■ π:

- Μ?·

-

.

-

.

'

CH-

<
ί
il
É
n
i

%

T

THE MOORE SERIES OF

—

ENGLISH , .’.TRANSLATIONS ‘ "

OF SOURCE BOOKS

J''7

GEORGE ALBERT MOORE, PH. D.

(COLONEL, U.S.A.> RTD)·
EDITOR AND PUBUSHER
I
'ï

-»

BHSi

The MOORE Series of Source Books
Translations
1947
Jean Bodin’s RESPONSE TO THE PARADOXES OF MALESTROIT an4 THE
PARADOXES (Paris, 1568-78)
1948
Juan de Mariana’s THE KING AND THE EDUCATION OF A RULER (DE
REGE ET REGIS INSTITUTIONE,. Toledo, 1599)
* ■
1949 ?
Giovanni Botero’s (1543-1617) PRACTICAL POLITICS (RAGION DI
STATO, originally Venice, 1589; composite edition) and
Pedro Ribadeneyra’s (1526-1611) RELIGION AND VIRTUES OF CHRIS­
TIAN PRINCE-Aghinst Machiavelli- (Madrid. 1595), abridged
1949-1953 -·
POLITICAL THEORIES of
'
Robert Bellarroine from
THE POPE (DE SUMMO PONTIFICE). Chapters I to IV, Book I,
and Book V of Disputations, fplume I, Controversy III
(Rome, 1581, Prague, 1721) .·
THE POWER OF THE POPE IN TEMPORALS (DE POTESTATE SUIEH
PONTIFICES IN REBUS TEMPORALIBUS, Cologne, 1610), Com­
plete. Issued also separately
RESPONSE TO PRINCIPAL POINTS OF APOLOGY WHICH IS FALSELY
ENTITLED CATHOLIC FOR THE SUCCESSION OF HENRY OF NAVARRE
TO THE KINGDOM OF THE FRENCH (RESPONSIO AD PRAECIPUA CA­
PITA APOLOGIAS, QUAE FALSA CATHOLICA INSCRIBITUR, PRO
SUCCESSIONE HENRICI NAVARRENI IN FRANCORUM REGNUM (Par­
is, 1587). Complete. Issued 1949 also separately
William Barclay from
THE KINGDOM AND THE REGAL POWER (DE REGNO ET REGALI PO­
TESTATE, Paris, 1600)
Francisco Suarez from
DEFENSE OF THE FAITH (DEFENSIO FIDEI; Coimbra, 1613, Par­
is, 1859)
THE LAWS AND GOD THE LAWGIVER ( DE LEGIBUS AC DEO LEGISLA­
TORE, ed. London, 1944)
FAITH, HOPE AND CHARITY (DE FIDE, SPE, CHARITATE, ed. Par­
is, 1858
Luis Molina from
Tract II, LAW AND JUSTICE (DE JURE ET JUSTITIA» Cuenca,
1593-1600, Mainz, 1659)
Bernhardt Rothmann from
VON TYDLIKER UND IRDISCHER GEWftLT. (Münster, c. 1530)

28O1O4L

" LUÏS MOLINA ’

'

EXTRACTS’ ' '
■?

•

"

oN';· - · ' ■

POLITICS AN J GOVERNMENT

FROM
JUSTICE-

;;
’

THE COUNTRY DOLLAR PRESS

209 £lw street, .Chevy Chase 15., Maryland
Established June 21, 1849

CLEARFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA

As Successor to Democratic Banner
Succeeded February 15, 1851, Jby Clearfield Republican

All Publications of

DANIEL LEAVER

UOORE

-

'

LUIS MOLINA

EXTRACTS

ON
POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT

·

■ EROM .

JUSTICE'

1

; ' ..· " .·

'TRACT II/ ;;· -/

«■· “ e· e· «»

/ »

Translated and. Edited. ¥y
GEORGE ALBERT MOORE, Ph. I).
(Colonel, U.S.A., Rtd.)
·

The Country Dollar Press
209 Elm St/, Chevÿ Chase 15, Md.

L/ -· Ί, 1 ' <

Copyright 1954
by

GEORGE ALBERT MOORE
(Printed in the united States of America)

All rights reserved—no part of this book way be reprpduced in any for® without permission in writing f30® the pub­
lisher ror author, except by a reviewer who wishes to quote
brief passages in connection with a review written for in­
clusion in a magazine o?? newspaper.
Copyright Uh4er the Articles of the Copyright Convention
of Pan-American Republice and the united states, August 11,
1910.
So
This collector’s edition is limited to sixty copies (·€£■),
signed and numbered, of which this is No. I$>.
Stencils cut and mimeographing done, by The-Country" poll ai«
Press.

BXIKS'
I^^33J-X£

LIBERIS DOROTHY NURUI ET CURTIS GENERO MEIS

£20104

CURRICULUM VITAE
of
TRANSLATOR AND EDITOR

George Albert Moore was born at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
December 2, 1895, the son of Alexander Sarch lioore and Sarah
Elizabeth Tomlinson. He attended Burroughs Grammar school,
Lancaster Township, Pennsylvania, was graduated from the Lan­
caster High School in 1910, from Franklin and liar shall Col­
lege, Lancaster, 1914, with the A.B. degree, and received the
A.M. degree from Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts^
in 1919. He taught school in Oklahoma, Massachusetts and Ill­
inois from 1915 to 1917.
The author entered the Regular Army, from a captaincy in
the Illinois National Guard, in 1917 as a second liçtenant of
Cavalry and passed through the grades, with the usual domestic
and foreign command and staff duties in the field, garrison,
and the War Department. Colonel Moore served in both World
Wars, in Mexico in active campaign, in Hawaii, the Philippines
and Europe, and whs retired as a colonel, Regular Army> for
physical disability in 1945 after tRe close of the World War.
In World War II, after a tour on the General Staff, he organ­
ized, trained, took overseas and operated the Twelfth Replace­
ment (Reinforcement) Depot, the Tables of Organization command
of a brigadier general, in the Theatre of Operations, having
commanded it for over nineteen months.
While on duty in the War Department from 1921 to 1925 the
then Captain Moore was managing and acting editor of The Cav­
alry Journal. During this period he also contributed to a
large number of magazines and newspapers. He is at the pre­
sent time engaged in the selection, translation, editing and
publication of a series of basic foreign language economics
and political science source books. He is also a registered
law student with the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Colonel Moore received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in course in Political Science from Georgetown University,
Washington, D.C., in 1947.

ira

PREFACE
The suçotions in this volume from the general work,
j)e Jure et Justitia, are taken from Tome one, Justice,
Tract'll, lie Just Hi a Commutâliva circa bona externa,
On Commercial Justice concerning physical Good^ ÏT is
thought that the material fairly represents Luis Molina’s
ideas on Politics, both theory, philosophy and science,
and on Government, in the case of another Jesuit writer
of extensive treatises the task of selection of the ex­
tracts and the decisions Just where to cut off the text
are serious and difficult problems. It must be appreciat­
ed that the concepts of the writer on the subjects under
consideration are interwoven into the fabric of the com­
prehensive legal dissertation and necessarily therefore
bring along with them much of the larger aspect.
No manuscripts have been located. Correspondence with
the Vatican Library, the British Museum, the Bibliothèque
Nationale, and the Library of Congress fails to reveal the
existence of the basic documents.
The edition used in this translation is that of.Mainz,
1659, Nicolaus Heyll, acknowledgment for the loan of
which is gratefully made, with the observation that appar­
ently there are in America very few copies of this work,
to the Catholic University of America.
In one respect Molina and Bellarmine may be considered
together— in that they may represent in literature of this
period the last, and wishful, attempt to revivify the fad­
ed concept of the Christian Commonwealth with all its im­
plications,
Latin students, especially those interested in the Ro­
mance language developments, will find in the text indi­
cations of the pull of the modern language on the writer
of classical Latin both in word order, grammatical con­
struction, diction and, resulting in changes in the first
item, order of thought. The style leaves something in
many instances to be desired, being open to the criticism
of looseness, repetition, redundancy, and a seemingly Irre­
sistible tendency to tack thoughts onto the end of a sen­
tence, with the consequence of a too full treatment, verg­
ing on the obscure.
It is of interest to compare the Christian Commonwealth^
or cosmopolitan concept, with the strongly nationalistic
conviction of William Barclay,
I am as usual indebted to my wife for her encouragement
and assistance.
Due to the disproportionate costs, delays, and other in­
conveniences of reproduction by printing, I have cut the
stencils and mimeographed this work, thus controlling the
complete process and vastly accelerating the issue,

G.A.M.
xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
JUSTICE

TRACT

II

ON COMMHfiCÏAi; JUSTICE CONCERNING PHYSICAL GOODS
Page
Discussion XX» Law of Dominion over Things
1
Discussion XXI. Nature of Power; Civil, Ecclesiastical

2

Discussion XXII. Origin of Lay an! Civil Power

11

Discussion XXIII. Supreme Civil Powers, Regal or Mon­
archic, Aristocratic, Democratic; the
Best
20

Discussion XXIV. Origin of Imperial Dignity; Four Out­
standing Empires of World; lawfulness
of Establishment
26
Discussion XXV. Relation of Regal PoWer to Subjects;
Its 1 Possessions; Legality of Donation
of Constantine
30

Discussion XXVI.

Regal Power from Natural Law

33

Discussion XXVII. By What Reasoning All Lawful Secular
Powers are from God
36
Discussion XXVIII. Christ, as Man, Temporal King and
Lord of World
39

Discussion XXIX. Pope’s Dominion of Temporal Jurisdic­
tion and Supreme Power over Whole
World
52
Discussion XXX. Emperor Lord of World

72

Exemption of Clergy from Civil Law;
by What Law
73

Indexes, Name and Subject

81

xiii

Λ

·■
\ - '••λ.ί ■·■·’·'* -V'
. ·X
'7 77 \ ' /..
• ■ .· 7 7<;'77 ■' 7

·"■ ’■
·.
7.<... -■·■■·>'
ΤΟΜΕ ί
7

·.·

"RUSTICE-AND LAV/ . ·,

.. 7 ... - · · · ·η

7 justice
tract

· ‘

7

’ -·

■

' ’

,

’

.
.

;.
7 ;

7

ii

,

■■

ON COMMERCIAL JUSTICE CONCERNING PHYSICAL GOODS

'7

7.7

DISCUSSION. XX

7

. WHETHER LAWFULLY AND BY WHAT ‘LAW DOMINION OVER THINGS .HAS
. BEEN DIVIDED* St. Thomas, q,. 66, art.' 2. ( Column 103 )
8, Someone will ask by, what men this divisipn-'of things was ·
made» For the explanation of this matter, we must take note-with
Aristotle, politics I, that there is a twofçld power over other
men that pertains to the present law.’ There is a certain power
which has its origin .s.olely in‘the natural law, and therefore
it is called natural power,. Such is the power of a father over
his sons and other descendants. But there is^another which
takes its beginning from the fact that men want to subject them­
selves to it, and therefore if is called.Qivil power. For the
very reason that men-unite to form a state or congregation the
State itself, has power over its constituent parts, and the
State· as a whole can transfer4 this power which it has to a cer-.
tain one or to several fo; rule it. And thence the lawful pow­
ers of kings have their origin, whether greater or less, accord­
ingly as they are established by the public authorities them­
's elvesi with a rather full or less full power. Thence also other
lawful powers of the other governors of these states have their
origin which are' ruled not by kings but by senators or some oth­
er methods according to the establishment of each,
9, - Since these matters have been so determined, we must de­
tail them, in three manners the division of things could law­
fully be instituted and introduced. First, by paternal power,
through the first parent before the flood and by Noah after the
flood. Now I think that it was introduced in this manner. For
since just as Adam, so Noah was the parent of all that tarried
at that time on earth, and since they had no one over them as a
superior, clearly at that time with the paternal power seemed
to be joined a coercive authority and one of laws bearing
against their own descendants'and those then subject to the
latter, and the; government of the human race and the punishment
of derelictions will Seem to pertain to these pare.nts, where­
fore with the off spring- f hen iri being at all events agreeing
. .

*

-,

’

7

-1

1

.4

- ·’ ·■

‘

■

■ ' '

7

·'.

*’

·■■·.’ '7

i
!

■

. ·

·-

·. ■·

- ii-;.'·, a.· ,·■ ?
'· : u
. ■·..

* .r*j '

♦

I

Ί.4

I

; ’ L
Im

|,l

’

-

·

■.

i>
■'
, !
,
h

<
!

I

.

f> ■

.■

(I believe, even-with them opposing) they were able to determine a division of things of a sort which they were helping
would oontr.ibute to a quiex state of mankind, as, Adam seemed
. . , to have in fact made the decision. And I say this because we
. . straightway read in Genesis 4 that Cain and Abel had their
.;Γ possessions separate. And Abel offered of.the firstlings of
his flock, and Cain builded a city and'called it after the name
, of his son Enoch. If before the flood a· division of things was
v ' made, after the. flood the sons o,f Noah would follow the,’, same
-law, which they had kno’Wn men uséd r|ighf'up-;’'to that timèi .Of
'whatever'· each one after the flood;hhd-become possessed.,.that
he would arrange in his own regime,* especially since'.the party
was dividing- its goods among them and with their mutual agree­
ment; and their descendants followed this law*.
Secondly, after, mankind had now multiplied,.and a choice of
/ Someone was-made to be a common leader, a division of things
could be made by his authorityy and common goods were so divid. ed right up to this time, i
> .
Thirdly, it could be done by the common consent of mankind,
in the same manner,as in Genesis 13, when an.altercation arose
. between the-herdsmen of Abraham and lot and Abraham gave lot
the choice of going to the-right hand or the left.
'».*«. · «. ·.,

‘

·>.,

'

■
WHAT POWER IS

;
ί

. . SEPARATI
ON
..OF POV/ERS
.
W ζ
*
1

. .

'?■
· ■

.

*

2

i
J

'’'· ■.
<■ ·.■■■’

·
.

-

».

<

■

.

'*'.

·■■'?.

·.

.

.

»
"

. : .,·.

. .

'

'

"

,

,

..........

, ,

,
■

,

,
■

,

,

«

,

'

DISCUSSION XXI

AND ABOUT THE CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL POWER

•Now that ownershiphas in general been explained, we must
begin with the jurisdictional ownership in order to get to the
parts subject to it* First, because it is superior... Next, because knowledge of it is conducive to a better understanding of
the chief points of the ownership of property* It happens that
in explaining this there is less trouble than in explaining the
ownership of property. In fact, because jurisdictional owner­
ship is a certain kind of power, we will have to begin with an
explanation of the latter.
Therefore in respect to the present law; political power—.
as Victoria in the Reperusal of the Power of the Church, q. 1,
beginning, and Navarrus, the Chapter Novit, de 'iudTSTis, notae
3, corollary 16, agreeing with St. Thomas in4, cT7 24, q.""I7
art, 1, quaestiuno. 1 ad 3 , think — ” is the· faculty of some­
one having authority and distinction over others to rule and
govern them.” This agrees with St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13, ” ’’Let ever soul be subject unto the higher
powers.” In this citation the rulers that have the faculty
and authority to rule others and therefore the superiority and
distinction over them in this regard are called powers, for the

WHAT POWER IS; ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL POWER

3

abstract meaning of the word has been transferred to signify the
person in whom this faculty is perceived, though still the word
is affected by this faculty. Therefore there is political power,*
of which we speak, in individuals strong in intellect, wML free
will for ruling others, and therefore in individual men, in all
corporeal matters,
· ■■
Power of a political nature is twofold. That is, laical and
ecclesiastical. At this point this must be called to mind»
·
Granted that man was not established for a supernatural end pre­
pared by supernatural means, but only for a natural end, never­
theless at this point twofold political power of this kind could
be established, though each then would b e natural, and they
would more easily be able to be united in one and the same prince
and head, from whom the power could be derived over another or
others à which would be ecclesiastical after its own manner. This
is explained in the following manner,· Grant that man was created
by God for only a natural end; up to this point men would acknow­
ledge that there is one first source in the highest degree good',
from whom they have received and expect also other good things1,
and in like manner it would be worthy to offer to it service and
honor. Wherefore Just as gathered together to form a state they
could choose for themselves a common prince who would restrain .
them in peace and war and defend them and take care of their com­
mon temporal welfare, thus also they would be able to select an­
other to be over them for performing the worship and the duty ..
owed to God and who in this duty would be superior to the secular
prince. They would also be able to select a common leader at will
who would be supreme in each jurisdiction and who would either ex­
ercise the duties himself, or, if one would not suffice for both
duties, or if they would be less decently done by the same person,
for the reason that certain customs and certain state would seem
to be fitting for each, he would substitute for himself someone
to perform one of these duties f. to carry it out through the
authority gotten from him, Therefore it available in history
that at one time among the'nations.there were priests and minis­
ters of the idols who were distinct from the kings, and secular
princes, end meanwhile the supreme priesthood was united with the
kingly office. Today also among the Japanese and other infidels
the priests are distinct from the secular princes, and whether
they depend upon them; are appointed by. them and thus deposed,or
not, in accordance with, the greater or the. like custom of the
'
different regions, since it is in the natural light only, and pur­
pose ofmen, theycould be instructed in the worship of the true
God, as Victoria has correctly noted In de potestate eecl, relec­
tion 1, q.,..3, n, 3, 4 relection 2, ’4» 1, n, 2.
‘

WM—I—I

4

·,.

.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

But s.ince man was created, to attain a supernatural end’
through''supernatural* means, the ecclesiastical power ;is.4is-.
".··
tinguislxéd· from:..thfer..'iay»-..' !'As< .for th.e lay ,;kjfr itself i't.,is ,ύη-ί '"tu
ly madé 'to 'govern fItiA^ly/^P# 'a natural· purpose <<tp',whiq^ ' '''
it is ord^e^,i^dCKîàdaÿ^,'wph.jÏW>5w«*'tVery>nature.
' '
ecclesiastical, «HéWevfir^ils^màd^'/rS'^ofdiniifittliiglÿ to -the
;
supernatarij-end,,"by .leading on,"of'oôéttfsé,· to the;'ambiance ’
suited to thep^pfefhaiuradi:’e.njfL>: ; Therefore< it comespbout that;··
these tWo'Jur'isdic’t Ions’ are distiii^uished^froiil the · standpoint ■of the different aims subordinated to each; in a centaiii meafs*, ’
ure in the· wâÿ that the· æquestriàn^HtV ’fs* distinguished'frôti1·
'■
the horsemast'arship art. j .this fypç' of distinctd-Qn jîs,'familiar
in the:praptidal arte. Thereioré in’the’ same manner; it is
part of the^^eStiiian^ant· to t'ake precedence ovg^.’the m^re ..restrain*fpf t£e horse·,;, so- that^ti··· activity wouldrStand.'out
'
f ittih||iy "fôr^he superior' purpôsé of 'the"equestrian; thus, "al-*
so thé'ecèlesiaàtï'cal. power is expected 'té. rule : the - lay’- power) /
so that* suitab^^tWay·’. administer to- the»·supernatural end of
j
the eccleaiàstïîshl-rower, for which'the natural·purpose; of. the
?
lay is■••:'àrdalriq<*;;^,S;&ïp,e -inf fact,the nobility - .andr^mlnenbe of:
each facility imïst*be;.most' partiçû.làrly weighed· from the..’stand­
point ofbtJjé/ôbJ^c'eïvè ahA .®Λ4«λ. Clearly· in pro portion.'to thé'r
excees.· of ^h^ySu^¥hatur^L, sufl-.ovpr^the^natural and ‘pï’ the sal- vation-?dfc;t^a\?piri^hl iif*e;"O.yer‘.,'^lre’-'tettporai. interests, as ■■!well ashSTO
'
to ba-./q.^ulud^d' tK«^-^fi,-n,ébi3jÆyJ‘iknd’elsiinefnpê:-oi..jhé;‘'ècdlesi-'
ast^ai,?^^t^eêr^ÿôqqde^e*Zô^^^}iaar.4i'
·1·
^SincQ^n^id^i^^Me^s-bat^^Qi''ιϊ^’οο^ή'όβ .ainyo^
’non­
ce ivéd/.^n,·graçüé *^idr>'âbcôrdiRgly7b§rn-’aiid sdppor|e<voy‘éfofficientivprinpiples·, ' so-’that ·.py· thê' afgiifaëiii. itself ■ a èûjéïnÜWal.
end .might bër;.prômiped, , and easily’he might be instrue^ed^lnrj. ··. .
those matters in which; hé ought to -be instructed^ and. w^^ldi r
not by necessity,..be- in want to this end; certainly in this;
state eèch'-power^ that, is,J ecclesiastic aï and lay, would be /
without ’cdercive force, the superior directing the inferior
for its·own-ends, as in· 1. ,p. , tract, Be opere sex dierum we
have show!; and it would be expedient that Poth be iolhbd ih
if men, with the natural· light .and exposition^ of the faith di­
recting them, would not construct;.both for themselves· Since
indeed men were of ; this; kind of body ahd soûl,λ clearly they. ,
would worship God ‘not only inwardly but also ^with an outward . ·,
bodily worship, not'otherwise than-.we do., as Victoria correct- .
ly teaches in the R elect ion cited,· q,. A, n, 1, '
Since nature became dissolute,,and.grace was lost through
sin, each power has a compelling force Reined to it, because
the subjects are lacking in compulsion, in order to lead them
through to their own ends by straightness, in fact, it is ne-

WHAT POWER IS: ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL POWER

5

cessary to distinguish three, conditions or three statuses of
the universal Church ; namely, the lawsof nature1,’ written i ?
law and .’the· law of grace. And at.least in the.law of nature,
if fai.th and supernatural kriowledge'iwere posited as necessary
for salvation, and likewiseif a remedy was set’ up for this'.: «’
' state of original sin which was from, the -positive divine law,
evidently since men from this status were: held ta the natural
law alone ".they would-have be'en able of themselves to institute
both powers, civil and eccTesiastioal, by which they would be
governed to a natural and supernatùralT-end. And^ihéy would
have been able either to divide them so that one would. be On
*’:.6iie‘jbasis', ’ · . and the ..other on another., or-to .unite, them
on;ône ;and~ the same subject. ; In -this "way Melchisedec *wns ;at
the sàmè ■ time'-'King‘of-.· Salem’ and priest ?of the most, high ;G‘dd·,
..'as Hebrews 7 and Genesis 14 hate it. Manyimport ant -authors
are-of .this opinion that, thé first born.in the law o£ nature,
.. , .e‘specially after the flood, were .priests; also Shem, ’ first"born of;Noah, was, a. Melchisedec, · And .so this was a right-· ’
. thajt Esau, as a first-born, sold to Jacob, for which reason
taui? calls him profane in Hebrews 12. Victoria, Relection;
1,~ de ’Potestate .eccl>· quaesi’» 4; hum 2. &' 3,&. Rejection,· 2,
■ quae'st. ;l,-'num« 2, rightly says that ecclesiastical power in
the- natural law ©^Ssi^ffi.dight /after· the fail'. '· I would even
... add ..for the institution; of this'powervsuch as it was-at that
.time,’, there’ was sufficient : natural àhd supernatural knowledge
rèmàihlhg'in Adam from thé age Of‘innocence., with? the-knowIfe-dge"added-from the fall,, and also- with the. knowledge of the
promise <y£ redemption made forthwlthtto·. him.^nd’. thaf of orig­
inal siif,ând the remedy which to ’counteract·; jt'.’^.pb:’had” re-^
^vêja.lë.ÿ'.to-him. Nevertheless’ I 'db not believe' that? either
’. th'qre was' anything else, instituted •at’th-is* time--by '.positive
. ’’divine/law than the application bf 'the, remedy--against orig­
inal :sin,-‘or any ecclesiastical -power, -or ;.-othef ..kind .Of obla­
tion or'sacrifice, from God by divine ‘.-posit ii e,·. Ihw; ibut ·■£ ‘
. . mpàhs-’ of-ecclesiastical power and of divine^jwo^'Ship was" left
to frerr themselves,, so that they might set... ii’’up’/?and'for the
. ; .,.;imq’st '‘part·’ it was· set up after, the flood·· through'ÀÊLàm-and. No ah,
,
who. liv'ed!& :long time and were made very, prominent’by-God...
...”‘At the -time· .of the. written -law- when·.God -cho^:e out-a pecul” ‘iar’ peo'plé'-unto Himséif, from Whom the .Redeemer should be .
/born, and in whom He would-predict.-and: show 'ahead of time the
. /fut^fè^thiiigs ; that were in the law ç>f ·.grace , "seeing that by
’..ythis; plan· things more, worthy·: of belief. would be· announced,
and1 He would- prepare, the.’way fbr-;the’'·&4ν·βή$"pî^èis-ôwn first=.;b;orn, .’SoftHimsei-f ·inst itut'èdr-ther e ccles.iastiçàl7;power,
.namèïy^'.ithe -supreme-priesthopd"of the. synagpgttey hhd the other.-,gn^dè.’S.^and"Servants of this'-power,..a,s waXl as the sacrifi• ;ce£j 'rïfëâ;"-aùd‘·-servie eg ’of worship by which H'e- would be
adored,rJvihich‘’al-i.;were according to:divine/poSitive law. Also
He desired that all the ecclesiastical pQ^er/rehide in., only

........... !...

