potestatem necessariam ad tuendum gregem. Atqui non dedit ei potestatem temporalem : ergo potestas temporalis, non est necessaria ad tuendum gregem. » Respondeo : Si per potestatem temporalem velit intelligi Barclaiuspotestatem, quse sit in se proprie, et formaliter temporalis, admitti potest argumentum : sed nego inde sequi, non esse necessariam summo Pontifici po¬ testatem, quae, licet sit in se spiritualis, ta¬ men extendi possit ad temporalia, prout ad spiritualia, referuntur, eisquesubordinantur. Sin autem per potestatem temporalem intelligat potestatem disponendi de tem¬ poralibus in ordine ad spiritualia : tum dico, falsam esse assumptionem : et addo syllogissimum Barclaii eo vitio laborare, quo nullum est in arte disserendi notius, id enim assumit, et sibi concedi petit, quod vertitur in quaestionem. Assumit enim S. Petro non fuisse datam temporalem potestatem, quasi hoc ipsum non esset quod in toto libro suo probare contendit. Et certe si isto modo dis- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 81 putare liceret, possem ego quoque ita rafio- cinari : Christus Petro dedit eam solum po¬ testatem, quae necessaria est ad tuendum, et pascendum gregem : atqui dedit potestatem spiritualem, qme extenditur ad temporalia, ut ad spiritualia referuntur; ergo ejusmodi potestas necessaria est ad gregem tuendum, atque pascendum. Sed audiamus alium syl¬ logismum Barclaii, priori non dissimilem. « Deinde, inquit, progredimur hoc modo. Absurdum est summum Pontificem, quate¬ nus successor estB. Petri, habere p'us pote¬ statis, quam habuit Petrus. At Petrus nul¬ lam habuit potestatem temporalem in Chri¬ stianos : ergo nec summus nunc Pontifex, quatenus successor ejus est. » Ac ne hic quoque objiciatur, eum assume¬ re, quod erat probandum, probat assum¬ ptionem ex Bellarmino lib. v. de Pontif. cap. 6, ubi dicit, potestatem spiritualem, et temporalem esse similes spiritui, et carni : et quemadmodum spiritus, et caro possunt esse conjuncta, ut in homine, et separata, ut in angelis, et bestiis, sic etiam potestas spiritualis, et temporalis possunt esse con¬ junctae, ut nunc sunt inter Christianos; et separatae, ut erant tempore Apostolorum, quando nullus erat in Ecclesia princeps po¬ liticus. Ex his ita colligit Barclaius : « Si separatae erant hae potestates tempore Apostolorum, ut erant revera de jure, et de facto : consequitur necessario, divum Pe¬ trum nullam habuisse temporalem potesta¬ tem : alioqui falsum esset eas fuisse separa¬ tas. » Hoc argumentum tanti facit Barclaius, ut paulo infra dicat : « Et vero hae rationes apertiores sunt, quam quibus aliquis sine fraude reniti, et repugnare possit ; ut mirum sit homineseru- ditos, caeterosque pios, ita zelo quodam in¬ considerato obcaecari, ut dubia pro certis, pro perspicuis obscura, pro rectis contorta, pro expeditis denique involuta, et implicata multis controversiis, et contradictionibus amplecti, et sequi non dubitent. » Haec ille, qui usque ad finem capitis pergit reverentiam suam erga Sedem Apostolicam praedicare, nostram c^citatem redarguere, et multa ex iis, quae antea dixerat, more suo repetere. Respondeo : Verissime dictura a Bellarmi¬ no simillimam esse potestatem spiritualem, sive Ecclesiasticam spiritui, et temporalem, sive politicam carni : quam similitudinem ante Bellarminum ad hanc rem explicandam Tom. X. adhibuerunt S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Hu- g o de S. Victore, S. Thomas, Alexander A- lensis, Thomas Waldensis, et alii. Nec minus vere dictum est, eas potestates tempore A- postohirum fuisse separatas, quo modo spi¬ ritus Angelicus separatus est a carne : et ca¬ ro brutorum separata est a spiritu : nunc autem conjunctas esse, quo modo spiritus, et caro conjunguntur in homines. Ex his au¬ tem recte colligitur, S. Petrum habuisse potestatem Apostolicam, id est, spiritualem, et Ecclesiasticam, supremam, et amplissi¬ mam, et non habuisse potestatem regiam, sive imperatoriam, aliamve mere tempora¬ lem, atque politicam : sed non recte colligi¬ tur, potestatem spiritualem S. Petri non se potuisse extendere ad omnia temporalia, et ad ipsa regna, et imperia dirigenda, et cor¬ rigenda, si reges, et imperatores Christiani fierent. Itaque discrimen inter tempus Apo- stolicum, et nostrum, non est circa potesta¬ tem, quae semper eadem fuit in S. Petro, et in successoribus ; sed circa materiam subje¬ ctam, sive circa usum potestatis : tunc enim potestas Apostolica non exercebatur in regi¬ bus dirigendis, quia nulli erant reges in Ec¬ clesia Christiana, cujus Ecclesiae pastor, et rector est Christi Vicarius : nunc autem ea¬ dem illa potestas exercetur in regibus di¬ rigendis, et conigendis, quoniam non desunt in Ecclesia reges, et principes politici. Ac ut exemplis rem illustremus, certe spi¬ ritus humani a corporibus separati, iidem sunt, qui antea erant cum corpora anima¬ rent, et eamdem ipsam potestatem habent, quam antea habebant : et tamen nunc sepa¬ rati non regunt corpora, ut antea regebant, et iterum post resurrectionem regent, sic etiam spiritus Angelici sive boni, sive mali, dum corpora nulla assumunt, non exercent potestatem in membra corporis : cum au¬ tem vel corpora aerea sibi adjungunt, vel in corpora humana ingrediuntur, corpora illa nutu movent, eisque imperant et moderan¬ tur : nec tamen ullus erit tam imprudens, qui existimet Angelos acquirere potestatem novam, cum corpora assumunt : pari ratio¬ ne cum in corpore humano membrum ali¬ quod abscinditur, et a reliquo corpore sepa¬ ratur, non potest spiritus membrum illud movere, eique dominari; non quod potestas spiritui desit, sed quia deest membrum, in quo movendo spiritus exerceatur. Denique initio Ecclesiae Christiana? antequam Aposto¬ li Diaconos ordinarent, non poterantApostoli 6 82 DE POTESTATE PAPA? Diaconis uti, eicque imperare : postearjuam autem ordinati sunt, iis Apost ili utebantur, eisque imperabant. Num igitur concedemus, defuisse Apostolisali quam potestatem Eccle¬ siasticam antequam Diaconi esse cmpissent in Ecclesia? concedemus omnino, si cum Barclaio desipiamus, qui ex defectu materi® defectum colligit potestatis. Ex bis apparet, quam levia sint argumenta Barclaii, qu® ipsius judicio demonstrationes indissolubiles videbantur.