Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 26: The First Part of the 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-sixth chapter Barclay sets about refuting the first part of my fifth reason. The reasoning was this: To a shepherd a power concerning wolves is necessary, that he may keep them from the fold by every means he can; but the wolves who lay waste the Church are heretics; therefore if some prince from a sheep or a ram becomes a wolf, that is, from a Christian becomes a heretic, the shepherd of the Church will be able to keep him off by excommunication, and at the same time to order the people not to follow him, and therefore to deprive him of the dominion which he has over his subjects. To this reasoning Barclay, answering, admits everything except that last part of the conclusion, in which we said the shepherd can order the people no longer to follow their king; for he distinguishes this part, and says that the shepherd can indeed order the faithful not to follow a heretical king in his heresies, but cannot order them not to follow him in political matters. He adds that a heretical king can indeed be deprived of the communion of the faithful in sacred things, but that not even this is to be done if there is danger of schism and scandal and graver evils, from Augustine, book 3, chapter 2, against the epistle of Parmenian; of which matter we spoke in chapter 9, where Barclay treated these same things more fully; for I have already warned that Barclay chose to spend a great part of his book in repeating the same things.
These things being left aside, the whole reason for which Barclay denies that the faithful can be forbidden by the supreme Shepherd to render obedience to a heretical king even in political matters is this, that by divine law obedience is owed to kings; and no man, not even the Supreme Pontiff himself, can dispense in divine law; and to prove this he brings forward the rescript of Innocent III, who in the chapter Cum ad monasterium, on the state of monks, says that “a monk cannot be dispensed to marry, or to have property of his own”; and in this place he disputes much about divine and human law, and about the marriage of Constance, daughter of King Roger, who, though a nun, is said to have married the emperor Henry VI by dispensation of Pope Clement III. But we have shown above that Barclay's reason is of no strength; because it is of divine law that an inferior obey a superior as long as he is superior; but if he has ceased to be superior, the precept of showing him obedience will cease too. Which we showed from many like cases; for it is of divine law not only that the people obey the king, but also that children obey their father, servants their master, wives their husbands; and yet if a son is emancipated, and a servant given his liberty, and a wife separated from her husband by divorce or repudiation, they are no longer held by that divine law; as also a sworn promise is by divine law to be kept, and yet if he to whom the promise was made releases it, he who promised will not be bound to fulfil it. Restitution is sanctioned by divine law, and yet if the creditor remits the debt, no obligation of restitution remains; and very many like examples could be brought. So then, by divine law the people is bound to serve the king as long as he is king; but if he ceases to be king, which can happen in many ways, no obligation of service or obedience remains; but it is not of divine law that a king cannot for just causes be deposed; and much less is it of divine law that the Supreme Pontiff cannot declare that a heretical king is not a lawful king, and that no obedience is owed him by the faithful people.
As to the chapter Cum ad monasterium, on the state of monks, the matter is easy; for Innocent teaches only this, that marriage and ownership of things cannot stand with the state of monks, since continence and poverty belong to the essence of the monastic life. So the Supreme Pontiff cannot bring it about that the same man be a monk and married, the same a monk and rich in wealth of his own. But it is another thing whether the Supreme Pontiff can dispense a monk to pass from the monastic life to the secular life, and, having become secular, to be able to enter marriage and keep wealth as his own; for on this the doctors think variously. And as to Constance, daughter of King Roger, we think it a fable that, being a nun and an old woman, she married Henry VI by dispensation of Clement III. For Godfrey of Viterbo, who instructed Henry VI in letters and morals, writes that the marriage of Henry with Constance was celebrated at Milan in the year of salvation 1186, Urban III sitting in the Apostolic See, and Constance herself in her thirtieth year; from which it follows that it is false that Clement III dispensed her from monastic vows, or, as others say, Celestine III, or, as others, Alexander III; for this last had already died, and the others had not yet begun to sit; it is false too that she married when she was an old woman above fifty years; it is false, lastly, that she was a nun before, since none of those who lived at that time writes it. See Cardinal Baronius, volume 12 of the Annals, at the year 1186.