6

SEPARATION OF POWERS

·-

the tribe of Levi# All these matters- are plain- in. the Holy’
Scriptures/: At that time /'the power was· not Supernatural » as
if it·· attained àçsupernatural effect, as ths. ecclesiastical
•.power-of the law*of grace as an instrument.attains the super’
natural effects of the ! remission of sin· and. thé gift of grace
in the celebration of the Eucharist, etc; -. Although in the old
law there was the sacrament of éircumôision; -At. the presence
’ . of which grace-was conferred, so also .it was conferred in the
natural law at thé presence of the remedies against original
sip. Because therefore this power was attaining'no' supernata
ur$l effect·, say Victoria, Relection 1, Be potestàtè écoles.,
q. 3, n.· 6, and Certain pthArs. ihat· this power" could 'be insti­
tuted wholly by human law, nevertheless, men did not khow how
to institute all these things,* to be symbols of things to come
. in the law of grace, nor did they know.hoveto adapt them to
the ends for which they had been instituted by Godwin thia man. ner, · ·. - · ■ \
'··
That power could hâve been joined in the, same subject with
the lay and civil power. Why, in' fact in Moses it was ’united,
for he administered the, state in temporal affairs and was the
priest and offered sacrifices, .as we see.in Psalm -99—· "Moses
. and Aaron among his -priests,n· «/^•••’’•βίβο·
’ in Samuel
who was a^ pr ie st and governed the.,state -in spiritual- and tern.·.··■ poral: affairs, hs we see in I. ^itgs/! Likew-iBe·· afterwards
• among the Maccabeés who were" "high priests and held ;the. highest
state-.responsibilities in temporal· affairs, as Is clear in the
Books of' the· Maccabees; However at - the time of the kings the
ιecclesiastical power was! separated from the· civil and the tem-’•poral; ôn’thé grounds that’according to. thé prescription of
the law’-the high prie st'and’the' other priests,could'only be
from-the tribe of Levij/indeed,the!kings wererfrom the tribe
of Bénjàmiû and from the tribe of judah, . therefore. ■ ·’
•Saul offered burnt .‘offerings anci peace offerings (liKihgs 13),
■ with the result that he diqpiéâàed ,God, ..so that· the e jection
of him’from his kingdom took itjs origin! from:-that fact/as.set
forth in the ’following wends. of -Samuel:, "Thou..hast done fool­
ishly: thou’hâsjnqt Itept the;Commandment of the Lord -thy God,
which he commanded; thee; for now would the Lord have estab­
lished they kingdom ’upon Israel forever.
;■.·.;■> ·.
• ■ · "But now thy kingdom shall not-continue: the Lord hath
sought him a. man after !his;,own heart , .etc,” Also , Iiazlah, '
(II Chronicle’s’ 263.; w,as ‘struck with leprosy, because? by burning
incense he want ed to!, usurp thé duty! of the < priests -■·.. ύ·
• NoW; indeed1 bhë; eucdesicstleal powerj which in. the time. of
’ the· law‘; of grade, i‘ô ‘ïh’ thé.christi àn.Çhurch,since It, is,whol­
ly supernatural/ be cause,. It ' attainé./td.the supernatural effects
' of ; the remission· of Sins/ thé ôorifér/ing, of .’grape/ jn* the non-

·

Λ
. ·

.

·

‘;···'■·■ -............ ·■··
·. ··■■..·
Hi·.-=·.··;·:·· o. . r . ί.
λ...·.·
:■?,·.·.·,·..
i · v.
, : -'i·' '

WHAT POWER IS: ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL POWER

’’ ?

fession or in the Eucharist, of ordaining priests-and confer­
ring on.them power to grant indulgences for thes.e very things
by wh.ich sins are-remitted with, respect, to punishment, of ex*·
communicating, and other similareffects, clearly in conformi­
ty with .it.self as a whole cpuld hâve had its -pource neither.· 1
from t,he State, nor from human nor’ natural law, but only from
positive divine law. But this power was, and/is, in Christ the
.-man, following His preeminence^ and allied,Jîÿ.no means to the
sacraments. For all’power is given to Him. In’heaven and earth,
as is held by Matthew 27. And-He was constituted by God.the
Father as high priest, head and king of*, thé Chur phi as says
Psalms g: "Yet have I· set my king upon my holy hill of Zion
fthat is,.the Church^, I will declare the decree.” And in
.. He brews-.5::So .also Christ glorified not himself to be made
..an high priest’; but.he .that said unto him, Thou art. my Son,
to day have I begotten thee,” In the same way in another. .
place. -he says;. :.”T.hôu art a priest for ever after, the? order of
Melchisedec,, etc·,!"··; in Chapter 7-, ’’(For. those pripSts- were
made-without an oath; but this with an bath by him that said
. unto.· him» The. Lord-sware and- will not repent, .Thou,· art a priest
..•for ever after the order of Melchisedec,."
. ..Lastly the argument of Paill'in the letter that;.he wrote to•••the Hebrews is toshoW the- excellence ' of', the priesthood of.·
-Christ· in-the'new: law after; the br.der of .'Melchisedec above the
priesthood of the old law’àftef the order o'f -.Aàron; .which by
-·. thé-priesthoo'd and death of Christ'.has been'outmoded, and cea■-ses to '.-exist; /However'this-power.1Æ .left fin-the Church,'; yet .·
.-bound‘by·•Sacraments’and.;sbme certain ■•laws."*·· "
.· ... , ; ·· -·
- But’He' left thi’s power npt‘to all in-the-Church/but Ια’r ? '
Pater, His'· Vicar, and’to the. ’future.‘successors. of 'Peter,•■as.· it.
were' to a head in Hiâ-place, on whom the power, wholly depends:.·.
For in Matthew 16. he promised to. Peter personally the. keys of
the kingdom ;of Heaven,, which’, carry this power. in Peter also ,·
as In’ the-head .ând;. Vicar in His’ own.jstead He promised, that He. .
would, fopnd His Çhûrch,. against which the gates .pf . hell, would ■
not. prevail;', a thing, which àftér ‘the.'resurrection. He in. John·. 21
fulfilled.with works.. This power He.' also·-left to the other,.'.Apost le's',~ ând’ to^the ' bish,p.ps their successors.,..tp. whom also JLe
promisè'&?the ‘ pôtyêr of tlxe/kèys .in,Matthew. 18’.;..Ηθ' in fact.,part­
ly conferred', it?ht thertime. of. the Supper and,'.partly after.the
resurrection^. indeed’.as assistants and coadjutors' of .these He
appointed." s.ëy^nt^-twp, disciples,, to whose placés-, succeed the
pastors ,hh4-C|^nef eld'er^ '.below the bishops, who have a certain’,
part in'this'supernatural"power. That it; com.es about that lust
as Christ -h.ad-, the ecclesiastical power apart/.from the.Church’,
as in John· 15^’” Ye'have'-not chosen me, but I;have'chosen you.;?!
but He- had· it-from .th,e'father; so also the power that today'.,is

8

SEPARATION OF POWERS

in the Church, both in the Pope and. in the bishops and. inferior
priests, is not from the Church, but from Christ, conferred on
Peter, the Apostles and the other disciples, and their succes­
sors. However the elections for the future, by which this pow­
er is applied, Christ committed to the Church and to the dispo­
sition, of the popes, as was copiously explained when we were
talking about the faith, our undertaking at this point is not
to 'discuss ecclesiastical power in itself and in a comparison
of its acts.,as-well· as,effects, since we have spoken at length
in q.,1, hùius, 2, 2,'arti 10, especially of this power,which
resides in"the‘pope and on which the remaining power depends.
But other discjissiops on this power are addressed to the matter
of the sacraments and to other aspects. What, in truth, we in­
tend Here is nothing else than to distinguish this ecclesiasti­
cal power from the lay and compare it, as it resides.in the
pope; with the lay, with respect to the authority of jurisdic­
tion in temporal matters, to which we now turn our attention.
This therefore relates to the present matter. In the.first
place we hold that that.this power of the Christian Church'which
resides in the pope as the head of the Church is different from
the lay and civil power of the secular princes, This Celasius
affirms in Chapter II, Div. 96, -saying: "There are two, 0 Emper­
or, by whom imperially this world is ruled, the sacred authori­
ty. of the popes, and the regal power." This is confirmed by
many-by Soto in 4, Discussion 25, q,. 2, art.l, conci. 1; Victoria', Ralection, 1, De potestate ecclesiae, q. 1, beginning at num­
ber 3; Durandus, lie origine jurisdictionis, q, 2; John of Paris,
ye potestate regia & papal·!, beginning Chapter II; Navarrus»
Novit, de ludiciis à carol·., number 80; and others; moreover,;
’we have touched upon the outstanding points in these places
where we have discussed it before.
‘.
•
; Next we hold that thé same power of the pope differs from
the power.-of the secular princes who. are subject to him, First
from the..st endpoint of purpose; for the'power of the pope looks
’ to· a supernatural end and means proportional to it; but the lat­
ter looks to the natural end and· means, suited to it., wherefore
since the natural purpose is ordained to the supernatural one,
“ and the faculty which looks to a. superidr end should command
and order that faculty which has-regard to an inferior and sub­
ordinate end, it comes about that it pertains to the pope to
instruct and command the secular princes as his subjects (that
,Is, they who are in the bosom of the Church) to. accommodate
' ' ‘JthemselVes .to the' supernatural end, when they in their , own gov..J'ërnméht deviate from it.
...* ;; it'-differs,; secondly, because the power of the pope is su* pernâtural,., extending itself to supernatural effects; but in
fact the power of the secular princes is purely natural. Third,
it differs because the power of the pope has been instituted
not by the church but by Christ in the Church, although the
i
I
I
h
i-

WHAT POWER IS: ECCLESIASTICAL AND CIVIL POWER

9

grant of it to this or that person depends on the choice of
the Church; wherefore it is from positive divine law. But
the lay power of the secular princes is from the human law*
set up by the State itself, and conferred on princes, as will
be made plain in the following discussion.
Ever is it different because the power of the pope is·
7
unique in the whole world; but the power of secular princes,
except by the law of war, or lawful succession, or by the
agreement of states themselves many states have, one common
prince, is manifold in view of the diversity in that states
choose princes for themselves. For as Christ is the one Head
of the Universal Church, thus His dictum and requirement was
that the Pope whom He left as his Head and Vicar on earth be
constituted as unique.
··
: ··
Further, since there is one faith, admitting no variation,
it was most expedient, under the circumstances that beliefs
became numerous, that there be one head, who from the throne
which would have the infallible assistance of the Holy spirit
for this purpose would compose controversies that arose about
the faith, seeing that thus the unity of the church and of the
faith and the peace among the faithful could be better pre­
served.
Now this is the reason that when in a state of the natural
law Relatively few things were proposed to men to believe ex­
plicitly a single high priest was not appointed who would be
over the whole Church; in the synagogue, however, and much
more in the Church of Christ, after many things to be believed
explicitly were determined, there was one high priest, to whom
all others were subject and were held to obey.
Lastly, the Pope’s power differs because, although it was
instituted &t a time later than that of the kings, yet as Gelasius refers in chapter II, Division 99, from Ambrosius, it
exceeds the latter more in nobility than gold excels lead. In­
nocent, Chapter III, Solitae, de major. & obedientia, compares
the two powers to those two great lights located in the firma­
ment of heaven, and he says that the power of the Pope is the
greater light because it is over the day of spiritual affairs,
but the light of the Emperor is the lesser because it is over
the night of temporal matters, And not only from the prece­
dence of the purpose common to them must the excellence of the
Pope’s over the regal and imperial power be acknowledged along
with the ecclesiastical power which existed at’ the time of the
natural law and the written law, but also because the nobility
and excellence of the means which it uses for this purpose and
of the supernatural effects that it attains. About this matter
Victoria, Relection I, The Power of the Church , q, 5, at the
beginning, à Soto, op. cit,, conol. 2, and John of Paris, chap­
ter V. should be seen.

'10

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Concerning the lay power there is one thing that we should
advise,;. Although underAthere are several phases, such as that
of- the father over the son, the husband over the wife, which
’ are of the natural law, and also several other phases of vari­
ously administering the whole state as well aS parts of it,
nevertheless we shall in the subsequent pages especially dis’ cuss the regal and imperial power as we do the'principal one,
for if the latter is understood the remaining ones would be
comprehended.’ ^However in explaining this overriding power wé
. shall mix ih. something about the1 others. . ;

DISCUSSION XXII

·’■·’ / '

:

. ■...·.

THE ORIGIN OF THE LAY AND CIVIL POWER

ï

,;

.

·

i As man,· for reasons that we shall submit, needs society with
other men. more than the other living beings with the animals of
their species, so nature, which does not fail in necessities, .
gave him a greater not only appitude but also propensity fcrt
society than other living beings# In fact the. first society,to
which according to Aristotle, Polities, Book I, Chapter I, nàtute gave man a propensity, is indeed' common to him and the ·
beasts, namely, what is perceived between the man and the woman
for the sake of generation. And I sây this because -there is in
all animals an inborn desire for leaving after, itself another,
like unto itself. And for the act of generation as à matter of
conserving the species nature has impressed on them an absolute­
ly necessary and much stronger propensity than to the other acta
Also.to the same end the Author of nature wanted a great affec­
tion and love between man and woman so that society might be
held together as if by glue
Moreover out of this association the ccmmunity..of the family
or society had its beginning among men. When the family had ..
been.further perfected, as Aristotle says in the passage above
cited,.it grew together out·of three inter-folding elements mu­
tually acting" in regard to each other» The first is of the. man
with his wife;, secend, of the parents with the children; third,
of the master.with his.servants who had been adopted into the
protection of the? family and the*necessary allegiances. .In ..
truth frcm these three developments out of which the. family is
composed a threefold powef arises in the family. . • First, .is the power of the husband over the w-lfe, which is
from the natural •.law,‘ Fdrthehusband is by his very nature '
the head of the wife, for whom therefore it sappropriate to >·
the -ruler; hut. for the wife it is appropriate that she be sub­
ject and obey; for this naturally stands out in the powers and
judgment .by which .man rises above the wife. .Therefore a man
was not made for a woman, but on the contrary, -a woman for a :
man, so that he might have a helper, not only for the genera­
tion and education of his children, but also for jother ;assist­
ance in living, as Genesis 2 makes clear, Thence Paul, I Co­
rinthians 11 says:
.■, the head of the woman is the man. .
. » For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.”
And indeed he adds: ’’Neither was the man created fon the woman;
but the woman for the man;’’ Wherefore it comes, about, that'the

11

,

■

·. ■

■■

■ ■ ■ : "· ■ ■
12

. ■

■■

■■ .
ORIGIN OF LAY-AN© CIVIL POWER

wife naturally, from the intention nf the Author of nature in
the first consultation of matters, is subject to the man and.
,
is held to obey him* Therefore in Genesis 3 God spoke to her
for the punishment of her sin—", . * . thy desire shall be
,to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee*” He set forth
the natural law to her, namely, that, since nature was corrup:
■ . ted thrdugh sin,, she was to be under the power of her husband,
withcoactive and coercive force. This would not have been
if there had been no sin,- because in a state of : innocence.,it
u
would not have been necessary, but directive force, would alone
suffice. Perhaps at the same time God also desired, to indir
!
cate to her that.there would be. an abuse of power· on account
of. the. evil of men, since nature had become dissolute through
: j
-sin, on account of .which often without cause wives were· to,
. q
'pass through bitterness and affliction, as we' set forth in the
i .u
tract of Six Pays, Yet it must be observed that the wife is
/
subject to. the. husband under the natural law , not as . a "servant,
μ),
. ·■ nor to the same degree that the children are subject, th him,
H i
, *-who thé more they accept from their parents and by far are in; !■
. ferior to them, the more of subjection 'and deference they Owe
; i
to them than the wife should owe to her husband; but she is
, !
subject to him as an associate, yet a less preeminent oné, for
the purpose of generation, and for furnishing arid arranging the
necessary support and government of the family.
’
? The second power is that of the parents over the children,
’•which also is from the natural law. For indeed just as to the
!'·
.-. Author of nature, , from Whom we have received life arid all the
j:
. ίother blessings,· we owe piety, reverence arid obedience, so: to
our parents, through whom wè have received lifenourishment,
education and other blessings, we owe intheirorder■and der
gree respect j. subjection and obedience, as the very nature of
things and the. light of natural understanding teach us. Yet
■
we owe these, very things more to the father than to the. moth­
er, because more chiefly would it agree with all those, things
' from which the title of the paterrial power over his children
I
' arises,
· ■ :■· ί
-■■■··-. t ■>.·; w <■■>.■.·■·
The third- type of power is that of masters over slaves. .
This would not have arisen in the state of innocence, because
: i
in that state .there would have been no slavery. But in the
state of fallen nature there are two kinds of; servants. The
first is of those who are spoken of as purchased, and these
“ are this kind because, they belong to their masters. Thé seo• '.· Ond is those who so long as they are members of the family
·’ are hired at a wage for some certain, necessary service arid
•
duties, for which purpose only they are under the authority
of their masters. However ‘
neither kind of servants· originates lawfully from the nature and constitution, itself

©RIGIN OF LAY ART CIVIL POWER ; .

