Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 33: The Second Part of the Fifth Principal 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 thirty-second chapter Barclay, returning home from a long digression, proposes, discusses and strives to refute the second part of my principal reason, which was contained in this reasoning: A shepherd can separate and shut up furious rams that are destroying the fold; but a prince is a furious ram destroying the fold when he is Catholic in faith, but so bad that he greatly harms religion and the Church, as if he sells bishoprics, plunders churches, and so on; therefore the shepherd of the Church will be able to shut him up, or reduce him to the rank of the sheep. Barclay, about to attack this reasoning, begins with a censure of words, and says that I should have said exclude, not recludere; for recludere is to open. But by recludere I meant to signify not to shut out, but to shut in; for shepherds are wont to shut up furious rams in some place, that they may not be able to butt the little sheep with their horns or trample them with their feet. But recludere, he says, is to open, not to shut. That is true indeed when we say recludere the doors, or a house, or a prison; but when we say to recludere something within doors, or to recludere a man in a house or prison, then recludere is taken for what is to shut or shut in; and in this latter way I meant to signify that a ram is shut up by the shepherd in some narrow and fortified place, whence he cannot easily get out. And lest Barclay think I spoke without an author, let him read Hincmar in the life of Saint Remigius, Ivo in epistle 49, Aimoin in book 4 of the history, chapter 57, and he will find everywhere that recludere is used by authors not bad for to shut in, in the way that to re-bind is not to loose, but to bind again or more tightly. And that we may wholly stop Barclay's mouth, let him hear Saint Jerome, an author of the first class, in the book against Vigilantius, speaking thus: “You say that the souls of the Apostles and martyrs have settled either in the bosom of Abraham, or in the place of refreshment, or under the altar of God, and cannot be present at their tombs and where they will; they are namely of senatorial dignity, and are not shut up (recluduntur) among murderers in the foulest prison, but in free and honourable custody, in the Isles of the Blest and the Elysian fields.” So Saint Jerome, to whom Barclay will not dare, I think, to say, recludere is to open, therefore it should have been shut in, not recluduntur. And that from the same Saint Jerome we may return Barclay the favour of a brotherly correction, let him remember that in chapter 30 he swore by Hercules, when he said, I, by Hercules, and so on; and let him hear Saint Jerome in the epistle to Damasus on the prodigal son saying: “Far be it that from a Christian mouth should sound, by Hercules, and by Castor, and the other monsters rather than deities.” But these things left aside, let us come to serious matters.
Barclay admits my whole reasoning, and everything that is deduced from it by good consequence. But he denies that anything else can be made of it than that the shepherd, that is, the Pope, can by excommunication shut out from the fold a furious ram, that is, a very bad king, and deprive him of the spiritual benefits of the sacraments and suffrages; but not proceed further to any temporal punishment, such as above all is the deprivation of temporal jurisdiction or dominion. But Barclay does not perceive the force of the argument from the comparison proposed, which he admitted as apt and fit for explaining and proving this matter. For the shepherd does not only shut out the furious ram from the flock, but ties him up and shuts him up, or shuts him in, in some corner, so that he can no longer be leader of the flock. And after the likeness of this shepherd, the successor of Saint Peter and Vicar of Christ binds a Christian prince destroying the Church with the bonds of excommunication, and in a certain way shuts him into a corner, while he does not allow him any longer to rule Christian peoples. But what Barclay says, that a prince can be excommunicated, but cannot be deprived except of spiritual goods, and thereby cannot be deprived of authority, or jurisdiction, or temporal dominion, nor can his subjects be absolved from the fidelity and obedience which they owed him, is a wonder, since the sacred canons, the science of which he himself professes, set among the effects of excommunication not only the deprivation of the sacraments and suffrages, but also of civil intercourse, and especially of that of the courts, so that an excommunicated man cannot sit on the bench and judge, nor subjects appear in judgment before an excommunicated man, as is the common opinion, from the chapter Ad probandum, on sentence and the thing judged, and from the chapter Decernimus, on the sentence of excommunication, in the Sixth; likewise the deprivation or suspension of jurisdiction, and the absolution of subjects from fidelity; of which matter in Gratian, cause 15, question 6, the penultimate canon, we read thus: “We, holding the statutes of our holy predecessors, absolve by Apostolic authority from their oath those who are bound to excommunicated men by fidelity or oath, and forbid them by every means to keep fidelity to them, until they themselves come to satisfaction”; and the last canon: “Forbid the soldiers sworn to Count Hugh to serve him as long as he is excommunicated; and if they plead their oaths, let them be warned that they ought to serve God rather than men.” Lastly, in the case of heresy Saint Thomas teaches in 2-2, question 12, article 2, that a man is deprived even of dominion, in these words: “As soon as anyone is declared by sentence excommunicated on account of apostasy from the faith, by that very fact his subjects are absolved from his dominion and from the oath of fidelity by which they were held to him.” And although outside the case of heresy, by force of the sentence of excommunication, deprivation of temporal dominion does not follow, whether of particular things or of kingdoms and principalities; yet that kings and other princes can be deprived by the Supreme Pontiff for just causes of their kingdom or principality was proved above by many testimonies and reasons, nor could Barclay by his cavils in any way shake them.