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXVI. Detenditur prima pars rationis quintae pro po¬ testate summi Pontificis in temporalibus. In cap. 26. aggreditur Barclaius refutare primam partem rationis me® quint® : erat autem h®c ratiocinatio. Pastori necessaria est potestas circa lupos, ut eos arceat omni ratione qua poterit ab ovili : lupi autem, qui Ecclesiam vastant, sunt haeretici : ergo si princeps aliquis ex ove, aut ariete lupus fiat, id est, ex Christiano fiat h®reticus, po¬ terit pastor Ecclesi® eum arcere per excom¬ municationem. et simul jubere populo ne eum sequatur, ac proinde privare dominio, quod habet in subditos. Ad hanc ratiocinationem Barclaius re¬ spondens admittit omnia, excepta illa ex¬ trema parte conclusionis, qua diximus, posse Pastorem jubere populo, ut non sequatur amplius regem suum . distinguit enim hanc partem, ac dicit : Posse quidem pastorem jubere fidelibus , ut non sequantur regem h®retieum in h®resibus, sed non posse ju¬ bere, ut non sequantur eum in rebus politi¬ cis. Addit autem posse quidem regem h®reti- cum privari communione fidelium in rebus sacris, sed neque hoc esse faciendum, si periculum sit schismatis, et scandali, et gra¬ viorum malorum , ex Augustino lib. iii. cap. 2. contra Epist. Parmeniani : de qua re diximus, cap. 9. Ubi h®c eadem Barclaius fusius tractavit : jam enim admonui, Bar- claium in repetitione rerum earumdem ma¬ gnam partem libri sui consumere voluisse. His igitur omissis, tota ratio , ob quam negat Barclaius posse a summo Pastore pro¬ hiberi fidelibus, ut regi hmretico obedien- tiam etiam in rebus politicis praestent, ea est, quoniam jure divino debetur regibus obedien ia : et non potest ullus humo, ac ne ipse quidem summus Po itifex dispensare in jure divino ; et ad hoc probandum adducit rescriptum Innoccntii 111. qui cap Cum ad monasterium, de statu Monach., dicit : «Non posse dispensari cum monacho, ut uxorem ducat, vel rerum proprietatem habeat » : et hoc loco multa disputat de jure divino, et humano, et de matrimonio Constanti® Hogerii regis fili®, qu® cum esset sanctimo¬ nialis, ex dispensatione Clementis III. Ponti¬ ficis, nupsisse dicitur Henrico VI imperatori. At nos supra, rationem Barclaii nullius roboris esse demonstravimus : quoniam de jure divino est, ut inferior obediat supeiiori, quamdiu superior est ; sed si desierit esse superior, desinet etiam pr®ceptum de obe- dientia il i exhibenda. Id quod octcndimus ex multis similibus : siquidem juris divini est, non solum , ut populus obediat -regi ; sed etiam ut filii obediant patri, servi domi¬ no, uxores maritis : et tamen si filius eman¬ cipetur, et servus libertate donetur, et uxor per divortium, aut repudium a marito sepa¬ retur, non amplius tenentur lege illa divina : quemadmodum etiam promissio jurata jure divino servanda est et tamen si is, cui pro¬ missio facta est, eam relaxet, non tenebitur eam implere qui promisit. Restitutio jure divino sancita est, et tamen si creditor de¬ bitum remittat, restitutionis obligatio nulla restat : atque exempla similia plurima' possent adduci. Sic igitur, jure divino te¬ netur populus regi servire, dum rex est : sed si rex desinat esse, quod multis modis fieri potest, nulla remanet obligatio servi¬ tutis, aut obedienti® ; non est autem de jure divino, ut rex justis de causis deponi non possit : multoque minus juris divini est, ut summus Pontifex declarare non possit, regem b®reticum non esse legitimum re¬ gem, nullamque ei deberi a fideli populo obedientiam. Quod autem attinet ad cap. Cum ad mo¬ nasterium, de statu monachorum, res facilis est : id enim solum innocentius docet, non posse consistere matrimonium, et proprie¬ tatem rerum cum statu monachorum ; cum ad essentiam vitae monasticae pertineant continentia, et paupertas. Itaque non pote¬ rit summus Pontifex facere, ut idem mona¬ chus sit, et conjugatus : idem monachus, et dives oprun in particulari. Aliud autem est, utrum possit summus Pontifex dispen- IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 83 sare cum monacho, ut transeat a vita mo¬ nastica ad vitam sa3c darem, et saecularis effectus matrimonium inire possit, ct opes propriis retinere, de hoc enim varie sen¬ tiunt doctoics. De Constantia vero Rogerii regis fili;e fabulam esse existimamus, quod sanctimonialis, et vetula eum esset, dispen¬ satione Clementis III. nupserit Henrico VI. Nam Gotefridus Viterbiensis, qui Henricum VI. in litteris, ct moribus instituebat, scri¬ bit, nuptias Hcnrici cum Constantia celebra¬ tas Mediolani anno salutis 1186. sedente in Apostoliea Sede Urbano III. et ipsa Con¬ stantia annum trigesimum agente, ex quo sequitur, ut falsum sit dispensasse cum ea in votis monasticis Clementem III. vel, ut alii dicunt, Coelestinum III, ut a! i i, Alexan¬ drum III; nam hic jam obierat, illi nondum sedere coeperant : falsum quoque sit, eam nupsisse cum esset vetula annorum supra quinquaginta : falsum denique fuisse antea sanctimonialem, cum id nullus scribat ex iis, qui eo tempore vixerunt. Vide Card. Ba- ronium toni. xn. Annalium ad annum 1186.