13

of things, according towhich all arë Yorn free and equal in
this respect; nevertheless lawful titles can come about, by
which it is legally:contracted that as a result of crime be,-..t
cause of which someone is worthy of death he may become, a law­
ful slave of thé.first kind, by reason of the natural death Λ
having been commuted"into perpetual slavery; this results in
an accommodation, the lesser punishment of slavery. Also’it
can arise by various other titles which we shall in their
places explain.
From the agreement, by which'he who lacks food and money,
. c;for a certain sum of money and for food subjects himself to
another for the furnishing of such, and such services within "
such, and such-a time the second type of service can arise.
Moreover after the legitimate titles have been obtained by
-which one or the other type of service is contracted in ac­
cordance, with the natural law the power of the masters over
the servants arises·,- just as when -other legal contracts have
been made, from the natures of the matters themselves arise
different rights and obligations. Therefore it is not lawful
from the natural law that the family consist of servants, nor
that servitude arise from the nature of things themselves and
the first constitution of things, in the same manner.as the
union of the man with the woman arises by itself, and the pro­
creation of children; and therefore the power of the'parents
over their· children and of the husband over his wife is after
the natural law, to the extent that, if the danger should :
threaten that the human race should die out, men by'the natur­
al law would be held to enter into matrimony.-and to be free to
generate, nevertheless with lawful titles following (which de­
fend wholly oh the human-will) by which servitude may be law; fully contracted. . ·
The three powers just explained are united in the home of
the paterfamilias* . And it is jawful that, -in intending the
common good of the ;whole home and household,· he exercise these;
yet-there is; this difference between them. Since the first two
are by the prévision-of free men the paterfamilias ought to use
them .for the good and comfort of the former. But the last is
arranged of itself for the proper utility of the household.
: For>: by the. authority of Aristotle, politics, Book I, this is
the'· diff erence between the rule of free men and slaves—that
.t>àirice the free men exist for their own sakes, while the slaves,
ifor. their, masters,: the government of free men especially should
•looh to-..thé'benefit of the governed, although to the governor,
in proportion to the quality of his duty, should be offered
•honor,' obedience and services by the subjects; and these very
things the governor'at the same time be able to exact and main­
tain. However the government of servants is especially pointed

14

1

; ; '·

origin of -lay and civil rower

· ·;

to the good of the master and the convenience of the house­
hold though reason'itself demands that the masters, to whose
convenience and will the servants cater, in turn should have
in mind and intend their good, in their order and degree, in·'
the overlordship. And to this they are held "by the1 natural r
law, not only because they are very near,, and in their order
and degree more united and more in the.family and more recog­
nized than all the others, but also because the government ■ ·.
and hence the responsibility for them reposes In the masters<
Further, the poor of the paterfamilias, who have no ·complete;j
and perfect family of their ;own in every respect, enjoy the:
association with the wife, children and the family’s resources,
as Aristotle says, like servants. :
‘
'
;··
Besides the society or societies explained,, man has need
of a certain greater association, to which his bwn;:very na- ’
ture inclines him, with the light of natural understanding in­
structing, and'urging him to it, because of which he is called
a civil, andpolitical animal* For if you cast your, mind’s eye
at all the other animals \ you will find that. each one was * so
made by nature that if at least an ordinary, amount of train­
ing is given by the parents-at the .beginning they .are suffic·*
. lent unto .themselves to! acquire the necessary supports of
life,-_in accordance with the needs· of eachj since by the
Author of.nature abundantly are supplied covering as cloth­
ing and arms not only for protection of themselves against
internal elements but also against external enemies, and the
various means and instincts for effecting their purposes,
. and for the nourishment suited for the feeding of each. Al­
so man only, whom He endowed with reason by which he might
be able to store up the experience of history and to fashion
the required tools-and make and acquire other aids to living.
He created naked and unarmed, without every’art and instinct,
in need of so many things, indispensable for living, so that
neither’ one man, nor a complete and perfect family suffices
for getting all these things; but many families are needed,
which,,’.though in want with materials and workmen separate,
when they get together they can supply the necessities of
food, clothing, shelter, preventive medicine, and othçr
things of this kind which are required for daily use and for
going through life. For if you weigh in your mind what is
necessary only for making bread, and you begin with the
ground’s culture so that the seed may be committed to it,
and you run through all those steps which the wheat requires,
so that at last it may be harvested, cleaned, threshed, sep­
arated from the bran, and cooked, and at the same time you
consider the tools that are necessary for all these steps,
and the artisans for each single tool who are required for'
the making of them, and the preparation of the material from

- ORIGIN OF'LAY AND CIVIL· POSTER ’ .

’

’

15

. which they hsive to bemade, and who are necessary for very
·:. . many other things; -then· easily will you. conclude; how! many
families, striving in their different duties- and competent
in their various crafts, are necessary so that each san hay
·
be supplied the necessities for living daily life. Since
■ therefore society is nothing else than such: a great aggrega­
tion of mankind that mutually they may be-sufficient for the
supply of all those things that are required not only -for dai­
ly use and:for ge tt ing through life, but' also for the other
purposes about which soon there will be discussion, it comes
about that - on account of need, with the light of understand­
ing instructing and urging him to it, man naturally would in­
cline to living· With; Others in the community Of a state and
commonwealth.' By the name of commonwealth and state·' at -this
point understand also neighboring towns1, districts and ham­
lets lying about, which the overriding community, which is
the head, needs for agriculture and other purposes. \-And so
'
from the state and commonwealth assume^ in this manner'He is
said, to'be a civil and political animal.
' :
; ■"
Secondly, mari'also needs-life iri a community of ‘several
families; since when born he is without all the arts and-the
skill in all matters and without the 'natural instinct with
which the brutes are endowed for avoiding.harm and seeking
and acquiring the necessities; clearly unless he lives in a
community of mariy families, he would neither be able to learn
the.arts, which he needs for making thé necessary supports
(though nevertheless very many Would have to be léarned by
him because he would not be able to utilize the work and in­
dustry of others ) nor could he acquire a knowledge of; natural
, and supernatural matters. Finally it would not be. possible
to- be instructed and imbued with the. skill: and customs, that
become a freeborn and'upright. man, and therefore friendship
would perish and the practice of many virtues. Add that: wis­
dom is uncouth and severe unless it is communicated to. others
and is discussed with them. For if wisdom is. hidden away and
a treasure is out of sight, of what use is either?.i Thus,
saith the Wise &ari‘ in Eccles» 7; 4Γ, ’’Therefore among all liv­
ing beings man alone was endowed with the power of speech by
which, he could have· relations’with others7 in a community and
could’ express his thoughts to others·, now by ,teaching others,
now by asking que st ions, and in turn being; instructed by oth­
ers, and also he could cultivate friendship and·.other virtues
with other men. And so Aristotle, Politics, Book I, Chapter 2,
.concluded that man, more than the bees arioFall other animals
which congregate, is a social animal. For he says, .’’Nature
does nothing that is superfluous, nor did it give speech to
man for any other reason than for living together and for hav­
ing a society with other men.”

T

16

1

ORIGIN

m CivilPOWER

.r ·,,·..

*
"/.·

ï.pA·’ :•"t,·,?

Thirdly, man..,nvçds u.lif a not only .in a ^community;of ^s'éŸn f *ÿ*·
oral families'but1 also ~of a·perfected dqmmphwealth;· ^o tjlafc?\
peace, semiritytand.îjustine may lie conserved- among
For the Wwèrô: b^/tn«/:v.hule Obliiipriwëhlth? are by-far^^Wutje^y??
than ofvSheindivldual. families; of course by the - pb'Wo’rsr.otC
the wholfe commonwealth each man is. better,.defended frôà^lii-·1',?-",.'
jury by.'ôthb^à,^Wl?t&$Vevll doers- and .criminals aré better
kept, off and punished thanbythe strehgth'of .him aldrid te J.%:,
whom the· wrong· Id ..offered and upon whom it? is inflicted’;’-1 ή .'Ί f :
likewise·blricp!’.ihe7'.brigiha.l justice was lost' through- sin,/Λand unavoidably ftUlte a few controversies ©hd^hardahipht -5^ '1’
arose, it ië: clear, .that with much more : facility.. they: .would
‘
be resolved- éàMèKand more correctly5by thé authority.of" » '.
the commonwealth-than if each .one should be the..’judge >’in‘--hibu.in.:'.
own case , φ;F6r unydhe Is easily blinded by .pussipn raûd ilovtfV . ‘
of his owninterest and perverts his ovin judgment,,-bu.t: on , \
the other hand -this would? hot. easily hâpyén ih,.ah uptxxox.ity ·-· · : ;
founded wt j^blitf pÇWer»y . : r
;>
ίϊvi'"·' ·'■
But sincb-human ‘feelings following the- f all'1 are?? prone, tb-’ 3’■·’,
evil from adolescence, and .all;the? loi» -instincts,/.tuat·.· wfii :·e*·- ·; ' ?
perience . fbr’j the tèpst?part ;rule<men, by all:'’mô’ûri8,',?if jfeuéjh-»γ"1,
should live outside ;the politicalookmuriitywith the-.result . ·<· ,lr
that there -1'a "no '■ super lor public power which Could by it». i. σ i ‘
own strength?:àhd. author ft y .co er,de'them «and check' .‘them1ti.'CVftry>r.- ·"“
thing would-be killings^ 'seditions,vraplhe,-id?ptX»k bbhameh. ,
and trickery, 'with'thé more. powerful oppréssiné;? the 'lessj ppw.r 'V.,
erful, and .by- far; .Would't.Kè condition* be- Worse ’ and;
mis·?
ery of human1 kind: greater than it is toddy;
distinct cbmmqùwçalthsi
■■
,
For these, end ί ike reasons' -it3 is-natural fori men'i
it proceeds; from-_their bwn very natûré’/ with the .light<ôf -ha-' ,
tural reason;screeching.thenrthis frôm the very nature-of
**
things ;and)àtfœûÎâfing themate -thls-rvé^y fesult,^namely**;thôty
they come ^together >. ; not: only in distr let's ,* but? also ·Λ1η scom-i " J
plete and? perfect .commonwealth^ -the like; of which' state; was λκλ ’·
set up in the manner in which/.w'é'-aboW‘ set, ‘forth ^or even- in
·;
a complete province .-which would'’be inore fWt^isfyixig,·tu’ them,;>:‘; '! 1 ’
not only ’for all the purposes that we. have., mpntlone d. but al- so for repelling; and l avengihgi: wrongs'from' external.;enemies if-· ‘
any shouldbje of^ejed ?by>them, -cr already have been»* off pred,- ' - a ’
and for pf osecut ingt the ί rights ; of Wdri / ''.'7..’ ·
.?· . .
·<·,
Victoria j. 7 in the Select lone de potestate 'oiviliyirom'Num» ;,4., ..
ber 6. andisoto*
iustit*, »q.;.4^ art; 1 nssert'' on.-this? ‘ -·;■·
very point,-thdt because man came together to. .forjt.Ja ' ©or4-j
poraté commonwealth’the ;power of the body:,^ the whole,, com··»
’ monwealth iarïseS; by natural law over the·’ ihdiyidhai:'.part's, .to, ?.. ·
govern the_m,'. tp make laws for them, to deal them'

■

■■ -■> ■ ·ί

^-^h'^t^^^.fo\5r';itF-TK-'*-5T--,f^|h^'hiàLM-Jtelaaài^^

ORIGIN OF LAY AND CIVIL POWER -

.

17

to punish them. Therefore, they say, since God is the..supreme author of the natural law, clearly power of this kind.',
ip·from God directly because He made nature, even though the
Union of men into a single commonwealth is a condition, with­
out which this power could not result. Hence Victoria in the
passage cited, Number 8, has it that this power does .notParise
from the fact that men wish to subject themselves'to· it'and • appoint it. by their own decision over themselves for their own
good; just as it could arise if men got tegether for .any other
purpose they please and elected a common power over themselves,
but this latter power would not have its origin directly from
God through the natural law, but from men freely..subjecting
themselves to it, nor would the power be greater than what .men
by their own wills assigned it. But that other prior power is
from the very nature of the matter, and, granted a union of
men to found a single commonwealth, is. therefore directly from
God as from the Author of nature, and not frgm men.who come.
together to form a commonwealth, except from the condition’:
without which, just as a commonwealth would not result; so al­
so Would not is power result over its individual parts*
These authors moreover are. led to make this assertion:, since
a community of-this type proceeds from nature whiph: instigates
and requires it, and the nature : itself,of the. community how .
arisen demands power in itself over,its,own individual ele­
ments , therefore' it is from the natural law and thus1 directly
from God. Victoria.confirms this.... Since it is prohibited by
the natural law for individuals of. the commonwealth, to put r;
’ criminals to- death* . even though they be the very ones that are
affected by the wrong, and that under the fifth law of-the’ '
Decalogue;hay, rather it is also prohibited to the same indi" viduals to punish criminals with other penalties; and. since'
therefore this is lawful for the commonwealth, as from usage
itself and from the. Scriptures is established and. the nature
of the matter1 requires; it comes about that far different is "
the power that arises in the commonwealth from the union of’
the particular powers..of the individuals, and therefore the
’ commonwealth does not have this power from the authority of
the individuals·,· but immediately from God,, .
< '
However·it would be possible to answer this confirmation,
that'at all. events the families themselves and the heads there­
of under ■ thé natural law have the power of putting to death
and punishing wrong-doers for the very reason that .no- other
“superior power has been constituted to-which the families
could transfer their own power, as farther on we show in Dis­
cussion· 100,with Navarrus, Gabr. and Angel. Therefore from
the: fact that the private families in this respect had· trans­
ferred their own power.. to the body as â whole of the common-

18

ORIGIN OF LAY AND’'CIVIL POWER

wealth* because it would be wholly ^expedient that it should'.,
rather repose in the whole body of ’the commonwealth·. than in·
the single families, it would be possible that .the 'common- "
wealth alone have this power, conferred oh it by its. own el­
ements, and not directly: by God, :
■
■·.: .■
• . But this solution notwithstanding*· the 'opinion of Victor- .
ia and Soto pleases us, not only because the latter is. in
conformity with reason, but' also since, granted that the com­
monwealth does not consist of families but of .indiylduais,
•the same power would still be in the commonwealth.. Further­
more , by the reasoning by which the power of killing extern- ■
al wrongdoers arises in the family: from the nature of the
matter, which power is not in the individual's of the family
in their single and private capacity, why also will not.a
similar power arise in the commonwealth as a whole/ which '
power has not been communicated to it' by the parts , b.f which
it consists, actually-no legitimate reason" can. be âdduçé'd/ '
Perhaps-someone will contend that private’ persons also han. .
■ justly-take revenge on those that.are wronging. them and ,are'
malefactors when no other superior power would be set up ’on
•whom this’ duty would fall. But in no way would I dare to
concede this; for if this' were granted, with equal reason it
would have to be conceded, in thé event'that punishment would
not follow through the public power, either because the
·
wronged one would fail in his proof, or because thé public
power would not act on -account of its own worthlessness,
that a private person could take revèhgé himself without
causing scandal, not otherwise than, without causing scandal/
it is possible to take by one’s own authority what is owed
to one, if he would not be otherwise able to recoup it *-Also
it would have to be. granted that it would'be not- from the na­
tural law that private persons would not be able to take ven­
geance on their owh account, but from merely positive law,
and that therefore men, when they come -together to form a ’
commonwealth, would be able to reserve to themselves the pow­
er of taking vengeance for themselves, by not renouncing it
and by not transferring it to the commonwealth; this must not
in any way be conceded. Therefore we must say: the commons ­
wealth does not have its power by the authority of its ele­
ments from which it grows, but by divine authority, directly
from God, as the Author pf nature. It is confirmed, since if,
the authority of the commonwealth would not; be from God di­
rectly, by a grant of the parts/ clearly then, if someone of ·
those living together would desire' not to Offer assent to
this, the commonwealth would have no powerhver him; to be
sure, since other individuals do not have right and authority
over him, and just so far as they would not be able to give .
to the commonwealth authority over him. Therefore the question

ORIGIN OF LAY AND CIVIL POWER

19

would have to be asked of each one who is born or Comes
anew into the commonwealth whether he consents to the author­
ity of the commonwealth over him, and his consent would have
to be awaited. This would be ridiculous.

DISCUSSION XXIII
THE SUPREME CIVIL POWERS-REGAL OR MONARCHIC, ARISTOCRATIC,
AND DEMOCRATIC; AND WHICH THEN OF THESE IS THE MORE EXCELLENT
!
>
1
j

i
1

i
V
r
ί
h

I
{
I
I

i
j
, j
ί
Î
5 j

i
j j
ί q
!

I

4

Up to this point we have‘shown only the origin of this civil or political power that reposes in the whole body of the
commonwealth by the provision of its own elements. But because
the commonwealth with advantage to itself is unable tc exercise
all this power over its own parts—for it would be burdensome
for the commonwealth and morally impossible to perform the in·
dividual functions of this power and to await the consent of
individuals of the commonwealth, and it would be quite diffi­
cult for so great a number of men to come to the same agreement, the light of natural reason teaches that it has been
placed in the judgment of the commonwealth to entrust the rule
and.power cvor itself to some one, or to several, as far as it
has wished and judged to he expedient. From this have their
origin the various lawful governments which are seen in the
several commonwealths, as each one chooses and constitutes for
itself a government, and hands over a greater or lesser degree
of power over itself by its own free will.
Further the lawful supreme ruling powers of states, and
therefore the commonwealth itself—the name of these is taken
from the kind of government that it has— are reduced to three
types by Aristotle in Politics, Book I, Chapter V, namely,
monarchy, the rule of one; aristocracy, or the rule of the op­
timates; and democracy, or the rule of the people or the crowd.
For in fact, first, the commonwealth is ruled by one common
head or prince, to whom the power of the commonwealth has been
delegated, and then it is called a monarchy or kingdom, and
the prince himself is the king and monarch. Today by antonomasia he who rules the whole world, or a great part of it, has
been customarily called the monarch, that is, of the whole
world, The others, however, who rule one or two provinces usually have been called kings of the province or provinces,
or' secondly, the commonwealth is governed by a few, and those
optimates, as Rome one time before the emperors and Venice Ιο­
day, and it is called an aristocracy; but the rulers in accordance with the prescription of the commonwealth are called
senators or by some other name,or lastly, the commonwealth is
ruled by the many and is called a democracy. Since however
the power is derived for the government by the free will of the
commonwealth itself, of course
it will be possibly be more ampie in each kind of state, or less ample; and it is not greater
;

:

-

j

20

Î

i 1
I I ‘

ί ’

■

·

-

:

KINDS OF GOVERNMENTS
in the governors of the commonwealth than has been granted,
to them by the commonwealth.· Nay, rather, if the governors .
•extend it and. usurp greater powers for themselves, the’ÿ de..'.—·’
generate' into tyranny through .injustice which they' commit ;
. ····.· ·
in this respect; ■ '''■ · ·· ;
■ ■ <-■
■;
'■ ■ ,• Hence 'it is that the regal power can be constituted in.
', .,·..*·■
various ways;· first, by granting it to someone only .for à-’ ’ _■
lifetime., so that, of course, when he dies, another is·Sc-. :
’
lected by’the Commonwealth,'with some certain electors con- ; . stituted.and. with a certain prescribed form of election; “
.···.· *:
Secondlyi it can be instituted by granting it to someone and,: S
·
to onlÿlhis male descendants, and, if.these are wanting,:'; '■ /· ■■·-■>
then .the" right·· of election re verts, to the .commonwealth. Tuird-''.
ly, it. "can be' done-by wholly giving away* the right "of ‘êleçr ; /
, tion, oii-account of the inconveniences and seditions'which· ' ,"1 .,,·<
can thence’ arise, and by giving; the royal power tp . someone, · \ : ,
so that it* may .devolve upon, whomever of his. blood relatives· λ t.'. <arethe nearer and their successors; however" with.' the.’ coridi-' V . .·'
tion that ’descendants are preferred to ascendants, and-their 1 , .
ascendants are- put ahead; of collaterals, end always males to ..
females, Also it can be done in various other ways in accor-'/;. ;dance with the original institution of the kingdom, bÿ■ th.e -••<f
commonwealth,-7 In this way in ^France by the Salla law all * - ·'.-;.
women ‘are 'entirely excluded from succession to' the crown.
Also greater or-less power .can be granted to5 kings, so that · ’ ...
some matters-a-ré lawful for them or. are ·ηοί^ and they :àre’ ’ ’ ■
held to seme-"thills- or they are. not . Lastly .it'must remain.
fixed for tnemthaf what'-power was granted when the•’Wgal'
power Was · set'up has -been?definitely determined.’-'.‘.Andjuçt' ’ ·'
as the Commonwealth cannot.vary thé power by taking .from it7
...'■.·■
or lessening-.that which was granted .-.at, the beginning, ;yet itr'.· \ <
would'be. pôssiblé-t'ot enlarge-it and .grant .'more power;, but ' ·’·'. .... ?
the prince, -if the commonwealth · disapproves’, cannot ; there àse '· * ' /■
his power for himself, nor c.an any one of those .thingé'bê ' ^'- ’
exceeded-which havesbeen constituted at thp.beginning»· '·' “·’
With the regal power for keeping the commonwealth within·; :·· ,
bounds is; the power.' of .making· laws. by which it is governed;'''·:.
AlphonsbÎrâ:‘ Ca-stro observes, on,, the, power Cf l?eààl Là»,’Book it;
Chaptéh"' I ; ‘ when : the matter is-not clear from another source ,· ·
in consequence- of an accepted practice by which the people ·■ *·'■ '...·
are wohfr ■•to, op pose, or·, not-' those, laws passed by kings, that '·' · '
oppress.the; commonwealth,, that ^conjecture 'must be'made wheth­
er the. people in thé original, creatΙόή of thé regal·· power .· .·
:‘
granted7 the kings the power of making lawsi of this kind* de-.
pendent: on th-e approval of the. people or hot1';' - 'For if custom
■·'
would have it that such .laws, have no force unless approved by ,
the people / it must be .thought that .the commonwealthhas not - - '■ ·
grant e d ' a gr e at er power to the kings than, of making- law de - ··■··
pendent on the approval of the people. And it is quite likely . .,