“But,” he says, “temporal goods, which are possessed by civil and human power, are received from the hand of the political prince; therefore they cannot be taken away by excommunication, which is the sentence of a spiritual judge.” I answer: temporal goods, although they are possessed by human and civil power, are nevertheless subordinated to spiritual goods, and the temporal power itself is subjected to the spiritual power. Therefore it is true indeed that spiritual things cannot be taken away by the sentence of a temporal judge, nor is the spiritual power subjected to the temporal; but it is not true that some temporal things cannot be taken away by excommunication, which is the sentence of a spiritual judge. Nor can this be called into doubt, since it is sufficiently established that civil intercourse and actions in the courts are temporal and civil goods; and yet excommunicated men are deprived of these temporal goods, especially after public denunciation or declaration.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXIII. Defenditur pars secunda rationis quintae prin¬ cipalis pro potestate summi Pontificis in temporalibus. In cap. 32. Barclaius ex longa digressione domum rediens, proponit, ac discutit, et re¬ fellere nit tur secundam partem rationis meae principalis, quae hac ratiocinatione continebatur : Potest pastor arietes furiosos destruentes ovile separare et recludere : Princeps autem est aries furiosus destruens ovile, quando est catholicus fide, sed adeo malus, ut multum obsit Religioni , et Eccle¬ siae, ut si Episcopatus vendat. Ecclesias diri¬ piat, etc. Ergo poterit pastor Ecclesiae eum recludere, vel redigere in ordinem ovium. Hanc ratiocinationem Barclaius impugna¬ turus incipit a censura vocabulorum, ac di¬ cit, excludere dicendum erat, non recludere : recludere enim aperire est. At ego per reclu¬ dere, non excludere, sed includere signifi¬ care volui : solent enim pastores arietes fu¬ riosos includere in aliquem locum, ut non possint cornibus oviculas petere, vel pedibus conculcare. Sed recludere, inquit ille, ape¬ rire est, non claudere. Verum est id quidem, cum dicimus, recludere fores, aut domum, aut carcerem : sed cum dicimus recludere aliquid intra fores, aut hominem in domo, vel carcere recludere, tum recludere, acci¬ pitur pro eo quod est claudere, vel includere: et hoc posteriore modo significare volui , arietem a pastore recludi in loco aliquo an¬ gusto, et munito, unde non facile possit egre¬ di. Ac ne putet Barclaius, me sine auctore esse loquutum, legat Hincmarum in vita S. Remigii, lvonem inEpist. 49, Aimoinum, IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS 95 in lih. iv. historia) cap. 57, et inveniet pas- sira recludere ab auctoribus non malis usur¬ pari pro includere, quo modo religare, nori est solvere, sed iterum, vrl arctius ligaro. Ac u*t os Barclan penitus obstruamus, audiat S. Hieronymum auctorem primae classis, iu libro adversus Vigilantium, sic lo:|uentem : (i Ais vel in sinu Abrahae, vel in loco retri- gerii, vel subter aram Dei animas Apostolo¬ rum, et Martyrum consedisse, nec posse suis tumulis, et ubi voluerint adesse praesentes : Senaioriae videlicet dignitatis sunt, et non inter homicidas teterrimo carcere, sed in li¬ bera, honestaque custodia, in Fortunatorum Insulis, et in campis Elysiis recluduntur : » haecS. Hieronymus, cui non audebit, opinor, Barclaius dicere , recludere aperire est , proinde includuntur dicendum erat, non re¬ cluduntur. Ac ut ex eodem S. Hieronymo referamus Barclaio gratiam fraternas cor¬ reptionis : meminerit se cap. 30. jurasse per Herculem, cum ait : Ego me Hercle, etc. et audiat S. Hieronymum in Epistola ad Dama- sum, de lilio prodigo dicentem, « Absit ut de ore Christiano sonet, me Hercule, et me Castor, et esetera magis portenta, quam numina. » Sed his omissis, veniamus ad se¬ ria. Admittit Barclaius ratiocinationem meam totam, et omnia, qua) inde per bonam con¬ secutionem deducuntur. Sed