Bellarmine · De Potestate Summi Pontificis in Temporalibus · On the Power of the Supreme Pontiff in Temporal Matters, against William Barclay
Chapter 39: The Third Example Brought Forward 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).
The third example I had brought forward from Saint Ambrose, who excommunicated the emperor Theodosius on account of the slaughter which he had made too cruelly at Thessalonica; then compelled him to make a law that sentences passed of death or confiscation of goods should not be valid until thirty days after the pronouncing of the sentence, namely so that if he had dictated anything hastily through anger, he might within that space revoke it with a calmed breast. From this example I had gathered that the emperor, who had his seat at Milan, could be judged by the bishop of Milan. From which again I had deduced: if a bishop could do this, how much more the prince of bishops, the Pope? To this example Barclay so answers that first he admits that a bishop can take cognizance of the crime of a prince in the external ecclesiastical forum, and punish it with an ecclesiastical punishment, such as above all is excommunication, and that in this way Ambrose took cognizance of the cause of Theodosius concerning the slaughter, as it was a sin, and excommunicated the same Theodosius made guilty; then he grants that it was commanded by Bishop Ambrose that Theodosius make that law in penance for the sin committed, without which fruit or sign of penance he would not have released him from the bond of anathema. But from these things he gathers that Saint Ambrose had over Theodosius a spiritual jurisdiction, not a temporal or political one.
But I did not bring forward that example, as far as it concerns excommunication, against Barclay, who had not yet become known to the world, but against others, especially the English Calvinists, who deny that a supreme prince can be excommunicated by the Supreme Pontiff, or that the Supreme Pontiff has any jurisdiction or power over supreme princes. But as to the political law which Theodosius made at the command of Ambrose, we certainly do not deny that it pertains to the fruit of penance, and was commanded by the spiritual power of the bishop; but we wished to show that ecclesiastical princes can, not only in the internal forum of conscience, but also in the external ecclesiastical forum, dispose of temporal things as they have an order to spiritual. For certainly by the power by which Saint Ambrose could compel Theodosius, if he wished to be released from the bond of anathema, to make that political law, by the same he could compel the same man to make another political law necessary for the salvation of souls, unless he wished to be bound by the bond of anathema. From which it is manifestly gathered that with much greater reason the Supreme Pontiff, president of the universal Church, could command temporal princes under pain of anathema to make political laws necessary for the spiritual good, and on the contrary to abrogate those which hinder the spiritual good; and that in this way the temporal power is subject to the spiritual power.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXXIX. Defenditur tertium exemplum allatum pro potestate summi Pontificis in temporali¬ bus. Tertium exemplum attuleram ex S. Am¬ brosio, qui Theodosium imperatorem cxcom- municavit propter csedem, quam Thessato- nicse nimis crudeliter fecerat : deinde coe¬ git eum, ut legem ferret, ne sententiee latse de csede aut publicatione bonorum ratse es¬ sent, nisi post triginta dies a pronunciatione sententiae, nimirum ut si quid per iracun¬ diam praecipitanter dictasset, intra spatium illud sedato pectore revocaret. Ex quo exemplo collegeram ab episcopo Mediola¬ nense potuisse judicari imperatorem, qui apud Mediolanum sedem habebat. Ex quo rursus deduxeram, si hoc potuit Episcopus, quanto magis princeps Episcoporum Papa ? Ad hoc exemplum ita respondet Barclaius, ut primum admittat. Episcopum posse cog¬ noscere de crimine principis in foro exter¬ no Ecclesiastico, et illud punire poena Eccle¬ siastica, qualis in primis excommunicatio est, et hoc modo cognovisse Ambrosium causam Theodosii de ceede, ut peccatum erat, et eumdem Theodosium reum factum excom- municasse : deinde concedit, ab episcopo Ambrosio imperatum fuisse, ut Theodosius legem illam ferret in poenitentiam peccati commissi, sine quo poenitentia) fructu vel signo ,eum ab anathematis vinculo non sol¬ visset. Ex his vero colligit, S. Ambrosium habuisse in Theodosium spiritualem juris¬ dictionem, non autem temporalem, aut poli¬ ticam. At ego exemplum illud, quod attinet ad excommunicationem, non attuli adversus Barclaium, qui nondum orbi terrarum inno¬ tuerat : sed adversus alios, praesertim An- glos Calvinistas, qui negant principem su¬ premum excommunicari posse a summo Pontifice, vel summum Pontificem ullam habere in supremos principes jurisdictio¬ nem, vel potestatem, quod vero attinet ad legem politicam, quam Theodosius ex Am¬ brosii praecepto tulit ; non utique negamus, eam ad fructum poenitentiae pertinere, et a spirituali potestate Episcopi fuisse impera¬ tam : sed ostendere voluimus, posse princi¬ pes Ecclesiasticos non solum in foro interno conscientiae, sed etiam in foro externo eccle¬ siastico disponere de temporalibus, ut ad spiritualia ordinem habent. Certe enim qua potestate S. Ambrosius potuit Theodosium cogere, si a vinculo anathematis solvi vellet, ad legem illam politicam ferendam : eadem potuit eumdem cogere ad aliam legem poli¬ ticam saluti animarum necessariam feren¬ dam, nisi vellet anathematis vinculo alligari. Ex quo manifeste colligitur, multo majore ratione potuisse Pontificem Maximum, Ec- clesise universse prsesidem, imperare princi¬ pibus temporalibus sub anathematis poena, ut leges politicas spirituali bono necessarias ferant, et contra, ut eas abrogent, qua) spi¬ rituale bonum impediunt : atque hoc modo spirituali potestati, temporalem potestatem esse subjectam.