22

KINDS OF GOVERNMENT

that if the people did. turn their attention to it they have
granted, no greater power to thé kings; even if they Λ quid
not turn their attention to it, it seems to have been the in­
tention of the commonwealth, as it put a king over itself,
when it did. not otherwise express it; and.always it is rather
to be presumed that the king enlarged his power ’ through his
power, since his subjects did hot dare to object, than that
his subjects decreased the power once granted to him. ■ There­
fore it is right for the comuonwealth not to accept laws that
sensibly burden it when'they are not at all necessary for. the
common good. And if the prince should force the state to it,
he will do an injustice. But i^says Castro, the accepted us­
age has it that the not inequitable laws of princes should be
obeyed, we must admit that the commonwealth has wholly, grant­
ed its power to the king—but this can hardly be believed
about any state.' This is especially true since, -t.s above it
has been stated, kings are wont to extend their power by .
means of their power, and therefore in this event "it would be
lawful for the commonwealth, as it were, to appeal from laws
burdening it too heavily by applying to the prince that eith­
er, he should abstain from them or lessen the rigor of these
laws, and he ought to.listen to the commonwealth or hold, just
the. basis of their appeal; but if the commonwealth should not
prove its cause to be .sufficient, then indeed it will be pos­
sible to apply force, and it will be required to obey. The
following I would have cautioned— that if the prince by the
law of war had gotten a certain power over a commonwealth,
when’he did not have from the commonwealth his own power, but
had gotten as much power from the law of war as the commonwealth
itself was able to give him, and · the prince was able to ap­
ply to it force in accordance with these laws, which were not
so oppressive that they mean injustice; always on the other
hand the laws should be bearable so that they do not burden
the people and do not turn their minds from good will toward
the prince.
But after the regal power ht-.s been granted to anyone by
the commonwealth, the king is superior not only to the indi­
vidual elememts of the commonwealth but also to the whole com­
monwealth, so far as the power has been granted to him, so
that he is. able to use this power not only ^gainst the indi­
vidual elements.of the commonwealth but also against the com­
monwealth as a whole, by punishing it if there be need, as
say, Soto and Victoria in suitable notation in the places ci­
ted. And the commonwealth cannot tu«.e away from him this pow­
erwhich has been granted, or diminish it,‘or impede its le­
gitimate use; for otherwise the regal power would not be a
monarchy, which could, be reduced to s single head,, but a de­
mocracy, which in the last analysis be traced to the crowd of .
the commonwealth, If, however, the king would want to assume

j

KINDS OF GOVERNMENT :'·.?·

23

4

to himself a power not granted to him, the commonwealth could
resist him·as a tyrant in this particular, Just like any' ··«'
stranger that would want to.injure it. The reasoning’is-in­
deed that neithèr is the king in this respect the ’ superior of
the commonwealth, nor'is the commonwealth-the inferior of him,
but the commonwealth is the same as before it gave .this power
to. him·
'
.· '■■■'J
·;Likewise in an aristocracy.the commonwealth, when power is
granted, to, and set up for the optimates by the whole common­
wealth by its own free will, άΛ can be instituted,in various ‘
ways ; that is,. that there be more or fewer optimates, and that
they be chosen in this or that way, or that they-may remain a
longer or, shorter t ime in office, or that the y may .have ïmoré ‘
orvless'; power.,’ and that .they depend on the remainder of the
commonwealth and the tribune of the common pe ople in this Or ·
that measure.. And neither in these powers that have been ' ·■'
granted, nor in others can .they exceedanything. And: if they
usurp for.'themselves anything more, they do wrong. ' Further,
the laws which emanate from the .optimates of this kind in ac­
cordance with the prescript ion. and power granted by~th'e ,’com- * ~
monwealth to them are called-decrees of the senate,"··
·■. ;. in .dhmocracjy also the 'commonwealth can .be instituted in ac­
cordance with its own free will in a variety of ways/since the. power is likewise granted and set up by the whole'common- • wealth in thé hands ,bf ·'the.very.,many who are deputized to rule;
and not only as to number but also, as to manner of sélection,
the ; nature . and périod- of the - term of each,, and. also as to the »
extent and. latitude bf .the power and dependence of it on oth-ers,· and similarly it will be wrong, for them tp; exceed· in any
way. But the. laws that; emanate..from these in accordance with
the power granted to them are; called’ decrees, of the peoplei.··
Now when in the first kind of government bf the three .de­
scribed a turn is made into injustice, either by seizing the
commonwealth, or by administering it*for the common good but
aS a common propertyUnlawfullyj or by exceeding the'.power '
granted, the ;rulé, is called tyranny and the governor, -a tyrant,
by;use of thé wprd in a bad sense, For it is, named from the
«-’power;at one' tfmë it was used in a good sensé, wherefore .the
'■'énës in power were: called tyrants,. When,. however, in the. seo»bnd kindturn is' likewise taken to the unlawful, the govern'r-’-;ment - is. called oligarchy·, - the principate of the few. And.when
in the third, ’ it is called democracy, though, today the word is
'- taken by some, in a good sense, in which up to. this: point we
? have used it,. Nevertheless· Aristotle, Politics, Book III,
LChapiter V, calls, the third type of lawful rule the State, ■ that
Is j" the commonwealth^ by accommodating à Word,: cotamôh to these
■'■’ three types of otherwise lawful rule, to signify only the ··
third kind; but ‘the departure from.it unlawfully he -calls de­
mocracy. Of these types of lawful rule that have be en «.explained,

" Insert; not.

24 «’■

KINDS OF .GOVERNMENT

\

monarchy is the best, because :by this kina of government pub­
lie peace and tranquillity are best preserved, ©nd less in ··
this kind than in any other is left a place for seditions, ··
For as correctly after-Ennius-says Lucan: "No trusting of
the kingdom to associates, and .all power will be impatient of
a partner," And the Lord says, Jeremiah 12: 10, "Many pas-,
tors have destroyed my vineyard," Art, moreover, is the .more 5
perfect the more it imitates nature{besides in the natural
order rule-is reduced to unity—by one heart all· the members
are moved and governed, and by a unique reason all :the: other
powers; one bee is over all the others, and the governance-pf
the whole universe goes back to one supreme- governor-and mod­
erator, God. . Therefore it comes about that monarchy is more
outstanding than the other types of government. . Nor in it is
there less of liberty for the subjects than in the- other gov­
ernment s, as Victoria, Civil Rower, Number 11rightly notes;■
since in it th.e -subjects have only one supreme master, notseyeral, as in others, - About this read St. Thomas, The. Rule
of Princes. Book L. Charter II.
-Sut, to be sure, the following is referred to by Victoria
in the place cited, Number 14, that although in other'gov­
ernments the commonwealth has handed over to no.one in par­
ticular the power over itself but is ruled through governors
that are not removable and who die, it is at any time able,
if it wishes, to set up a king over itself , as the Venetians
today, or the Geneva Republic will be able to make a king for
themselves, if they judge? it expedient. For this purpose it
will be sufficient if the greater part of the commonwealth
would consent; for that consent of the commonwealth, would be
determined by the Consideration of the greater portion of it- .
self, which therefore has force over the lesser, and so the
lesser is held to stand for it. It is confirmed, since if in
the counsels of the commonwealth the opinion and pleasure of
the majority would not have to be followed, clearly the com­
monwealth could not be governed, and it would to-a degree be .
•difficult for anything useful to be decided for it. . For in .
such a great multitude of men there never would be someone
lacking whom the contrary would please, Victoria adds that /
since the Christian Church is a unique spiritual commonwealth,
for whose -purpose and for the common good the end and govern- .
ments of secular princes who are subject to it are ordained,
certainly if the greater part of the Church would consent that
there be one common emperor chosen, to defend it and who in
that-respect would be superior to the other kings, on account .
of which this would be judged to be strongly expedient, that
consent and pleasure would suffice so that the remainder of .
the Church would be held to hold to it and-to consent, to thé
election of such an emperor. Nay,· if it should be judged, ex''
’
'
’
·’
■
- ·■« ?■

'

·■' -

KINDS

OP GOVERNMENT

25

expedient at all and necessary for the Church for its own
conservation, the Pope alone would be able to order and de­
termine it, and all the Church would be obliged to support
that decree and law, as must be spoken of in Discussion XXIX·
Now in fact the supreme civil powers, which we have discussed up to this point,‘are what flow from the commonwealth
to the governors. But by positive divine law ■ certain· things
have flowed, for a particular individual, directly from God.
Such were the powers of Moses over the sons of Israel, like­
wise the powers of Saul and David, who were made, kings of Israel by God« Also, by the law of war a single prince will be
able to establish lawful power o.ver several commonwealths,·.'... ·
, and one commonwealth, either an aristocracy or a democracy,' ■
over several others, which has not been conferred on it by ·
the commonwealths themselves which are being ruled.. And
spread out and established in this manner certain empires
r have grown up, the. greatest that have existed up to .this time...
in the world..
.
. .
From the civil powers that have been set forth have flowed.
the remaining inferior powers .in the commonwealth.,· such as
the viceroys, leaders in war, fudges, optimates, marquises, -,
counts, etc. And I say this.because we look to the kings and ·
.the other supreme governors, as the light of nature 'teaches
and prescribes .it', through them or others and to .the splendor
of the commonwealth to· appoint and s.et them up, because it :
would not be able directly to administer everything itself,

. ,
’
?

|

i
,J
: j

1
; j
·;
H
J

:l

I;

DISCUSSION XXIV

.THE ORIGIN OF THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY, AND THOSE FOUR OUT­
STANDING' EMPIRES OF THE WORLD, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN DAN­
IEL 2. WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED
The Imperial dignity goes back to and. pertains to the re­
gal and monarchial dignity. In fact it was introduced into
the world in this manner. They who were endowed with very
many provinces and had many kings subject to themselves, in
order to differentiate themselves from the common kings, took
for themselves through their superiority the name of emperor.
In this way the Roman princes who about the time of the com­
ing of Christ held the greatest part of the known world,
were called emperors, even before they received the Christian
faith. To be sure, after they bowed to the Church of Christ,
; and Constantine the Great gave the city of Rome to the Church
and removed the seat of the empire to Constantinople in
Qreece, the emperors were known as patrons and defenders of
the Church.
.
Chapter Venerabilem, de electione, on word
transtulit, asserts from the history books— Since tne time of
Pope Stephen II, when the imperial power in the western parts
had almost been extinguished on account of the various north­
ern nations who had just about possessed it by force of arms,
the Roman Church was harassed by Astulphus, King of the Lom­
bards, in a manner to be pitied, and the emperors who were
tarrying at Constantinople, while the Pope was frequently and
strenuously imploring their help against the incursions of
the barbarians, were not bringing help to the Church in its
afflicted condition, then indeed Pope Stephen in the year of
the Lord 776 transferred the Roman Empire from the Greeks to
the Gauls and made Charlemagne, son of Pippin, Emperor, whom
afterwards Leo III, with the people acclaiming and demanding,
confirmed and crowned as Emperor. Gilbertus Genebradus in
Book III, Chronologies, about the year 752 A.D., has it along
with others, that this was Pope Stephen m about the year
756. It is pertinent that Palmer
in the Chronology of
Nauclerus says that this Stephen also for this reason trans­
ferred the insignia, dignities and titles of the Empire to
the kings of the Franks because the Emperor of the East was
harassing the Catholics.
Moreover, granted that the transfer of the Roman Empire to
the Franks seems to have had its origin from the fact that
Stephen joined himself to Pippin in France, to obtain help
from him against Aistulphus, where he anointed Pippin and his
two sons anew as Kings of France in the church of St, Denis

‘

26

ORIGIN OF THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY

27

and also declared, the kingdom of France hereditary for tneir
posterity, yet in common with otners he affirms that..this , .
transfer of the Roman Empire to. the Franks was made by Leo .
Ill, who in the year of grace 800 .or 801 established and ..
crowned Charlemagne as Emperor of the west, while tne Eastern
Empire remained among the Greeks. From this they say was the
origin of anointing and crowning the western emperors by the
pope. Rather it is said tnat Cnarlemegne mrde an agreement
- with Irene and afterwards with Nicephorus tnat he should, hold
the Western Empire but tncy.the·· Eastern, as from Platina and
Blondus Genebradus refers in Chronologies, Book IV, about the .
year 800, and Book III, about the same year. Indeed the West­
ern Roman Empire remained among the Franks for about 110 ..years,
even up to Louis IV» When he died without issue, the lineage
• of Charlemagne ceased in the male line, and the Empire was .
transferred to the Germans, whose first emperor was,Conrad at:
the time : of Anastasius ill about the year 912, But neither.
Louis IV, nor Conrad, nor the other emperors up to Otto I '
were crowned with the name Great, otto I was anointed..and
crowned by John.XII about the year 963 as Emperor of tha’Germans, with the Roman people saluting him as Augustus. Otto.
Ill was anointed and crowned by, Gregory V about the year. 997 .
as Emperor of the Germans, to whom finally Italy, because
with the lineage ; of Charlemagne extinct it was grievously tor­
mented, granted completely the rule to the Germans, But when
Otto III died, a synod was convened at Rome, and it was de­
cided that - thereafter the Emperor should be elected according
to a majority vote by seven German prince-s, three ecclesias­
tical and-four secular, namely, the Archbishops of .Mainz, Co­
logne, and Treves, and the Count of. the Palatinate, thé Duke
of Saxony,the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the King of Bohem-·
ia who then was the Duke. However the Pope reserved to' him-. /
self not only examination, approval and confirmation of the.
person elected Emperor, but also the anointing and crowning
of him with thé golden crown. And I say this because three
crowns are placed on him who is elected and crowned as the
Emperor. First, the iron crown by the Archbishop of Cologne'
in Aix-La-Chapelle of the same diocese. The. second, a silver
one, by the Archbishop of Milan in a certain town of. that di­
ocese in Italy. And the third, a golden one, by the pope at
Rome, And so this custom of electing, confirming, anointing,
and crowning the Emperors continued right up to today. In .
fact Henry II was the first one to be elected Emperor by the
seven electors. Further this election of the Emperors was in­
stituted for this purpose— that. they should be patrons’ and
defenders of the Church for the purpose of rooting put the .’
heretics and any other enemies of the faith, and for guaran­
teeing whatever other considerations deemed expedient, for the

ORIGIN OF THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY

1

28

1
1
J
I
I
I
I
1

protection and. the defense of the Church. Therefore they çffereâ. to the Pope an oath of fidelity for all these and certain other things. Whence it comes about that the protection
and defense' of the Church by their arms and power is a duty
of the Emperors ex officio. All these matters are plain from
:the Chapter venerabilem de electione, from Clemens Romanus,·.
and from the glosses in the same work, especially at the word
vestigiis de iure iurando( traces of the o at h ), and in The
·
Creat Gloss, at the word illi autem, and from the two glosses
following in the text adjoined to it, the Chapter Ad Apo st o 11oae de sententia & re judicata; and re iudicata, Book VI·. Read
also Genebrâdus, Chronology, Book IV, about the year 997 and
- also about the year 1000,
.
Further, the Roman Empire, most flourishing in power and
glory, rightly is Judged to be among those four leading em­
pires of the earth about which Daniel speaks in his first chap­
ter as being set up and spread in great part by war and force;
first, the Assyrians and Chaldeans; second, the Medes; third,
the Greeks under Alexander; fourth, and last, the Romans, on
whose origin and beginning we have very lately spoken.· But if
the wars by which they were founded were lawful, also the em­
pires themselves were lawful. But if the wars were unjust,
the empires also were unlawful, to the extent that it was ac­
quired by an unlawful war and was not set up as the lawful
ruling power of that section because it was acquired unlawful­
ly before the people of their own free will tacitly or express­
ly consented, though, notwithstanding the unlawful war those
kings were
ruling them. However it is very likely
that for the most part the great empires of this kind were un­
lawfully acquired, and this among others Durandus affirms on
the origin of Jurisdiction, Albert Pighius, Church Hierarchies,
Book I, Chapter XIV, and Prie do, Christian Freedom, Book I.
Chapter XV; and for this reason they have it that these em­
pires were revealed to Daniel under, the form not of men but of
beasts.
:
But if you object that in the Holy Scriptures it is mean­
while said that these empires were granted by God to these em­
perors, as to Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Daniel, Jeremiah
27, and to Cyrus, Isaiah 44 and 45, and Ezra 1, it must be re­
plied that these empires were granted by permission and to use
these men as instruments to punish the sins of mankind, and
for appointing thé empire of Cjrus.for the return of the sons
of Israel from the Babylonian captivity, if again you would
object that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 13, and
I Peter, his canonical Epistle, Chapter 2, hate spoken of the
powers that then existed^·which, of course, were the Roman, we
must answer that in the first place peter and Paul spoke of
the more sublime powers, meanwhile-neither examining nor de—
fining them, whether these or those in particular were lawful;

i
I
‘I
I
.1
:]

: I
‘i

i i

j

ORIGIN OF THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY

29

since, granted that in themselves they were not such, the oc­
casion was not looking to these to teach this, nor was it
expedient; and commonly they seem to be reputed to be lawful
by their subjects, and when this was granted they were held
to obey them. Then we must that at least by agreement in
many cases they were lawful, seeing that they were set up
through a just war, or the commonwealths themselves of their
own accord were submitting themselves to the Romans; and per­
haps at that time there was indeed a consent of the peoples,
either tacit or. expressed, that the Romans rule them. Besides
it must be stated that, granted that at that time the Roman .
emperors were ruling some tyrannically, yet with Victoria in.
Tract1 5 we will say, that for the very reason that some com­
monwealth tolerated them, because they were unable to shake
off their yoke, not only were the orders and judgments of the
judges constituted by the emperors binding on the individuals
of the commonwealth, in the forum of the conscience, but also
the orders and judgments of the emperors themselves; not in­
deed by the peculiar authority of the emperors, but by the
authority of the commonwealth itself; and I say this because
it must be presumed that the commonwealth wished the regime
to have such power, admitted that the commonwealth itself can
set up another regime.

DISCUSSION XXV
THE REGAL POWER IN RELATION TO ITS SUBJECTS AND TEE POS- ' '
SESSIONS OF THE ROYAL CROWN; AND WHETHER THE DONATION BY CON­
STANTINETO THE CHURCH WAS MADE LAWFULLY
..

~ From the discusdion up to this point it is clear that the
king—an! any other supreme administrator of "the commonwealth—
is not the owner of the goods of his subjects; but he has only
over his subjects the power of prescribing law to them and of
defending them and governing them for their common good. For
on account of this only was he chosen, and was the power and
facility granted to him by the commonwealth. Therefore if he
should appropriate the possessions of his subjects to himself
for his own pleasure, or give them to another, it is unlawful,
and he is held to restitution, nor is such a gift valid-? This
all is clear of itself, and it is affirmed by Bartolus in
proemio veterum,ff, paragraph, omnem, at number δ,, and by Pan-

ormita on the chapter venerabilem dé electione, number 19, by
Innocentius and others, let he will be’able, seeing that he is.
the administrator of the commonwealth, and all are subject to
him for the common good, to make laws which he sees as exped- ’
lent for the same common good, by which rights of ownership
are lost and transferred to others, as the law of prescription,
and other like; and this not only for the punishment of re.*
missness, but also for the common good, even if no remissness
Intervenes. Likewise when reason demands it, he will have the
power to expose not only the possessions of his subjects, but
also their persons for the common good, and he can exact from
them and take whatever is judged expedient for the common good,
with an eye to equality among them so far as it is possible to
be carried out.
Moreover since the king has been appointed to protect and
defend the commonwealth against external enemies and internal
criminals, and also to dispense justice, and to conserve the
peace and justice among his subjects, and lastly that he may
administer the commonwealth for the common good, and for this
reason taxes and lother emoluments are paid to him, which are
necessary to the power, dignity and honor of the king; clearly
the king is required from justice and from his duty to perform
all his agreements, and in the same manner in their turn his
subjects are required to pay him reverence, obedience and taxes
and render him other supports which are owed to him for his
office. Further, although the king could make donations from
the goods of the kingdom such as would not gravely and notably
30

REGAL POWER, SUBJECTS, AO ROYAL POSSESSIONS

31 :

be prejudicial to it, and he could and should reward the . .
■ aerii of his subjects the more they go. to the common good,
as is concluded from Book VI, Chapter.The Abbot, de sent'ententia & reludicata, and from other laws; yet he would”not""
be able to give those things which go to the serious and
notable prejudice of the kingdom; rather, if he should make
such a gift, it is possible to revoke the gift, though he
. had confirmed it with an oath; and in the same manner his
successors can revoke it when the gifts have been made to
• their disadvantage, This is concluded from the Chapter in.. telleoto on the oath, and Innocentius affirms it, as well
as panormita in that place all the way at number 8; also
- Barto lus in 1, prohibere, paragraph Plane, ss, quod vi aut
clam. The reason is, since the king"Tjy reason of being fur..·■ hished the goods of the kingdom’s crown is a kind of admin­
istrator, for the effects of the crown of the kingdom are
• bound by their own limit and are granted to the kings by
the commonwealth for the defense and the administration of
• the commonwealth, and not to be squandered and result in the
detriment -of the kingdom and commonwealth. And although
circumstances may remove for a just cause this chain-like
. impediment that these things have, it cannot be done for
one’s own pleasure and without a lawful reason.
• Hence the teachers doubt that the donation made by Con­
stantine to the Church was valid, since it was on quite a
- serious matter and was to the disadvantage of hia successors,
And whatever certain experts in law have .said-j it must be
said with Barto lus in the rubric proemii citati^ although
it would not be- quite applicable*-with Panormita·in- the pas­
sage cited, with Major in 4, d. 15, q. 10, part 2,’ and With
many others; that it was not only &ade and accepted in good
■ faith and without wrong, but also it seems to hate .proceeded
out of divine inspiration to the exaltation, splendor-and
spread of the Church. And besides that it was done, as it.
were ; in return -for salvation, for the victories provided
divinely, for the faith,' and for the .other blessings gotten,
it was done for God in His own Church and for the common
good of the. whole empire, and .for the many..pe.ople of the
Church - now subjects of the empire·. Further, donations
. which are. for the common good of the commonwealth are law­
ful;· it is the' business of the civil commonwealth to endow
and exalt the■ Church, from which, as from· its; mother, it re­
ceives sb many blessings, and to whose end.the temporal end :
of. the commonwealth is ordérèd. And, especially· is· it the du­
ty of princes in the name of the whole commonwealth, and the
donations for pious purposes are much more susceptible of ap­
proval in law than the others, under the prescription and
doctrine of the natural light. It is added that it was ac-

B

32

'

i'- '

DONATIONS BY CONSTANTINE· '··’:

cepted ’by W most holy Sylvester,· And’ môst: holy ail'd Lehrihèl i
popes' àbidêd;bÿ; it,; arid to it the succeeding- efeperbrs · ahd?0
nommpnwéàlths agreed,. ? τ '··;' ' '
But as1 rightly Albertus Pighius; notes inAghurbh/Éïlerjarcfe ?.
les, Book, Vy./Chapter VI, that who le : donat ion' made/ ;hy? Cohhtan*;
tine’expirai Mtèr^that.. ancient empire became extinct/ih’-’lVâ-;
ly and'the" other sections of the .life'stas?has1 beten* nrintipnéi·/
in a preceding discussion, and a fhr differentz brigirr tribse;^;;
possessions have?which. the - Roman Church afterwards. thok^pps*;/:
seeelbn of? a’s' ips. own, as I shall just how. add from; that anclent ’ source. Though_the donation made by Const^tl^el^ad'.-Ali
not expired.,. since. (as. has been shown in: a/^réçfèà'lri^t'ïi^çû’é-·;/
sionVrthb ■ G^rman<Eôpirc., whibh today is-'-in;-the church,. lsv‘far
different ..from, that ancient .one of cAhspantin'e? hnd his sue-·
cessbra, ' clearly not at’ all ô.b those · possessions ’Wh|chf wire;; .
given'by Constantirie to the Roman Church'pértaih /to;.thè;?.êérman emperors; who .are now in being, But as/ to the7 property'·'/
which has /reference to the patrimony' of ;the Romin''Chùrôh‘ hav- ;
ing ’a far; different origin from'that aricieht .one,'y'er^-well; '
does Albertus Pighius show it; arid it is* c'iear'frpm/hthers/to'
whom thh same; Author. t^d: çenétradus jrefer iZ /Fori 'ArithRértuë; ; ;.;
King of ’thé Lombards,', gave to the Roman Church the'.eXàrch; of
Ravenna, (which* èoritains many/cities 1 and m^iy/btHer/tHirigsi.-:·1·
AfterWards pippin' and his Son Charlemagne',/aff'ër1 the .Lombards
had. been completely fpoteii out .Of Italy, ^increased these- do-' '
nâtlôns. Afte| that Countess ’'fidfiida^ at Wr;&eatfi .’left /ter / :
the Roman Church’.all that lies.betweeh/the^Rlver^plsSrib ^and;· ■'
the nholy;.Qii'TiôaJi;Tterrltôry?oî' Séria tu Céperanô 'Lëtwëcri -thè!
Apennines and. the sea\; ïhis îS^whâi 'is' espéblalÎy-ôaliédi thé·
Patriithôny.of' St· 'tetçrï 'Besides later the BénéVéritoi'dùkedom »·
was addçd. to thé lands of the Churchy and stiW later the both
Sicilies, .’freed; Irom the /’Saracens and thë Greeks rtyy i;he ’ebur**-'
age of . the Norman-·brothers y -sons of Tancred, : : ·.. · i vi·.'' '. .k-.
But kings;· as the y-are‘hot 'able-tô ’giveiito the notable pre­
judice ,’anu e etriment ; of the kingdom, .’so.- neitherccan ?they di? ·.
vide thfefr kingdom^ rior ‘give :obe part; to bnelofitheii sons.' &nd;·
another tb’canother ; and ’much less ; can: they cede', the -.kingdom j ;
to a foreigner, if the/commonwealth ’does;not obnsenty :unless
by chhnçé it has’ been captured. by,the ’law; of-war* ' Finally, v /
the y...ùaünôt : change anything ; in thé. kingdom? boncerhirig 'the - rule
and successiori. So says àmôhg !others’ MajorJ·5 -,1 placé "cited! ei’
Re ad also 'Pariormit a, Chapter irite lie ctô j dé lur e iuriàndé , 'ηηύΛ
beç; hf.f arid;irinocentius, Book Vi. Chapter Grandif/de- supplenda
negiigèntiâ praelatorum.
.; ' \1
? '■

■

-

;

?