negat inde aliud effici posse, nisi ut Pastor, id est Papa arie¬ tem furiosum, id est regem dclerrinum possit per excommunicationem ab ovili ex¬ cludere, et privare spiritualibus beneficiis Sacramentorum, ct suffragiorum : sed non ultra procedere ad ullam poenam tempora¬ lem, qualis in primis est privatio tempora¬ lis jurisdictionis, aut dominii. Sed Barclaius non percipit vim argumenti ex proposita similitudine , quam admisit, ut aptam atque idoneam ad hanc rem expli¬ candam, et probandam. Neque enim pastor arietem furiosum solum excludit a grege ; sed alligat, ct recludit, sive includit in aliquo angulo, ut non possit amplius Dux esse gre¬ gis. Et ad hujus pastoris similitudinem suc¬ cessor sancti Petri, et Vicarius Christi Prin¬ cipem Christianum destruentem Ecclesiam, alligat vinculis excommunicationis, et quo¬ dam modo includit in angulum , dum non finit, ut regat amplius populos Christianos. Quod autem Barclaius dicit : Posse prin¬ cipem excommunicari, sed non posse privari nisi spiritualibus bonis, ac per hoc non posse priva- i auctoritate, vel jursdictionc, vel do¬ mino temporali, neque posse subditos ejus absolvi a fidelitate, et obedieutia, quam illi debebant, mirum est, cum sacri Canones, quorum scientiam ipse profitetur, inter ex¬ communicationis effectus ponant, non solum privationem Sacramentorum, et suffragio¬ rum; sed etiam commercii civilis, ac praeci¬ pue forensis, ut non possit cxcommunicatus pro tribunali sedere, et judicare, neque sub¬ diti comparare in judicio curam excommu¬ nicato, ut est communis sententia, ex cap. Ad probandum, de sent. et re judic. et ex cap. Decernimus, de sent. excommunio. in 6. Item privationem, vel suspensionem juris¬ dictionis, et absolutionem subditorum a fide¬ litate ; de quare apud Gratianum 15. q. 6. Can. penultimo sic legimus. « Nos sancto¬ rum praedecessorum nostrorum statuta te¬ nentes, eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate, aut Sacramento constricti sunt, Apostolica auctoritate a juramento absolvimus, et ne sibi fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant, >* et can. ultim. « Juratos milites Hugoni Comiti, ne ipsi quamdiu cxcommu¬ nicatus est sci viant, piohibeto, qui si Sacra¬ menta praetenderint , moneantur, oportere Deo magis servire, quam hominibus. » De¬ nique in c isu hseresis privari etiam domino docet sanctus Thomas in 2. 2. q. 12. art. 2. his verbis, u Quam cito aliquis per senten¬ tiam denunciatur excommun iratus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso facto subditi absoluti sunt a dominio ejus, et a fidelitatis juramen¬ to, quo ei tenebantur. » Et quamvis extra casum hairesis.ex vi sententia) excommuni¬ cationis uon sequatur privatio dominii tem¬ poralis, sive rerum particularium, sive reg¬ norum, et principatuum ; tamen posse per summum Pontificem privari reges aliosque principes justis de causis regno, vel princi¬ patu, probatum est supra testimoniis, et ra¬ tionibus multis, neque ea potuit Barclaius cavillationibus suis ullo modo convellere. « At, inquit, bona temporalia, qua) civili, et humana potestate possidentur, de manu principis politici accipiuntur, ergo non pos¬ sunt auferri per excommunicationem, qute est sententia judicis temporalis. » Respondeo : Bona temporalia, quamvis humana, et civili potestate' possideantur, tamen bonis spiritualibus subordinaritur, et potestas ipsa temporalis potestati spirituali subjicitur. Ideo verum quidem est, non posse 96 DE POTESTATE PAPAS spiritualia tolli per sententiam judicis tem¬ poralibus, neque potestas spiritualis tempo¬ rali subjicitur : sed non est verum, non posse temporalia aliqua tolli per excommu¬ nicationem, quae est sententia judicis spiri¬ tualis. Neque hoc in dubium revocari potest, cum satis constet commercium civile, et ac¬ tiones forenses , bona esse temporalia, et civilia : et tamen istis bonis temporalibus privari excommunicatos, praesertim postpu- blicam denuntiationem, vel declarationem.