■

:

.

μ

/

,--

WHETHER THE REGAL POWER IS FROM THE NATURALLAW

· ·■

.' ·. '

Victoria, in the Rejection on thé Civil Power, Number'8,
assert s that the regal power is" from the natural, law ; to that
Covarruvias seems to subscribe in Practical Questions, Chap-,
ter I, Number 6, Moreover it is possible.'’to persuade one. of
this. Fir st, since the power of thé commonwealth over-the individual elements is from the natural law, as has -been shown
in Discussion XXII, But this power ,1s the same, as-the -commonwealth transfers to the king, that is, . since, when a king is
set up, there do not remain two powers,’ namely, one in the..
Commonwealth,4;ând another in thé king, but when the .common-■··.:<
wealth'gives‘up its. ,ρόν/ér and .transfers it to the king, there
■ remains only, one povief—that of ^the king;, ^therefore; Just as
. ’ the power of the pope is from thé-divine. law, although .the··;::·.
■.• conferring pf it to . one or another, whoever is elected to the
Pontificate, would depend on the will and the choice of men;
sb' the .power of the king will be from -the natural law,through
. the conferring of it on this man pr that ^whoever is elected
·, king, would depend on the free, grant and choice of the commonwealth*
-V-^',-0·,· 5/ -o·-r;
Secondly, not only does the power of the commonwealth arise
solely from the natural law, but also, because it entrusts it
• to à man of to several, it comes from th® natural light and
law itself) for the reason that the commonwealth as a.whole ;
would in no way be able to exercise it all for its own advantage. Therefore whether the commonwealth Would choose for itself a government of kings, or aristocracy, or democracy,
clearly the supreme civil power; which it selects by its own
free will and act, always will be from the natural lawi And
led by this argument, Covarruvias persuades himself to this
opinion, ■
?..
· '
yet it rniist be said with Durandus, in ς/ 1, on the origin ·
of Jurisdiction; with Driedo, Christian Liberty, Book I, Chapter XV; and with Alphonso *a gastro, in his Penal Law Power, .·
Book I, Chapter I, and with others, that not only regal, but „·
also any other supreme civil power; which by its own will .the·:
commonwealth chooses for itself, is directly from the common‘
wealth, and indirectly from God through the natural light and ■·
power that He granted to the commonwealth, so that it might
'
delegate civil power for its own benefit so far as it wanted
to and judged it to be expedient. Therefore it comes from
the natural law, and yet it is purely of the human law of the ·
commonwealth choosing for itself by its own free will not only
the person or persons to whom it gives the power, but also the

33

;

I,
|
|
I
*
f
î

ί
ί
;

I

j

j

j
!

!
.

i
.

‘

! j
1
<
i

j
·
I
{

j

j

l· J

j

ij
'
:

m
i j
ts j
ίΐ i
is ?
.·■ pi
Ui
?? ?
i

h'J

S4

WHETHER THE REGAL POWER IS FROM THE NATURAL LAW

limit, extent and. duration of such power. For Just as the
laws of the pope are derived, from the power which he has by
divine power to make them,yet they are purely of human law;
so also it is lawful that the supreme civil power which the
commonwealth by its free will chooses for itself he derived
from the natural power that it has to determine this, and.
yet it is of human law. Now there is not the same reasoning
'about the supreme civil power and the supreme ecclesiastical
of the pope to the effect that that they are not of the hu­
man law. For the power of the pope neither is set up by the
- Church, nor can it be changed, lessened or abridged by it,
but the grant to the Church by Christ was only that according
to the laws which the popes themselves prescribe it has the
faculty of electing persons to whom this power should be at­
tached. But, on the other hand, the supreme civil power is
constituted by the commonwealth as such and such, and so
great and so great, and restricted in this or that degree,
and descends from an other or others, in accordance with the
free will of the commonwealth itself,
Therefore with respect to the first argument on the con­
trary the minor premise should be denied. For far different
is the power that the commonwealth gives to the king from
thdt .which it has within itself; and it can give him a great­
er or less power, as has been said. But as the proof of the
minor it must be said that, after a king has been set up, '
there do not in fact exist two powers of which either could
proceed directly and'Justly to the act of exercising Juris­
diction and rule over the· elements of the commonwealth. For
truly whatever power the commonwealth has granted for the fu­
ture to the king independent·of itself, Just that much power
it takes away from itself, so far as the immediate use of it
is concerned, nevertheless it must not be denied that two
powers exist, one in the king, the other, indeed, habitual in
the commonwealth, meanwhile impeded from acting whilst that
other power endures, and so much precisely impeded as the
commonwealth for the future has granted that power, indepen­
dent of itself to the king. But when that power has been
done away with, the commonwealth can· wholly use its own pow­
er. Besides, as long as that power lasts, the commonwealth
can resist· it, if it does aught unjustly against the common­
wealth, or exceeds the limits of the power granted it. Also
the commonwealth can exercise directly any function of its
own power that it has reserved to itself.
As to. the second argument, if the foregoing is conceded,
the consequence must be denied. For Just as it is of the na­
tural law that the commonwealth or prince could order or cause
malefactors to be punished, but yet it is of tie positive law
that by this rather than by that punishment they would cause .

WHETHER THE REGAL POWER IS FROM THE NATURAL LAW

35

this or that dereliction to be punished; for the reason that
what they would have wished to decide in this matter would
depend on their own free will and on the law; so it is per­
missible that it be from the natural law that the common­
wealth select some one or several governors to whom it will
give the rule, because it would be unable as a whole to rule
itself; yet it is of the positive law of the commonwealth
itself as to whatever kind of government it should in partic­
ular select, because it depends on the free will of itself to
select this rather than some other.

4

DISCUSSION XXVII
BY WHAT REASONING THEN ALL LAWFUL SECULAR POWERS^ ARE OF GOD

Since all lawful lay powers either are of the natural law;
as the power of the father over the children, husband over
wife, the commonwealth; over its elements, and therefore are of
God as the Author of nature, or descend from the natural law
and are constituted by positive law, partly from the power di­
rectly granted to it by the natural law, as are all the su­
preme law powers, and, if any otheis,are directly constituted
from the whole body of the commonwealth; but partly through
the power derived indirectly for this purpose from the natur­
al law, such as are the other powers which indirectly are con­
stituted by the whole body of the commonwealth as a channel,
as the regal, and by the other powers created by it(the state)
and through the power granted for this purpose to them for the
common good of the commonwealth; it certainly follows that all
the lawful lay powers are proximately or remotely from God and
so are constituted in accordance with the divine good pleasure
and will* Whence it is permissible that powers that are leg­
ally constituted or prescribed by the regal or other lawful
inferior powers are of the positive law; yet the fact that
they are obeyed after they are so constituted is of the natur­
al law, as the natural light of understanding itself, out of
the very nature of things, so teaches it and prescribes it,
and thus it is of the divine law from God, so constituted by
the ordinary nature of things.
Therefore it comes about that the laws and precepts, not
unlawful, of the lay powers are of human law, but the fact
that we obey them is of the natural and divine law. For as
our most excellent and very great God governs this whole world
as for natural matters through natural subordinate means, -of
which some are directed from Him as the angels, the heavens
and the stars, on which depend the government and procreation
of these that live within, but some directly, with some other
secondary causes in between, by which process He is said to
ccme into contact with everything strongly from end to end and
to dispose all things smoothly, by not excluding the influence
and operation of the causes, since still to His wisdom and
providence is attributed the governance <èf the whole universe
as to natural matters; so clearly it is He Who governs and di­
rects all creatures endowed with free will for their own pur­
poses, not only natural but also supernatural, through lawful
powers derived from and constituted very proximately or remote­
ly by Himself. So it is that all lawful powers which we are
36

LAWFUL SECULAR POWERS FROM GOD

‘37

held to obey are from God. tod hold the place of God,· each in
his own order and degree, so that while we obey them and ob­
serve their precepts, we are obeying God equally ‘ in them.
Therefore Paul in Romans IS, speaking.about these lay and
secular powers, says: "Let every soul be subject unto the
higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the' powers
that be are ordained of God, Whoso resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist .shall re­
ceive to themselves damnation,” And after a few other things:
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if· thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the ■
sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to
execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must
needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience
sake (that is, that ye may avoid punishment ). For. this cause
pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending
continually upon this very thing.” And Timothy 3 (should
this read Titus 3? Editor): ” Put them in mind to be subject
to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates”I peter 2:
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man. for the Lord’s
sake: whether it ba to the king as supreme; or unto govern­
ors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of
evildoers, and for thé praise of them that do well. For so
is the will of God,” And below: ” Honour the king, servants,
be subject to your masters with all. fear; not only to the
good and gentle, but also to the freward.’’ And Paul says,
Ephesians 5: ’’Submitting yourselves one··to another in the fear
of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as un­
to the Lord. Therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ,
so let the wives be unto their own husbands in every thing.”
And Ephesians 6: ’’Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for
this is right. Servants, be obedient to them that are your
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice,
as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will
of God from the heart; Y/ith good will doing service, as to the
Lord, and not to men.”
From this it is clear that the secular powers are of God,
and God Himself refers to them as ministers of God. Besides,
when we obey them we obey God and observe the will and precept
of Him. Hence is further easily plain how foolish is the er­
ror of those that assert that the regal rule is contrary to
natural law and that all kings are tyrants and that their gov­
ernment is contrary to Christian freedom and the evangelical
law. For nothing that is in consonance with right reason and
is derived from the natural law and wholly agrees with the
Holy Scriptures can be against the natural law. Besides Mel­
chisedec was King of Salem and priest of the Most High God.

■e.

38 λ -

LAWFUL SECULAR Ρσ/iERS FROM GOD

·; ·

.

• ■ Joseph was the deputy of King Pharaoh of Egypt ,·. David and.'
Saul were appointed kings by God» And.In Deuteronomy 17 it
was granted to the sons of Israel to set up kingsfor them­
selves, and the laws of the kingdom are. prescribed in that
passage,. > Likewise in Proverbs 8 says’ God: "By me kings
reign, and. princes decree justice,”. But "since" nothing is .
. prohibited in the Gospel that- is not prohibited in the natur. al.law, and the‘freedom of the Gospel is based on this—that
we have: been freed from the yoke-of thé ,-oli law j and that λ
from the slavery of sin we are ere-made free'by justice-,, it
is wholly ridiculous. and entirely inappropriate'· to assert.
that the, regal government i.s repugnant-'t-o the-.Gospelvnnd the
• freedom of the Gospel, . ·/■ ·'
—,
' : ·'’ · · b• In consequence of these considerations which havie-.-been
• mentioned not only in this but in nine .other precedingt-dlseussions,. it will be more easily clear, to. anyone that there
are somélhfIdel nations, and that there'-is,· nd reason, .at.-, all
. < why among the inhabitants' pf these nations ihér^ should? hot
be true- kings to rule them,' and ‘that- some other décular. pow­
ers are lawful, Nor likewise is there, anÿ .·impediment; to, the
infidel Jords of these states .‘being themselves- lawful, which
-as
private,individuals they possess as.'their/owniFor juris­
'i
dictional and proprietary dominion· is common for theCwhole
■ human race·," and the foundation' of. them;· is,neither faith*nor
■charitybut indirectly- ôr dirèetly they.ari£e Out of the
very natures of things and from the f irst constithtidn of
these Ithings, by reason of nature being dissolute· through
' sin» and of the division of things having been made f or this
reason, as has been explained,"
’ .:
' .
υ

•J

DISCUSSION. XXVIII
I
I

‘

WHETHER CHRIST, SO EAR AS HE WAS MAN, WAS À TEMPORAL
KING AND LORD OF THE WORLD
..

Since the supreme lay power has been explained, to com· .pare that with the ecclesiastical power of the' pone, and. to
derive the matter from its egg, as they say,' we must inquire
,how much power Christ had in respect to temporal matters.
Now it is at least plain that Christ, as Gq4j is the Lord of
all by the law of creation, as shown in Discussion XVIII·
But it is doubtful as man, whether He’ is also Lofd of the
earth, as if by the gift of the Father he received the do- .
'
minion of the temporal Jurisdiction over the whole world,
and was constituted by Him' as king of the whole world over
all the princes of the earth.
The affirming group is comprised of Burgensis
in the
: addition 2 to Matthew 1; Nicholas the Great bn that passage ;
of Hebrews .1, ’’whom he· hath appointed heir of all things”;
•Roffensis, article 25 against Luther; Albert Pighius, Church
Hierarchy, Book V, Chapter III; Almain, oh Church Power,
Chapter VIII; Bachonius, Book IV, q, 1, Prologue, art. 2,
,/
and q. 11; Navarrus, chapter Nbvit,, db iudiciis, hotab. 3,
number 8, and 130; Hostiensis, Chapter Quod super his, <Ie
voto; and others of the experts in the law,' who, having
leaned oh this foundation, assert that the .pope who received
.this power from: Christ which Christ held on earth is tempor­
al lord of the whole wofId. ’ With this opiniai agree Durandus,
On the Origin of Jurisdiction, q, .3; Torquêmada, Summa, Book
··„ -ÏI, Chapter CXVI» ad 2; ' St; Anthony, part III, Title ill,
• . ■. Chapter -JIj, at the beginning ; and. St, Thomas, De regimine
prlncipum, Book III, from Chapter ΧΙΓ to Chapter XV; like­
wise he seems to make the claim in Part III, p. q. 59, art,4,
ad 1, Chrysostom seems to have the same opinion in Homily 83
on John, explaining these words, ’’if my kingdom were of this
world." Bernard asserts this opinion without any enigma in
3, De consideratione to Eugenius at the beginning in the fol­
lowing words; "Direction has been entrusted to you over the
world; possession has not Deen given. You are not he of whom
the prophet said: ’And all the earth will be his possession.*
Christ is He who claims possession for himself, both by the
law of creation, and by the merit of redemption, and by the
gift of His Father, For to Him it was said£¥he
Other:
’Ask of me, and I shall give.thee the heathen for thy inheri­
tance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession*
I
I
I
I
I ·
I

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD

40

.

Cede possession and. dominion to Him; you. have the care of it.”
Thus spoke Bernard.
This opinion is argued as follows. First, it seems to per­
tain to the dignity and excellence of Christ; nay, it even
·
seemed owed to Him in consequence of the unity of humanity
with the Word, through which humanity, so far as being a man .
He was constituted head and master not only of men, but also
of angels..: Paul indeed says, Colessians 2: ’’which is the head
of. all principality and power." As he adds in Ephesians 1;
'
» . and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and domin- .
ion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come: And he hath put all things un­
der his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to ·.
the church, . « . «’* Moreover it seems that the Eternal Fa­
ther did not deny to the Son what pertained to His dignity and.
preeminence, whatever the Head of all creatures claimed in
consequence of the gift of union as if by His own right.
Secondly, Apocalypse 19, we read that it was written about
Christ: ’’he has written on his vestment and on his thigh, .
’King of Kings and Lord of lords’ ’’. Psalm 2, "Ask of me, and·
I shall give thee· the heathen for thy inheritance, ... ·
and for thy possession.’’ Psalm 103:.”his kingdom ruleth over
all»’’ Matthew 28: ’’All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth.” All, says Christ, and not only the spiritual.
John 13: ”. . . . the father had given all things into his
hands, . . , .’’ Hebrews 1: ” . ; . . whom he hath appointed
heir of all things, · . .
Moreover it is very clear that
not as God, but as man he has been appointed heir of all
things. And in Chapter 2 Paul says of Christ; ’’Thou hast put
all things in subjection under his> feet.” He adds, ’’For in
that he put all thingsln subjection under him, he left nothing
that· is not put under him.” This he explains more fully in
I Corinthians 13 and adds: ”. . .. . it is manifest that he is
excepted that put all things under him.” Therefore Christ,
as man, is the Lord of all created' things.
Thirdly, Christ had used at some time temporal power. For
in Matthew 8, when the devils besought Him: ”if thou cast us
out, suffer us to go away'into the herd of swine,” He said,
"Go, . . . . and they perished in the waters." Matthew 21;
He cursed the fig tree and it withered. Likewise, with a
scourge He drove from the temple those buying and selling.
Moreover in these matters Christ did no injustice, but He used
His* own right and power.
nevertheless, ‘to be sure, the contrary opinion is that
Christ neither had dominion over temporal .things nor was a
, temporal king, but His kingdom was a spiritual one of the

CHRIST TEMPORAL XING AND LORD OF TH! ;#OR1D

Church militant;.J irsti .iri'^his7 world anà~
erer
the,0ther
are exactly one .and the same, diiier^ng o-w. · _^.·Ί.γ
, ' states, as .we have .shown in q.« 1» of
τ^-Οη'the.'Eo“:this opinion - is'asserted by Viet oria, Relectxon^yn^ej^
'rlesiast ioai.Power, next to last ..:9.nes^|eh
.4·: &rti,..i;
Jo, in/4 j di 2§, £, 2,; art♦. 1 & 11i JuhtiMority.’chapters. ’
John of Paris, On the..Regaljan^a^lA^^dt>4
e&Lt ·

.·..,VIÏI Μ IX? ani/BarthplQmew· de Mea*SJ?a reflated' 33 ·

■ W*5 and St <ThpmàA : The^ame ; ^Saihii^is Wing
.^Abulensïs ·.·/;-: ",^-οη-Matthew.21, 1». 3*.f*Jà&vaad.
Of ^aohhri’as-,ί «Behpld^ihy King
·
...others on those -words ?pS John: "
the iehïi7' ri· ‘
i
.and .Ambrose.,. Boole Jæ1*
.But It can be<..pr.oved·
nf •christ ;'i't'i:iè’thê' . spirJ^tûres· mention-is..,made Of. the
ref0^e witliov-t:>hy-basis
Ritual .kingdom, /•■noV.Jhè.?t6»P®TA<^^y^?r^,ii1i';i';X'boÿe''i*"}e -

if,. It asserted tbatr£hrist?ia'a

P «Yet hay®vJi?éJ

■. <; proved from: that; passage.;:
the CchurcH^'.-wdich is'His.
Upoh my7 ho ly hilk ;of * .Sion ,1r.^hat
latthêw -Sr
J®
kWom;-iollowingzih^
This Christ^teaoh^
.ye', for; the' /kingdom ;of
as He . aysf
as .inore clearly-words’ He - cle ar
. hot^this waiàW;^
? He iâ -fiot ■■& temporal:K£^Æaàne^andi-periW0^—«t an. er kin&diffèrent.»fJæpJfe;Æ!SvklSe of>th®îlftÎÎthÎrs
-. i iilât'è-'asfcêd HiôHh-WÎ ÎHS-i«lïing?®f; ^hyselfV.^r_di^
- swèredrhU,-«Sayest.Ltho5himself,,
..;:< tàli: theè
me?.’’; For
Jœ
,. tempoiA
ac;<-::of tho ‘Jawi-; clearly.. hj. ÎS® WstepeafcW
the king·

.if'hot dfk&rise^

tS

D^sA&hL **
/hWSnOi0ÏÏdéé;d’-âid W^^/^p^^.iiessiah.
. ddpmpOttthe^ssiahiMofeasingtHi^A*Ag
inter;. r ‘ bp
^Ihg^qthSr than by.
t ar dnstrnot, FJ2AJ
a4d oth/ ^Therefore1;^thht^Ch^lA:
thih ‘thing
aide'd’ bhat’his
; Λ WaledJ f^<^afore
.ers tell thee-· of ’
from’·the accusat.i,on oj-- ..Silvered
• iqjxesfion’ had its origin from
f prxesvs. ba^
king.
• ^>z(vThihe\pwn ^®®o^done?’’ C^^%S^^otnbe de‘ ; thep-.unto me: -what has
s if se would^|οΓ jje 'as?the Mes
^-'dom is not of this world" . a;hi3h -hae regard
.^0t. of this
,:' ceived, Pilate, My
the jews aacaSL^’h Mngrthpn?"
:>‘<Mah and ÇPhpèrning^hi^^^;^^ π«Act
:^Wbrld," But- when Pilat.. . _ ^g- limit ancL·
;i -4nto the
Christ answef ed·,. ®x^rn^and fb^”thita je sure,
«To this end was I
witness unto th
world, that I should bear

42

-CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD;..

is thathsaSwm+?iîhe ί^ί*1 anJ the way of eternal life· This
haâ wedir?pHi^Îh?hnPSalm 2 after the words referred.to
the kïn^nm
u de?lare the decree" > And also this is
sooke1??^ *ithe ^essiah about which the angel in Luke 1
to him^h^th^n?8®? Î^rein: ,,and· the tord God shall give unvid His^atS?
·ϊ18 facher David”: that is, promised La­
the same Davia
Woul<3- be for the Messiah, promised to
was E W? ± .v?0B?ls own seed, and whose prototype David
dom of the Messiah^n?»· 1Koï’eoVer. this throne and this kingwhich is one and
lainly_are none other than the Church/
it goes from miUtn«+S+me+ff0Ia the beginning of the world,and
the natural law αΪ
*° triumpha*t, and from the Church of
the Christian church^maS8®0?1®^^ has heen transformed into
der one sheXrd^«ïaît°^0Î^W0 folds into. one fold un-,
tion ^d lîyïS as^e nÆ Hi8.,FCar the p°Pe> hy the destruc~
those folds befnr? +L Î
wal1 of the old law which divided
1, article 10, we have St foïÎh^^Î \aS above’2’ 2· question
was speaking with -Fba -n?et f2rth‘
because when the angel
milit^viaÎ only the
Viredn almost the whole Church
Jacob, - to whom esieeiarivSTev which house and offspring was
which was to be· tranqfpiàfaM?exMeîSiah ha4 been promised·» 8114
with continuing while πΓ?4 iato the Church of Christ, and
prophet and lawgiver^f^hinh \S-ed up in the synagogue that
1θ: "The Lord thy God W4-v ®\Mosee- ha4 sRoken in Deuteronomy
the midst of thee of
aJ8e up unto thee a prophet from
shall hearken”; and farth^6^6?' like unto me » unto him ye
them up a Prophetfromam™JV<?d gimself said: ”1 will raise
and I will put my words in+« Jbeir ^thren, like unto thee,
to them all that I ςΗηΐι
1x15 m°uth; and he shall speak unPass tha whosoever shill «A?®?1* ?im' And U sha11 come to ·
shall speak in my name τ 2t-^earken unto my words which he ’ ■
about Christ theyangeî,aLai11wïe>uîre iV of hlm·" Therefore
house of Jacob fthat
And he shail reign over the
shall be no end?» TherîfrtÎ^+u7®^ 8,114 of his kingdom ' there .
Messiah is called th?
Î the church, or .the kingdom of the
offspring it was promît §d°?
Lavid’ tecause to David, his
was the prototypeP0f th?beGaufe the kingdom of David
was appointed kin» ovpt· + Jins4om,ofthe Messiah. For as David
Christ,, over the church tthAPe?P1rt Îhe elect of Go4’ So is
anointed king before h?’<elî°Lo:f Go4‘ And as David was
his kingdom through manv^*ain?Mhe kinedom, and only came to
he rei/med in
tribulations and disturbances, before
tribes ’sn
vea
he «terwards even extended
and afterwards
the
three
■ tion^
rhr^
his ruleinto
the
nath? Chu??hChpf?L S ^noi^ted by His Father in the.; kingship of
fore He founded it and Acquired it for Himself by

I

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD

43

His own blood through His death and various tribulations,
.
and first He reigned among those who were converted to the ■ '■
faith among the Jews; but afterwards He brought the kingdom
of the Church to. the nations far and wide, And for these ·
■
reason Ezekiel 34 and 37 says that the Messiah to be would
be known under the name of David: ’’And I will set up (saith
tlie Lord*! one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, ;■
even my servant David, and he'shall-be their shepherd.'' Andagain, "And David my servant shall be king over them; and
they all shall have one shepherd." About the same kingdom
of the Messiah, about which the angel spoke to the BlessedVirgin, also Isaiah'prophesied in Chapter 9. For aftershe..’·
had said such and suc-h—"For unto us a child is born, unto ·
usa son is given: and the government shall be upon his .· ·
shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The prince of peace,"
he added: "Of the increase of his government and peace there
shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment,and with
justice from henceforth even for ever." This clearly agrees
only with the kingdom of the Church by reason of the Church
triumphant. For though all the earthly-kingdoms will have an
end with the world itself, clearly- the kingdom of the Messiah,;
which in Luke 1 is said to be eternal and have no end, :and in
Isaiah 9, is said to have to be established with judgment and '
with justice from henceforth even for ever, and in* Daniel T ·
is asserted to be èverlasting, which shall not pass away, is
.
none other than the kingdom’ of the Church, as it- embraces ltd
state of militant and triumphant, "And about this kingdom in
Psalm 89 God’says: "I have made a covenant with my chosen, !'·
have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I. establish ;
for ever, and I 'will build up thy throne unto 'all’ generations^?
But this passage in Isaiah *9 we have set forth at great length
I P,, 9.» 27,· a, I, discussion 2»
Secondly, this same opinionis proved, since in Jeremiah 22
its is spoken of'Coniah: -"?/rite'ye this man childless . » · ··.
for no man of his seed shall prospersitting ‘upon the throne
of David, and ruling any. more in Judah." But Christ was cf.
the seed of Coniah, as is- established by the Gospel. There­
fore the kingdom of Christ on the throne. of David was not -tern-?
poral and earthly, of which Jeremiah was speaking in this pas­
sage, but spiritual, . such as has been explained a little while
earlier and concerning-which the angel and Isaiah spoke in a
literal sense, Also in the same manner Jerome, on the cited
testimony of Jeremiah, and Ambrose, passage cited, very copi­
ously and learnedly, and.other teachers generally reconcile
the testimony of Jeremiah with the testimonies of Luke 1 and.
Isaiah 9. Therefore Christ’was not. :a temporal king, having
lay power, .

I
I
I

4

|·

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING ANN LORÎ OF WORLD '

44

Thirdly, siilo.e in Luke 12, when there was a controversy
and discussion about temporal inheritance·, Christ said: "Man,
who made me a judge and divider over you?” If however He
had; been constituted a temporal king by God the Father, sure­
ly He would net have denied that lie had been constituted a :
judge.
- Fourthly, since this'power would b.e in Christ in vain,
which He never was to use ;· for power does not exist except
for employment,
.... ·· -:·
·,·
Fifthly, it is proved since that power was not at all con­
ducive to the end of redemption of 'màiikind through 'the humil. ity and. poverty of Christ; nay, rather the contrary, was more
.-. expedient and more becoming to Christ Vfho was intending to ■
show Himself as the-example of perfect poverty and- contempt
for human possessions, for that poverty is the more perfect ;
that not only gives up for itself .ïbhe use of,things, but al­
so the right, dominion-and property in them, than that which
surrenders only the useTo what ^purpose likewise would
Christ receive dominion-over temporal things, which Paul ·'. ·
counts as dung and of which and qf which He was not to have
the use?
‘
<4 ···■■■..
,
It is added in the Extravagants, Cum inter nonnullos< Et
-‘quia Quorundam, de verborum significÎrtd^Hü··,'·-phac ir^is^elZ ,<·,
that Christ and the disciples had : dominion of few.. things ; . ,
therefore Christ as ai man .was not lord'of all things,' ,
With this explanation, what we think of -the ‘matter will be­
come plain from the following.conclusions.
First conclusion. Christ as a manis king of the Church
militant on earth and triumphant in Heaven with plenitude of ■
power oyer all things which are necessary for the proner.su­
per natur al purpose of the Church, And this ,is the proper .
kingdom of the Messiah, of which Christ spoke in saying, "My'
' kingdom is not of this world," that is, it is not such as :
the transitory and perishable kingdoms of the earth, but spiritual and eternal, and for a purpose far different-from
'the proper end'of the earthy principales. This is the dogmaof the faith in which we all agree, in fact, this is- con·? j
firmed by almost ’ all the - arguments' which have been proposed .
..on both sides of the* qyiestioW·/’m
Second cone lus ion Ύ j- Christ; hud plenitude of. power not only in spiritual matt^y^ofoT vIhs fbunding of · the Church'which
He obtained withxH-i&.iowQ^lgpd--to -give . it laws, to institute
sacraments, ànd 'thei ecclesiastical powers by which it is ad­
ministered, and"for allthè purposes which He judged suitable
to· its supernatural·.purpose ; but also for. the same end He had .
a plenitude of. powey'irPtemporal Matters Clearly toi the ex­
tent that He could and nan change and determine kings, an.d all
nther things Λ-n temporal 'matters which He., deemed, to be? expedient
I

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD

45
■

for the supernatural purpose of the. Church. In this con­
clusion Victoria dn Soto agree, loc. oit», with the teach­
ers of the prior opinion.
Lastly, it is the common opinion of the teachers—and, while the arguments prove it the least which were proposed
in the later proposition, and while it will he. made, more,'
clear by the things that we will set forth ih thé: follow- ■
ing discussion— that the Pope has plenary power in temper·'
al affairs over the·members of the Church, to the degree,
exactly necessary foi the supernatural end of the Church.
For these same things prove this very point, not only.from
■'.Christ as man this power is derived'by the Pope, but also
• that it was entirely becoming that Just as Christ'left to
His Vicar power in temporal matters over all the membérs
of the Church which He subjected to him to the degréc- . 'that
He Judged it to be necessary for the supernatural, end .of
the Church; so also the Eternal Father granted to Christ
the power of preeminence in temporal matters over the whole
world for the preparation of the Church for it's .'supernatur­
al purpose, which He; was founding and whose King» Head and
Master .He was being created.
Third conclusion.· Christ, so far as He was descended .
from David by carnal propagatio^neither was by hereditary
right lord of the earth nor King of Judea. The first of
these is common to all, since neither David nor any. of his ;
progenitors was lord of the world, and thus Christ'by her• ; edit ary right, so far as He was descended’ from David, could/*
.be lord of the world. But thé second is contrary to Armaoh/ anus (Richard Fitzralph, - Bishop of Armagh"! pe questionibus
.· Arme norum, Book IV, Chapter XVI, BurgensiS and Bachon, lo­
cis citatis, who assert that by hereditary right the'tem­
poral kingdom of Israel was due Christ as its lord, so far
.as either by reason of the Blessed Virgin, or by reason of
. Joseph, of whom Christ was the legal heir,’ he was·,descended
from David. Yet by far the opposite of this is asserted by
Victoria, Soto, Almain and the common opinion of the doctors.
And indeed granted that it has been established that the
Blessed Virgin and Joseph were descended ?frpm; the regal l·
branch of David, yet it is not established that there were
hot other descendants of David to whom rather :by here dit axy
law this kingdom of-David would pertain; nay,' -rather, the
contrary is by'far probable. Besides, ‘the ·temporal kingdom
of David in Jeconiah,· or in zed’ekiah, his uncle, following
the prophesy of Jeremiah cited, Was ended. \ Add also, that
’ the Maccabees were lawful princes, whb however through the
' inâscûline line were not descended .from: DaVib.,' but they were
fpriests of the tribe'of Levi. Nay, rather'there is no men­
tion that they traced their ancestry through the feminine

i-

<

ÉÜ

46

i*

CHRIST TEMPORALKING AND LORD. OF WORLD

lïne frotfDavid/urthat to them the administration of ..the
-commonwealth (pertains r because they were thé. posterity of
David» But rather. they,'not as kings, but as judges and
leaders^ who;were: at the, same, time, priests,, ware holding
ithe helm of that states But if the kingdom, then of Judea,
pertains.to the posterity of David, they clearlywoul<X have
been tyrànts,. which .should by no means bÇ said of /most holy
-men. Yet it - should? not be doubted that they, descended from
the tribe of Levi;by the feminine line,, and, fp(r this .reason
even up to, the coming of Christ', following the’ prophecy, of
Jacob in Genesis 49, the scepter did .riot départ from Judah,
nor -a .lawgiver from between his feet. Grant.that these were
not kings, nevertheless they were lawgivers .arid judges of
the Jewish people; and so evenup to the. coming of. Christ
i there was mot wanting of. the tribe of Judah crie who Would
rule ithe people of the Jews*.’ Moreover though .in the last
chapter of Numbers it was prohibited to thé sons/, of Israel
to: take· wiyes ,from .another tribe , yet this only'had place.
-when there was danger .on account of the'lack of, men that.the
Immovable goods of. one tribe would, go to another tribe.,·.and
for this reason inheritance3 would.be/confused,' as $t« Thom­
as says .in l,..-2, :g,*:,105, a»’ 2 ’ad», /arid-it .is .very plain in
the chapter itself ».,;l'or ih that .passage .'the .only .reason for
that law lis given ’ from which the. legitimate meaning /of .that
•law «.should be taken» Further. openly. it ,is./thereintimate}d
.-that when .the peril ceases the women can marry Whom they
’•j- -please, .and the men-can marry whom .they wish»; 'This/fs Jalso
"■•'mo.ât plainly proved from -other parts .of the .Scriptures.: .For,
-IlJChvoniales, ‘the sister of the .king, of .Judah married -Je.hpida the priest who . was from the‘tribe of Levi? * Michal,
■who’ was of the .tribe of’ Benjamin, married,-David/who . was of
'the tribe -of -Judah. - - And Elizabeth of the
the· cognate ôf thé Blessed Virgin,* who was-of/the tribe .'of
■·' Jùdéh. ■ Also therd aré very .many other-examples -»of this kind
> in the Holy -Scripture s.' i There fore y ;s ince the ’ tribe’ 'of. lev i
■'Would have no inheritance rbeyond the pother tribes,, it. "was
blameless for the women of the tribe qf -LeVi to làarry Whom
they wished, as affirms St» Thomas in 4,. .d. .30», 4. 2, a. 1,
last /small ^uidation. to'the. fourth, τ-Arid how, ; it was laid/down
£n the oust oma that-the tribe of Judah and t.hs .tribe, of Levi
were mingled, by •marriages. (.Read, if/you." plçasê, 'Cano 2, de
“locis, 0· 14, ad i.f·'·
'7
....
Fourth conclusion»; Christ, as a mân, .in this sense was
riot thé lord .of.the world nor of temporal kings, because He
took’away neither the rights’nor dominions of kingdoms and
.. of other things from others and riid riot usurp them for Him·*
"self , but they each.remained, just the same with their rights
of ' kingdoms ■ as ; if Christ had not come into this world.: 4And

ï

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD

.

47

this Is true not as a gift of Christ so far as He-was man,
as if He had received, these things first and afterwards be­
stowed. them on men, but because just as He despised, the ad- .
ministration of kingdoms and the possessions of other tern- '...
poral things, so also the kingdoms themselves and the other .
things proper to them He left to the lords. This is suffic­
iently proved by the reasons by which we have confirmed the
'
following opinion. And nothing more do Augustine and Ambrose
desire, as is manifest to the reader.
Fifth conclusion. .Christ, so far as He was man, had by
the gift of His Father the power of preeminence over all
temporal things and right over all creation, not only, exact­
ly so far as was expedient for the spiritual and supernatur­
al purpose of the Church Universal, but also absolutely, to
such an extent that, without injustice to anyone, He could ..
.have, and could now,, assert His right to all the kingdoms of. ;
the world, to depose kings, and finally could make determin-.
ation with respect to all temporal matters at His pleasure,
by right and His power which He has over all things.’ Thus
it is that for this reason, so far as He was man, he. could
be called the Ruler of the world and the King of kings, even as far as temporal things go, because all temporal things
are wholly subject to Him, and He Himself is the Head and
Lord of all. And I say this because I think that to the de- .
gree that God,, as God, /is the Universal Ruler of all things, .
the particular dominions, granted to creatures endowed by God
with free will,-are not inconsistent with this sole Ruler, : ’
as has been set forth in Discussion XVIII; so. also He granted ’
Christ, because He is man, the right and absolute power over
all creation, by fully subjecting all to Him, even in tempor- .
al matters; since this the dignity and preeminence of Christ’
required, and since, in consequence of the gift of union, by
which He was created Head of men and angels out of- the nature
of the matter for this very reason, as if He was purchasing
it by His own right for Himself. Now this did not take from
other menthe rights and power over kingdoms and the other
things that God had granted to them, but God only subjected,
all these things to Christ in such a way that they depend on ’
His: power and will; not indeed that dominion over things has
been conferred on men by Christ, as man, and not by God, but
because these very things depend· immediately on Christ as ful­
ly and naturally subjected to Him.
- Soto in 4j. loc. cit. seems to intimate the conclusion ex­
plained in this manner, when he affirms that Christ, as man, ‘ :
could have, if He had wished, taken the universal dominion of
the whole world, «vén secular, but He did not take.it, except
the spiritual kingdom. Therefore he indicates that in Christ,

48

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND, LORD OF WORLD.
,, -,\r

' ,- !? ·■-'

... ;

■

ï

as man, has "been granted, "by God. the Father power and. right
ονρ,ρ. all secular matters for Himself; for .ifτ He;; didi n<^; have
this.,,would, pot. have, be en/able - to take;·the?dominion
pyer/thé·. fcorlà.,?- Which neverthele ss; by; no. .means: didaHeb takèt B|bidesr,ifChrist i as ; man did,not -have-power and; tight-of^
thip- kina’ over. all: temporal and g e cular/ matters.y ■ plàinlyHls
^ppvehty.. and'* re j ect ion. would- not : have been;' so? commendable,, ·
“seeing that/without /injustice, He/would not have been able to
..., lay;, claim ‘ t a ·.the: administrat ion- and dominion; over the *·=ki»g-'<
'doms 'and' other temporal ; matters pJbe, cause as, maniHe^GUldino*
have, ei,.-right to ; this- power and therefore it would.-not thave^
bèen withln the exercise of.-Christ’-S’.will. - Mopeoyerii» t“*~
„he .elucidates ; especially the , example? of Christ -.as 'tp. ^poverty ♦
Jftuàillty· and./seIf *-denialy that althoughsieve rything^was vSUh?
lèct^^tb'/Hfm^àni/Hé web .able to /lay:,claim tq all ■fordïl^’A
belt.j'.He /desired/to 4ake 'neIther rthe -use -nop? the tadministf
►jtioh these 'things, but* He - left to -each4»e ; the';j^eland
.’£o»Jjofhis • own posse'^sionsand ije/Àe siredto lead ca iVery / ·.
Pdpÿ;. Z- And: als.o, this ils. what Paul teachha. 11 .dCori»thians
8/when He -\s^ys;. .plainlyin;these-/wordsf AFor ?ye .*khow;the *.«·
grdçè^pf,'pùr./'hord/lesus. Christ,« thftt-t· though' he. was·;-rich, ye»
for your /hakes he/beoame,poqr'that;;ye .through his, -poverty ;
./might■;hp*ZhÎohj*‘^’; l’or hes speaks' of Christ/-an .man. and saysn
"’’Though MeVwas: rich,'· pertaihly ‘Mt'h the. .right/, .and ^hexpower
wl^icH/He. ' had; of/taking foy/Himself1 all aa the Lpra,· of? all
.things·, as. a5 mari/He’ wah.ma$u>needy for your-pake sy depiring
^Hpt^f^^.but, choosing for. Himself ta ^oWly/npd Ηηπι>1ρ;·1116.·-·· ‘
* Matthew?'1T ppnfirms this/ same' cohclhsioh in·,the; f ollow-ingi»;:
ÿ’Fph?.whéh/thbse· polleetingztribdte-,had/· spoken tq. peter ,..·. payihst
Jp$h/ypur;■ master/pay·.tribute?’’,; Christ?presented. peveTi*.,
Jspying/;/’Wbat'/thihkest thbu^,,Simon?,.of whpm dp the; kfngs pi<,
thÀ, éartp take, custom or/ tripùté? pf >thpir -pjni. children, ®r
of/st^jaûgere.^'ÿknd when.Peter hady^^ered.VVMQf?.str?hS^F^> *
...Christ concluded',/’’Then ^.ré’ thePchildren; free.,P ;·Α§/ if *$$;.*·.·.>
‘ woùTd.ysaÿ,. How’mach-more'ΛΗβ^ίοΓάι’ϊ'·,’'though I hq- a; man and
am/thè^§or<;pf’thé King’of .all/kings, will-rbe:fre^;iand,<immu»e_
ffpm^arl power.pf. temporal kings*·. Ç;’’Notwithstanding? *...1ί£β$ *“e
should. offend/bhem, Γthough “I am /bound/ by no., lav». .of .tribute j
go tHop,tostb^ aha, and /I,./·.
clearly.this’4‘s,the. plain...
and genuine /sense.of ‘the’ passage, which does = it no‘ violans®
other's are ..foreign, and. violent. : ./Therefore: l/wonder- that, some
-iadduce jtha.passage of doha léif/Thou cquldst have juo power
against me , except it were ;g£vén ‘theé frqm?aboye, J’; to prove-thatdne-...power of :king3japd rulers .is ^qfr
qr of Pilate over ■. Christ.was ]ègit imâte and,ygrant ed t.p Pifut®'
WcâWdôb· Of ;course/, by divine law Christ was -exempt -from. , ’
;'âlL ’j®rseted>powerai ...nay^ rather , as .man He held all.
/f.-r
.ί2ί·.^:ή

»...

ς

·:

Γ.

I

CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD

49

I
subject to Himself, and thia the dignity and preeminence of
I
Christ properly demanded.· Moreover with respect to that exI
pression, "except it were: given thee from above,” likewise
I
it here signifies what was permitted for the redemption and
I
blessing of mankind. It is confirmed since the power which >
I
Pilate exercised over Christ was unjust; for he knew Him to
I
be innocent and to have been handed over through envy, and
I
for this reason Christ said to him, "therefore he that deI
? livened me unto thee hath the greater sin"; that is, as if
I
He would say, you commit a sin in that you Judge me without
I
' cause and treat me wickedly, but he who deliverd me to-you
I
has the greater sin. Therefore it happens that the power
I
which Pilate exercised against Christ was hot of God, for
I
only Just power comes from God, Plainly all these arguments
I
■ . sufficiently prove and establish our fifth, conclus ion, which
I
we put forth at the· beginning of this discussion for. the
I
. confirmation of the prior opinion. Rather I. suspect, that
\
I
.. the, authors of the later opinion would not have opposed it, '·
I
if, as explained and proposed by us,· it had been proposed to
! ·. them. ‘;‘For they seem to have wanted only what our fourth .
conclusion asserts; and this I believe the authors of the
•
. prior, question would not oppose. Therefore all seem to a■ ’ . gree,
■ *··■·■
■ ;.·
·· · · . .···.-■·■ «·· ■ ■
There remains that the arguments of each.opinion be refuted which seem to conflict with the fourth and the fifth
conclusion. As to the first of the prior opinion it must
be said, that the sole power, and right over all creation,
according to those things which have been’ said in the fifth
conclusion, pertain to the dignity and preeminence of
• Christ; but not the temporal kingdom and monarchy of the
'
. world through the usurpation and. ownership from private in­
dividuals,i or through usç. possession and 'administration of
temporal things, as is .explained in the fourth conclusion.
• atastovhat pertains to the testimony adduced in the second
conclusion,, clearly these things prove that not only the
spiritual dominion of Christ over the Chiiroh, by which plan
He was created the complete Judge of all, to Whom every
·■ knee will bow', and Who will give to each according to his
• works, .but also everything, or surely very many things,
prove His power, right and dominion over ’all temporal things
as a wholet as we.have explained in our fifth conclusion.
But all those matters of which mention was made in the third
. conclusion were lawful’for Christ, not only because it was
expedient for the spiritual good of the Church which. He was
founding, in the order-for which He had most plenary power
'
over-temporal things,’but also absolutely and entirely, to
' ' thé extent He naturally had right and dominion over all ere-

(
!
i

\
f
«
!

<
I
i
ί

!

ft

Ml

50.

- ·’"■?

CHRIST TEMPORAL KINO AKD LORD pF^WORKD

.

.

atïbn;in accordance with the second conclusion,
.. r
To:the first of the later opinion it must be , said .'that·
mention is not made only of the kingdom of the Church in the
Holy Scriptures as
the plenary power of Christ is wholly
explained by us jn -the fifth conclusion, but also at the same ,
time Christ’s power of king is delivered, as has been shown>
which, nevertheless,· is rightly called a kingdom not of this
world, since indeed ,it was not to have the use and adminis-.
tration of temporal matters, as have the powers of earthly,
princes, ■
To the second·it must be said that it only proves-that, · ;
Christ did not have a kingdom temporal and of this world ' in..
the sense very accurately explained; but not that He .diet riot .
have that very plenary power, and also the right and? dominion
over temporal matters, which the fifth conclusion tea.ches« ..
To the third it must be answered that it Indeed- Very well.
proves that Christ did not assume*-the off ice and duty...of a ,,
temporal judge; but yet it doeS not prove that HeWas without
power, so that, if He -should wish, He could do it; hpr did ?
Christ deny it, but He only intimatedthat He had not bee^ ap­
pointed and deputized by anyone for doing this duty, which is
not untrue.
To the fourth we.must.say that'it was not in vain; hot on­
ly because it through itself was becoming, to Christ and w,as '
due Him from the very nature of the- matter, although the full
use of it was not expedient in all, cases; but also because; it
was conducive especially to' commend and exalt the example.’ of.
poverty, humility and voluntary denial of Christ; and: lastly?
because* Christ had used this power at ao.’.me time, although' "
quite* rarely/ as in the events about which there is discussion
in the last argument of the prior opinion, ' · '
To the fifth we must say that power, about which-bur fifth
conclusion speaks, was not‘too little conducive to the e nd o f
redemption through humility and poverty and- voluntary abase­
ment of Christ, ’’/ho, although He was rich, on account· of us
was made poor. -Moreover that power, united with· the act, that
is, with possession, use and administration of things, tem~
poral, JLs such as is not at all conducive'.to: 'the end of re-·,,
demption; and this Christ did not. have, nay, rather-, as: dung,,
much more than Paul, he’ considered it. As to this,(that it is
said that the poverty, is .more perfect which gives up not · only
the use but also the dominion and right to these very things,
it must be said that · this is very· true in. us in whom there is
the peril lest if we would leave the dominion and rigjht t.»
the use .to ourselves, .we again and again would be enmeshed·, in
the Use, administration-and· possession of temporal things,and
we would be impeded in the worship of God and the quietude of

280104
CHRIST TEMPORAL KING AND LORD OF WORLD
prayer, and we would, be retarded, from attaining perfection;
but it is otherwise in Christ in Whom there was no suoh dan­
ger, and Whose voluntary poverty and denial especially the
right and dominion over all things commended, which was in
Rim by the power of grace and the gift of the Father alone..
To the last we must say that in those Extravagants there
is talk of the dominion over property in tilings in particu­
lar in such as way, ofcourse, that the dominion, over those
things went from prior dominions to Christ and the apostles, .·,
by which covenant Christ and the apostles? held dominion;/over ..
very few things.

DISCUSSION XXIX

,

t

i i
ΐ
: i
ί i
- i
j f
! i
j >
Î :
1 i
J i
i .
-,
j j
j j
I ;
j ;
;
j
j
■
I

:

I
’Ί
j
!
i
f;j
j
j
j
j
’
j

WHETHER THE POPE HAS THE DOMINION OF TEMPORAL JURISDICTION
' ....
AND SUPREME POWER- OVER THE WHOLE WORLD

' Many of the experts in law, to whom Navarrus in the Chapter Novit/ le ludio, notabili 3, num, 19, refers, are of this
‘ opinion, as they proclaim"
The Pone Has the supreme civil
power, or temporal jurisdiction, which is called also, the temporal sword. However, Panormita, same chapter, and the Chapter si duobus, de appelantibus, andsome others say he
has
that power, as it were, as his possession, and held in his
shield, that is, granted to him, not exercising it himself,
except in necessity, but exercising it through princes and secular powers, who owe the use of it to the nod of the Pope. To
this opinion subscribe st. Antony 3 Part, tit. 22» chapter 6,
paragraph 8, and Sylvester, at word Pope, question? and from
question 10 to 14, and at word legitimate, question 4 near the
en^i having followed Hostiensis and Augustine of Anchona. Al80 Sylvester confidently asserts that the power of the Emperor
and other secular princes is that of a delegate, by the provision of the Pope, and derived from God through the medium of
Fope to them, and dependent on the Pope. Likewise those
^nings that Constantine gave to the Church he gave in recog“?t,on of the supreme temporal power of the pope over the
wnole world; but on the contrary the Pope gave Constantine 6®·*
+v'revian^
Dower so far as the use goc-s. He adds also that if
ne Pope does/ecercise temporal jurisdiction beyond the patriony of the Church, that is not from a defect in his power, but
I? SoU aisPute ^d keep the peace. Some (as John of Paris,
^hd papal power, at the beginning and Chapter 11
says 1 attribute to the Pope not only temporal jurisdiction o^er the whole world, but also proprietary dominion in such a
way that if he should give up the use he would not be held
thereafter to make restitution as usurer for what he had acquired through injustice, and if he should grant the property
of one t$ another, the deed would hold, though the Pope should
work a
Yet this proprietary dominion Sylvester, St·
Antony and the remaining doctors cited in common deny
is proper for the Pope. First, the opinion of all these dootors can be urged, that Christ as a man is Lord of the world,
or as we have shown in the preceding discussion has the supreme
power in temporal matters, so that not only all the lay powers
are whoiivy/^iÿènt to Him, and He can at will dispose of them,
but alèo' all •'creation is wholly under Hirai so that without

‘Insert: ’iiotr *"'■* _ _

52

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND Si^W:^CWER: OFJPOPE

53.

wronging anyone He can grant them .to whom He '-pleases; but
Christ left, this power which He had to His Vicar; therefore
. he has this power conferred in temporal matters; and this
; ,. ;;the authorities cited attributed to him as conferred.
Secondly. Christ instituted the Commonwealth of the .
Church in a most perfect form, which$ like a monarchy,
·< would be reduced to only one supreme head; therefore the
lay powers in. temporal affairs, are wholly subjected.to the
Pope no less than the optimates are subject to their own
' - king; otherwise if in temporal matters they would not be
·■ subject to the Pope, then the government of the.·.eeelesias: tical Commonwealth Would be reduced not to one supreme
,· .head,· but to several, like a monstrous body. ·
·:. · . Thirdly. The Pope, as has been said .in Discussion XXIV,
transferred the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans*,, and
he gave the power of electing the Emperor to seven German
princes, though the final authority of approval or annul­
ment of the election was reserved to himself. Further, the
-ώ. Pope can; even if an Emperor .has been already confirmed and
crowned, if there be a need,. <> depose him, as in fact Inno, cent' IV deposed Frederic.. See Chapter 2, ad Apostplicae.
....
Æ re judicata, lib, 6.· Likewise Zacharias de­
posed Childeric, King of the Franks, because he was useless
to .the realm, and put forward Pippin, father of Charlemagne,
as Gelasius, Chapter alius 15, qu. 6, says. And Innocent IV
in the Council of Lyons gave to Sancho II, among four Lusi. k tanian kings, because he. was too remiss and negligent of
mind, his brother Alphonso as his.vicar and administrator
of thé realm, as is known.from Book VI, Chapter Grand!, de
' ' supplenda negligentia praelati Besides, when the imperial
throne was vacant, the"Pope dealt out justice to the subjects of the Empire, as is'manifest from Clementina Pastora/ ÜS. hear the end, de rè judicata. -But these cons id erat ions
• and several others clearly would not apply to the Fope an­
ile ss-he had the supreme power of .temporal jurisdiction over
all lay powers. .
’
· ’
.
Fourth, The opinion of these doctors seems'definite from
Nicholas. II, Chapter 1, 22, d, For he says; "He alone found­
ed the!Church, and He erected it on.the rock of’faith then
- t growing',. and.He. entrusted to the Blessed Key-bearer to eteri· nal life the rights of■ruling over both the earthlyandhea-venly.empires. " And much more definite it seems from Boniface VIII in Extravagant Unam sanctam de majoritate & obedi. entia, For he says ; "in* this Church and for its power ~
there are two swords, that is, spiritual and temporal, we
are taught in the Gospel, For when the apostles said, ‘Be­
hold, here are two swords,» (in the Church, of course, since

1

;t
H i
;J
i1 i ?
l· · Î
i S !
!
L i■ 2
! Πj
; ;ί i
j
' ?
;
’

i
■
:
<
j
j
1

s
I
(

i
J

;;.1
I
I
j

'

54'··■·····
. TEMPORAL JURI EDICT ION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE
r
the apostles were speaking) the Lord did. not reply that it:
was too muchr but ’enough.’
Surely, he who denies that there
is a temporal sword in the power of Peter attends poorly to
the words, of the Lord as He
says:
’Put up thy sword into
the sheath,’
So then there are both in the powers of the
Church, namely, the spiritual sword and· the material one; but
the latter must be exercised for.the Church, while the former,
by the Church;, the former is in the hand of the priest, the
latter, in that of the kings and the soldiers, but at the nod
and potential, power of the priest. Moreover the sword; should
be under the sword, and the temporal authority should be under
thé spiritual power; for when the apostle says, there is no
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God; they
would moreover not be in good order unless the sword were undér the sword, and as though the inferior were reduced by the
other to its final form.” And after a few words: ,;”Moreover
how much.the spiritual excels in dignity and.nobility the
earthly power we should more clearly confess to the degree
that the spiritual excels the temporal,” Also he submits oth­
er things for the same opinion, other reasons of ;less moment
and the solutions to them— see, if you please, among others,
in the works of John of Paris, on the Regal and the papal Pow­
er, Chapter XII and following, and in Navarrus loc. cit »
Some have gone off into an- extreme opinion, that the" Pope
has no power at all in temporal ;affairs, but in spiritual only. This opinion can be urged. Since Christ the Lord entrusted to Peter and to his successors only the keys to the
kingdom of heaven; since, this realm is far different from the
earthly and the temporal; it follows really that all the power
of .the .Pope ‘ is in spiritual affairs, and none, in the temporal.
It is confirmed from Titus 2; No man that warreth for God
ent angle th’ΓII Timothy 2: 41 himself with the affairs of>.this
"World, and therefore Christ’’left him no power Jin temporal affairs. Other reasons and their solutions readin Torquemada,
Book II, Summae, Chapters 115 and 116. and in Navarrus, loc.
cit,,
-· ' ■
7 ,Between, these two extreme opinions a certain middle ground
’ should be adopted, which may be embraced in certain conclusions, in which agree Victoria, Refection of the Ecclesiastical
Power, next to .last question, and the Relection on the. Island'
Indians, P, I, from Number 26; goto, in 4, d. 25, q,. 2, ari.' 1,
V 3. conclusione; Navarrus,Chapter. Novit. de iudiciis, notabi­
lity 3; Torquemada, Book’II, Summae,; Chapters .113; and 114 ;
Henricus, quodlibet, 6, quae st. 23; Albert Pighius, Ecclesias­
tical,. Hierarchy, Book y ; Pierre de PaluOn Ecclesiastical Pow­
er , Thomas’.oif Walden, Teaching of the FaiTR,Bk.Il «Chapters 3.7έτ
78; Sanderus,visibilis Monarchiae, Book II t Chapter IV ;

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

55

Priedo, On Christian Liberty, Book I, Chapters XV & XVI, and.
Book II Chapter II ; Caj etan, in Apologia Volume I, opusculo­
rum tractatü, Chapter XIII ad/'étend supra’.’in hac 2, 2, auaest?
43, artic.’W; Durandus, de origine jurisdiet, ,~q. 3; JoEn of“
Paris, On the Regal and P'a.~pal'~Fewer; and others* However,
John of Paris somewhat more rightly restricts the power of
the Pope in temporal affairs in favor of the secular princes.
’ In this matter to him n. 4, Discussion XXIV, q. 3, is not of
less importance in Jean Major!
y
But before we subjoin our conclusions this should be first
noted., We do not speak of the lands rightly given to the Ro­
man Church for its splendor and authority, likewise as a help
to administering spiritual affairs, which therefore are said
to pertain to the Patrimony of the Roman Church and St. Peter.
For in lands of this type the popes have supreme power and
temporal jurisdiction just like kings in.dtheir own realms, as
Innocent II affirsm in the Chapter per venerabilem oui filii
sint legitimi. Therefore in these he’Eas'bovE' swords”very
completely.
The following must be also observed with Driedo, Chapters
.XIV and XVI, loo* cit., Durandus « loc, cit., and others. Al­
though the lay power, as has been shown "in Discussion XXI, in
the same subject is not inconsistent with the ecclesiatical
power, and for this reason in the church of Christ the counts
• and other optimates, who are appointed into bishoprics and
other dignities, would by no means be bound to heave their
temporal dominions, if they had any in their own patrimony,
and besides, not only the Roman Church would have certain tem­
poral jurisdiction for its splendor and prestige and also as
an aid in administering spiritual matters, but also some in­
ferior churches, as Toledo, Braga,·’Condeixa, etc.; although,
as I say, these things are so,nevertheless it is wrong for
the ecclesiastics,: especially the prelates, to entangle themselves in temporal cares and affairs more than right reason
requires, and than their responsibility and duty in the spir­
itual allows, to which before all things they are bound to de­
vote themselves. Therefore because the responsibility of the
. Church Universal in spiritual matters is not compatible with
the rule and the administration of the Empire in temporal af­
fairs, for the reason that one does not suffice for both du­
ties, nor do the same morals and customs apply to both duties,
it would be wrong either for the Pepe to receive the Empire,
or the Emperor, if he retains the Empire, to be elected Pope;
1 rather also Paul says in the following words: "No man that warreth iff or God^ enrangleth himself with ^"hc affairs of this
life”;
the contrary he teaches, and Christ in a far differ­
ent ’ manner taught His ministers, when in Luke 22 He said: ’’The

|

|

i
;
,
i(
s

56

, TEMPORAL' JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER· OF POPE

, ;

, J

* kings<ef the‘Gentlies exerèisé lordshiR over them; etc· » y .
\ , But.χβ’shall.not he so, etc, , . Λ And I appoint unto"
you a kingdom, as iny Father hath appointed unto me»” By ;
this it corned about that the temporal jurisdietion’ in the
.clergy should be .limited,· so theA it does not exceed the re­
sponsibility, r honor and authority which the dignity and sta­
tus of each requires. end which may be exercised through the
ministers appointed for this purpose»
" .
With these preliminary notations, let the first conclusion
be, that the Pope neither has the power of temporal jurisdic­
tion in such a way that he. be lord of the world, or that he
. can claim the name of king'or emperor for himself, nor in
such a'way: that the dominion of temporal jurisdiction is/* ·
from him'to the kings; but the regal power is entirely di- ’
verse· from the papal, which has' its origin:from God, by means■
bf'the· commonwealth appointing a king by consent and selection,
for itself for the administration of temporal affairs and-for
a natural end; but the papal power has its origin from God
' through Christ creating it for the rule by furnishing it for
■ a supernatural purpose so far as necessary, .’ This ’ conclusion
is -clear· from those considerations which we have mentioned in
Discussion XXI and what follows it, and Pope Nicholas express­
ly affirms it in his letter to Emperor Michael, Chapter Cum ad
verum, 96, d, where he says: "When we home to the truths~ïïêsides neither does the Emperor seize the prerogatives of the ·
pontificate for himself,, nor does the Pope usurp the title of
Emperor; since the. same Mediator of God and man, the man Je­
sus Christ, by proper acts and distinct dignities separated ...
the duties of both powers."' And Gelasius in his enistle to
Emperor Anastasias said the same things, d. S&, chanter puo
- sunt. * "There are. two, Emperor Augustus, by whom this worlî
is ruled, like a prince-? the holy authority of the Popes and
• the regal power»" He desires that the regal and the imperial
power be subject tc the* popes to the extent that the popes,
as pastors, are able to excommunicate kings and emperors and
to cderce’then.when the spiritual end for which the power of ”
the popes was ordered demands it. Pope John says. in the Chap­
ter Si Imperator eadem, d, : "The Emperor is the son, not the .
: director of the Church- What belongs to religion it is becom­
ing for‘him’to‘learn, not to teach.. He has the privileges of
; his power,- which he has divinely acquired for administering the
.faillie laws; God willed that what was to be determined by the
Church‘pertains .to the. priests and not to the worldly powers,
which’,· if faithful, Ife willed to-be subject to the priests of
His Church." And farther on, "Christian emperors should sub­
ject their own jurisdictions to the ecclesiastical prelates»
not to prefer thé former over the latter·" And Innocent III,

♦"Insert: derived

ί,'ϋ

TEMPORAL. JURISDICT ION AND SUPREME ,POWER OF POPE ,

57,

To the..Emperpr at Constantinople, Chapter^ .Solitae de maior»
itate, &. obedient-la, says : " We do not deny that the Emperor
takes, precedence in temporal affairs as far as is. required
over those who undertake temporal affairs from his hand; but
tha-Pope is preeminent in spiritual matters, which are more
worthy.than temporal affairs to the degree that the soul is
superior to the body." Farther on, ’’For the firmament of
the heaven, that is,for the Church Universal, God made two
great, lights, · that is, /two dignitaries, which are the Pontif»
leal authority and the .regal power. But the former, which · . .
is,oyer the daylight, that is, the spiritual, is the greater; ·
but what is over the carnal is less; so that as much differ-·
ence is recognized as between the Popes and the kings as be-’·,
tween the sun and the moon." And the Chapter per venerabilem,
qui filii sint legitimi, Innocent Hl says the same thing-r
that /In t‘émpor al" matters he doe.s not· havepower over'the King
of the Franks, about whom at that point of thé discussion he
is Speaking, and whom he says has no superior, in temporal mat­
ters. 'Also in the Chapter Novi, 1, de iudiciis, he says that
he does not intend to disturb nor to diminish the Jurisdic­
tion, of the King of the Franks in temporal matters; as the
King of the Franks does not wish to, nor ought he, impede the
jurisdiction of the Pope, but he only wishes to proceed. .
against him by the means of fraternal correction for sin in
accordance with the form ofthe Gospel, and he states, that .,
jûdgment concerning a fief because it is a temporal master,and
does not pertain to the Apostolic See, but to the King- of the
Franks. Also Pope Miltiades, question 12, /1, Chapter Futurum,
says that the, chair of St. Peter got the estates and the city
of Rome , by the gift of the emperors, .This also appears from
the Chapter· Constantinus, 96, disp. — therefore the popes .are
not the lords of the earth in temporal matters, ' Whence Ber­
nard, 1, de consideratione to Eugenius, says: "In .crimesr -not
in /possessions is your power, since for the former and not./
for the latter you have received the keys to the Kingdom of ·,
Heaven. " /■ Also later : "These things ’of the lowest and the ·
earthy have as judges their own kings and princes of : the earth.
Why do you invade the bailiwicks of others?· Why do you put /
ypur. sickle into the harvest of another?" And yet· Bernard/
thinks that it is not beyond the power of the Pope to. judge /
of temporal matters, not only in. the lands of the Patrimony of
the Church, but also about other things, when the neoessity’of
the spiritual end requires it, but what he wishes is— "That
what can be done be executed by others, but not by himself,
except incidentally,, and when something else cannot be done."
He adds, "Not because you Are unqualified, but because it is
not becoming for you to insist on such things, seeing that you

f

58

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

have more preferable occupations, Finally when necessity
demands, hear what, not I, but the Apostle thinks— TAnd if
the world shall be Judged .by you, are ye unworthy to Judge ■
the. Smallest -matters? But it is one thing incidentally to./
volunteer in this, cveri if/indeed there .ià ■ urgent; csuset /it":'
is something else to apply yourself to your duties that are.;
great and worthy of such and such intent iôn< y ’’ . So saysBernard, /Arid at the end of the. book he, says: ?’Thes.e, -cases,
it will not be necessary.that all come to you—which nebessarily will have to come before you I should like you .ip. bb ;
accustomed to docide diligently but quickly." Further—; /■ .
'"Certain business',’
have said, do riot hear, iriiOïtrubt./
°^et3♦ What your hearing thinks worthy terminate, / ?
with a short cut that is trustwor thy and suited to the. case.?
Besides Bernard excellently affirms in. several· "places— in /
Rook II, from that /remark on Matthew; ;20 and Luke , 22 : Je
·. i
oow that "the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship· p^er,. ;
them: r. . ,■ Λ But ye shall, nôV.tè'so," and/from/many ether.;·
. places^. Their* if the Popp were lord of the world,, •either · ;
tt would be by natural law , or .by humani or , positive1 divine? ·.
it is not of natural, or human, as is plain;*'npr also is it · ;
or positive divine; since certainly to Peter and;his^succes-:·
. sorb it · only was said: «And X will give unto thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven,” and "Feed
.sheep," ;in:which is
understood only the spiritual’power for the purpose of the .:/..
supernatural end; and not the temporalunie ss as a :çonse- ·
quence, as far as will be deemed necessary for the superna­
tural end. Therefore the Pope is not the lord.of the earth, ’
nor do the kings get .their power* from him, nor otherwise
nor more· are they under ’him than is Judged necessary for the
supernatural· purpose, and also to this extent, in other mat-.
Xer®
they exemPt and wholly independent, ‘.
.·, ■
//
• . j?/'the Pope has no' greater power in-temporal than in
spiritual matters; nay, rather he has no power in spiritual
stings overinfidels, since Paul in I Corinthians 5 says;.'
■ts ?ruwkat have I v to do to Judge them also; that/ are .without?”
But he has only the power to set before them and;to explain,
the Gospel arid to invite them to thé Faith; therefore he is
not the,lord of them in temporal affairs,, and.therefore he is not lord of the world. Add that since from the fact that
men because converted to the Faith are not in a/Worse. condi­
tion, and do not lose their own rights and dominions (for that
would be a very grave matter, to impose a yoke on. men along
with the Faith and to make it odious to/them), it comes about ■
that he is not the lord of Christians in .temporal /matters. likewise by thé coming of Christ into .the world men dld not -·
lose' their rights and dominions,' nor from Him as man did they

I

'

'TEMPORAL JURISDICTION ANÎ SUPREME POWLROFPOPE

59

receive them, or do they,as has been shown in the preceding
discussion; therefore Christ did not institute the Pontifi-J
cate so that men should receive their rights and possessions
■from the Pope, nay, nor that they should .be dependent on him
I
in these matters; for that was by no means expedient. More~
over, that power in Christ over-temporal matters which we
set forth in the previous discussion" is in Him as a power of
preeminence, which, just· as it did not give him the power of
preeminence in spiritual matters over which He was placing .
him, therefore He did not communicate to the Pope, Add,
that grace and faith do not destroy but perfect nature;
wherefore since before men took.the faith of Christ they
were true kings independent in their own temporal dominion
from any other person, and this, through the power communi­
cated to them by the Commonwealth, which had it by. natural
; law; it truly follows from this that because they assumed
the faith they had not at all lost that power and dominion; .
yet by entrance into the Church they are subject to the Pope,
so that they may be coerced by him when they through abuse go
astray. From these considerations it is known that Albert
Pighius, in Book V of his not sufficiently praised Ecclesi­
astical Hierarchy, Chapters VII and XIV, was somewhat exces­
sive when he allows ‘that the Pope has no effect on the do­
minion of the world and attributed to him no'jurisdiction
όver those who are without the Church; yet he wants the kings
by the very fact .that they come into the Chiirch and are sub­
ject to the supreme head of it to hand over themselves and
their scepters to the Church .of Christ, -and’to recognize
that these things are, as it were, received from the Church,
and to rule as kings .and emperors by reason of its judgment,
as well as to be removed from their realms by'it. For if he
should wish the scepters and dominion of ' jurisdiction to be
not peculiar to the princes themselves, to be dependent on
the Church and its head and subject to him not otherwise
'than so far as the supernatural end generally requires, he
'affirms surely a falsity and to him we must not hearken.
' From these things I infer first, that it does* not pertain
to the Pope-in an ordinary situation and when the cause of
the Faith is not at stake, and the exigencyis not unlimited
but is only to. a degree grave with respect to working for the
supernatural end either to make kings and other lay powers
nor to depose them; but that this pertains to the common,w.ealths themselves, whose business it is, just as it is to
make kings, so also, to depose them., as right reason dictates,
and as a just cause comes up and urges,, yet the best plan is
that when there can be a suspicion of any doubt, and when the
commonwealth is not a unit, but only a majority agrees, the

I
I
I

60

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND. SUPREME POWER OF POPE r?

Pope be consulted, so that by the intervention of his authorty a greater degree of Justice in thé case may result; espec­
ially, since for the most part the common spiritual good de­
pends, this granted, on this— '.it looks to the Pope to inter­
pose his authority and to aid the common good by censures and
other means by compelling those who try to stand in the way
of what the common good and thé spiritual salvation of the c
commonwealth require»
Indeed for this reason, when the ma­
jority of the optimates ôf the commonwealth demanded it,
Zacharias deposed Hilderic and put forward Pippin in the king­
dom of France; and Innocent appointed an assistant and; super­
visor for the King of Portugal, by compelling those with cen­
sures who were trying to stand in the way. Therefore the
kings do not depend on the Pope in such a manner that they
have been appointed’by that bishop throughout different places
as persons whom the supreme pastor and moderator of the Church
in spiritual matters can create and remove; although he shculd
not remove them without reasonable cause
Nor likewise do
they depend on him as the optimates of the realm depend on the
fclng, and just as the king, or other princes, not exempt from
the Emperor, depend on him; granted that they are not suscep­
tible of being removed by the Emperor. But rather the kings .
are exempt from the Emperor as the Emperor himself, and they
are supreme powers in temporal affairs, being dependent on n·
^t in a certain manner there is a greater dependence of
the Emperor of the German on the Pope than of the other Catho­
lic kings; because the German Empire., with the -people and Otto.
II consenting, was created conditionally, on the approval and
confirmation of the Pope, as Discussion 24 shows.
.Secondly,.! infer that in the Pone there is no power of
judging cases, Suits and quarrels among the temporal· princes,
directly,, nor likewise is the Pope able to nullify those civ­
il laws of the secular princes which do not derive from the ·
supernatural purpose, nor can he decide that the secular jud­
ges should appeal to him in those cases whose legal investiga­
tion looks to the secular powers, And although he may legiti­
mate any men who look to spiritual matters, as for taking or­
ders d’or the obtaining of ecclesiastical benefices, and gener­
ally to those matters which look to the ecclesiastical juris-,
diction; yet he cannot legitimate in those matters which per­
tain to the civil and temporal jurisdiction, as in the succes­
sion to inheritances and other matters which in the civil law
are legally prohibited to illegitimate children; unless by
chance the secular princes consent that, the Pope should legit­
imate also in this respect, or unless the common spiritual
good-should in some event «demand it; then indeed even if the.
secular prince were opposed, he would be in a position to judge
in those matters which by their nature pertain to the secular

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

61

jurisdiction» And Innocent III wished nothing.else in,his
Chapter Per venerabilem/ qui filii sint legitimi, All these
matters are manifest from the fact that' the "secular princes
and their tribunals in the temporal administration of the commonwealth are exempt from thé .power of the Pope» except in
these matters which pertain to the supernatural end, if ever
they deviate from it, or ever anything at all would be ne­
cessary for the common spiritual good, as they say, Also indirectly, through the means to brotherly correction they can
introduce'themselves, both the Pope and the other inferior
prelates, into, secular affairs and controversies of the
princes in the manner which is explained in the Chapter Novit
de iudiciis, which more broadly we have explained in the material on fraternal correction and which we will follow in .
Tract V— yet on the condition that a pre judgment is not made
in a secular forum. Whence Bernard in 1, de consideratione
to Eugen lus, to which a little before we have , referred, says:
Your power is not in possessions. These mundane’things here
below have as’ judges their own princes of the world,” And
Alexânder III, Chapter Causam, 2, extra, qui filii sint le­
gitimi, says; ”We, lest in directing our attention to judge
in such possessions what pertains to the king and what, to
the Church, we seem to be detracting from the right of the
King-of the English, who ’asserts that the judgment In these
. matters pertains to himselfdirect your fraternity that,
leaving to this extent the judgment of possession to the
king, you rather fully'inquire into the main casei namely, ■
Whether the mother of the aforesaid king was born of a leg‘ al marriage, and that you determine a case of this* type,”
And something similar Innocent III says, Chapter Novit de
iudiciis, as has been mentioned above. Also Alexander ill,
Chapter Si duobus, paragraph denicue de appellat., says : ”Do
you ask,1 if'an appeal has- been made from a civil- judge for a
hearing by us, either before judgment, or after/whether an
appeal of this kind should hold? It indeed holds in the cas­
es of people who are subject to our temporal jurisdiction;
but in the cases of the others, even if according to the cus­
tom of the Church it would hold, we believe, strictly follow­
ing the law, it does: hot hold; because, of course, the secu­
lar tribunal in temporal;matters is exempt from the Pope.”
* Second conclusion. It is lawful for the Pope to have universa! jurisdiction over the temporal goods of the Church;
yet he is not the possessor of these; but the steward and the
director, who therefore cannot at his whim dispose of them,
but-only in accordance "with-reasonable cause, and therefore .
if he should give them away without any reason, the gift is a
nullity, and he himself as the donor should be held to resti-

!
U
H
;*
' !
|

j
i
t

H
!$
I j
?
j

’
:
J
> i
|i
j;
K
!.
|

?
i

62

'

I
<

i
•
j
•
i
•

!
‘
-

. TEMPORAL JURISDIÇTI ON AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

tution of them to that.. church to which they përtalh. This
is the : view of: Tor guemadà , ~ Book Tl■ gamma,: Qha.pt er - CXIIl
. proposition; 6,‘and Cajetan, in this '2,7*27 q., .is, /article ,8,
in which place we have shown it, and it is common. But. the.. .
reason for.it is since possessions Of this kind are not con·, .
f erred oh the Pope, or on,other prelates-'of the Church\ ' but ■ ' ’
certain were given .to the Roman .Church,.‘indeed some Cwerp ..
given to particular churches, as to Toledo, Ebora and oth- 7
ers. , Thus the ownership of these things is not in thé Pope, ;; ■
or other prelates, but in. the churches’ themselvèà,., to whom ··.-■
the wealth, has been given; but the -’prelates are the stewards ■
and .the .governors of these things, But the Pope . indeed, so
far as he is the.Head of the Church Universal, should Î'e the
over-all steward and director of all these” goods., not. only ;
of those things.be lofiging to thé Church of Rome, but-, also of
everything everywhere pertaining to churches which by its..
very nature- pertains to the .Church in: its universal aspect»·■ /
of wiiioh the Pope is.the Head and Director, having as his ./
subordinates .and depending on him the stewards and directory
of all the possessions of the /individual churches. There- ■ fore -the .Pope is.-rlawfully the· steward of and has'..Jurisdiction ;
over all the possessions of the Church Universal—yet he is
not the. owner ofthese; things,; nor bah he ^lawfully, dispose <of them at his:own whim.. Ih comparison with thé goods,! how­
ever, which; are; .particular and belong to individuals, asi well ·,.
secular as: ecclesiastical, neither he nor à king, nor. the
Emperor^has the rightof proprietorship ; nay, neither do they
have the; dispensing
of them, bec’àuse they.are not goods.of
the community, so that-the dispensing of them pertains to :
.
the directors of the community, but they belong to.the indi-j : :
viduals* .whose giving is their business, and 'it does-not per- ’
tain to--the. rulers of the. multitude.
Third conclus ion,· The Spiritual powe r of ; thé pope f of !the.
spiritual purpose has added to it’, as if in -consequence, a .
supreme and' most- full power of temporal JO.rlsdictioh over all
princes and others who are of the Church, yet exactly..as the.
supernatural end demands’ to which the spiritual power is · or­
dered, v Therefore’ 'if· the supernatural end; re quire s. it, .the,
Pope can depose, kings and deprive them of their realm’s,Also .. ;
he can Judge ; as· * between^ them in temporal, matters and inVUll··
date-their laws and execute everything else among.all (Jhristians which ;haie beeh/Judged necessary for the spiritual end
and thé Common spir itual ; salvat ion, not' by what so ey er ^reason- .
ing, but fn accordance with the decision, of a prudent man;aind
this, not :phly by-using the force of censures, but also by-';
external punishments^ and by force, "ànd by .d^ms—not other- .
wise “than! as any other secular prince; even though to the -

B

I

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE >

63,

highest degree, that it may be expedient, the Pope, not him­
self, but through secular princes do this. And so by this
reasoning truly the Pope is said to have two swords and the
supreme power both temporal and spiritual, observe, never­
theless, that this supreme power of temporal jurisdiction,
which resides in the Pope, since it is ordained not only
for temporal matters themselves, but also for the spiritual
end, is not merely a temporal power, but is also a spiritual
one in consequence of its purpose, Therefore it results that
the lay power should not be appealed to but the ecclesiasti­
cal, yet of the temporal jurisdiction, so that we may dis­
tinguish it from the strictly spiritual power, which has it
annexed thereto.
The conclusion is explained in this manner is proved, as
follows, First, since the Christian Church, over which the
Pope is placed by divine law as head and supreme governor,
and any other secular commonwealth of any Christian prince
are not two different commonwealths, such as the common­
wealths of the Spaniards and the French, but they .are mutu­
ally subordinated, so that one is included in the other, ‘
and the natural end of each secular commonwealth, as imper­
fect, is ordered to the supernatural end of which the Church
takes care ; but when two lord or moderators to this· extent.
;
are subordinated that the end of one is subordinated to the
end of the other, the superior lord and moderator prescribes
the laws’ and limit to the: inferior, so far. as the superior
end requires, as in the equestrian art is manifest in the
manufacture of bridles and Aristotle' teaches .in Ethics, Book
I, Chapter I. Therefore the Pope, who is over the Church .for
a supernatural end, has to order and prescribe to the secu­
lar princes and the other faithful of Christ, so far as he'
shall judge expedient, for the supernatural purpose. And
clearly Christ would have insufficiently provided for His
Church unless He had left all the Christian secular princes
and other faithful subordinate and subject to the pope in
this regard, with very fullest power in the Pope to coerce
them in his duty for that which he would plainly deem neces­
sary for the supernatural end. Even more on this very account
that Christ entrusted the supreme responsibility of the
Church to Peter and his successors, it may be thought that in
consequence £e granted to them the power of which we speak.
For God and nature do not fail in necessary matters; and when
a duty or some government has been given to somebody, those
faculties are thought to have been given him without which he
cannot rightly do this duty, as is held in the Chapter praeter­
ea, de officio delegati, and as says the text on Coercive
Force for the Purpose Enjoined.
, ..
But here this must be considered with Victoria, Reject ion
On the Ecclesiastical Power, next to last question, 9 and

s

others,. The power, of the' king does net.wholly depend·, on the
power of the Pope in the same manner as7th®7 art “of ^providing
reins depends on the equestrian, or■
'of;‘-j?XoVid.iiig ·
; ships, on the art of navigation, For .the7arts; of 'providing
;
reins and ships are absolutely ordered for the purpose· of
the art qf riding and navigating,in such‘a/way,of -course,
that if there were no use of the horsebe .
·' ’ -made^ and if .there were no navigation, ^hipé/wcMid’hot be .
biiiltj and, therefore the arts of riding shd.x0f building
'^hips -wholly depend on thé ■•equestrian art.'.àhd the 'àrt of nav­
igation j. and therefore on their purposes, But /7granted that
..
thére were no firupernatural end,·: nor ■ OOnse.qjx'entlyi ahy-•power..··
• ' ordered for it ,' yet there would: be. a natural..£nd to which
.
. th®' administration of the ’commonwealth is ordered; and there. 7 ‘fore .-thepowerof the king for this purpose» Ahd hence it is
7," that the power of the king for his own natur aj' ®nd7vie wed in
himself ..is - independent of the Pope, and therefore the Pope
.. . '
cannot- intersect himself into the ?.government, of the secular
'
princes> so far precisely as it has to ·do virith thé political
. and natural, purpose .of the’commonwealth^ Yet ïbécauëé the
Christian secular prince can deviate.’in;his government from
that.which the supernatural purpose of'the Çhuroh éspecially
. . ‘ demands, to this extent his government depends on the Pope,
and the Pope can then control him and stop .what he has thus
. . ordered;· nay, even, if there is need, punish him, and he is
‘ held in: his administration to be under, the Pope and to stand
for everything that has been rightly prescribed1fot him for
" the supernatural purpose/
' "
.. -'77
'
The second conclusion is proved as;follows/ . Since the
- . . .
Pope has been appointed thé Universal Pastor/oi ^he· whole
;.v.· \ ..Christian flock ..by Christ-, -according .to, John r21 i «Feed my
.’sheep"; moreover , it is the pastor’s duty'tb/fecall'them in­
to the path, and collect to the way in· whatever·, manner he can
thé wandering sheep, of whatever order; and dignity, and this
·'·
in the duty of the ; pastor-is thought ,toL have been granted
t ij
and enjoined; therefore for this very reason that he has been
‘ appointed by Christ as the pastor of l th'é Church 'Universal the
. aforesaid power is thought to have been /given -him: Also Inno­
cent III uses this argument against ;a certain emperor at Con­
stantinople, Chapter Solitae majoritate & obedientia, to show
• him that it was right fot him to remove the emperor.
• · '■; ·· 4 ' Third,· nb less is the' Pop® .powerful· now;/initemporal affairs
’thari once waff the high' priest Sunderjthë 7 oia..law /7bü.t, as is
held in Deuteronomy 17'when a. dubious7/casé- -haa..aôfi'Sen, which
the secular Judges could not 'M^iciéùtly 2d®f i^e» the supreme
judiciary looked to the high priest with the sentence of death
for the man who was not willing to stand for his sentence; .
therefore to the Supreme pontiff in the Church also Jurisdiction
•

i

J
i

i
:

/Jeuteronomy 17 are:; ”If there arise a matter too hard for

TEMPORAL J1JRISDICT ION AND SUPREME WEROF :PpPE

(

>

65

f intemporal :affairs pert aine at least So .far as the. spiritual
/ purpose over which he presides·demands it, <ThA?words of ·

66

!

j
J
!

j
i
ί
!
i
j

!
:
ΐ

■

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

archate, Abraham, in order ; Melchisedec, in dignity, Aaron,
in authority, Moses; in Judicature,··Samuel, in power, Peter,
in anointment, Christ.” Also he adds much more in which he
extols the dignity and power of the Pope, Since he indeed
says in authority, Moses, in judicature, Samuel, clearly he
teaches that there is in him power concerning temporal mat*ters, which we intend to prove.
Fifth,, it is proved from the Popes Nicholas and Boniface,
above cited, who in the sense explained by· us asserted that
. Peter at the .same time received rights of earthly and hea­
venly power and holds both swords and the supreme power in
temporal and spiritual matters,
Soto, Victoria and others from their words in the passages cited conclude that when the conservation of the· faith
. o.f .the Church or the common spiritual good demands it the
Pope can depose kings. And for this reason he correctly
transferred the power from: the Greeks to the Germans and deposed Hilderic and deprived a certain king of Portugal of
the administration of his kingdom^ Although To<r que mada and
Paludanus in THE POWER OF. THE CHURCH very well add. that ;
though the Pope may be able to depose kings, yet he cannot
set up new ones, by depriving him,of his kingdom to whom . ;·
with respect to the defect of the deposed the right of ruling pertains in.other ways, or if it would be necessary to
choose another on account of the deficiency of the deposed.
with the Pope only selecting and without the concurrence ox
the others in the election to whom the right- of election/.·
pertained such as the commonwealth and its optimates. victoria says— if nevertheless some Christian commonwealth
should wish to select for itself an infidel king or another
person by reason of whom the spiritual good-would not light­
ly be endangered and though advised would not .want to desist,
"the Pope could stop it; although the commonwealth would re-/
•èist,- he would be able to set up another in his. place, ..even ’
if the commonwealth vigorously protests and opposes. More-·
over, if some prince should become a heretic or schismatic,
the Pope * could use against him the temporal sword’and pro-. .
ceed even up to deposition and expulsion of him from his
kingdom, And in the same way if some prince should offer aid
tc heretics or schismatics or other infidels opposing thé
Church, or would do anything else that is detrimental to the
Church, he could in like manner use the temporal sword
against him. So also, when Christian kings are contending
among themselves for*some principate .or any other temporal
things, and are breaking out into war,, if therefore really a
great hurt would be-feared in spiritual matters; or because
meanwhile the enemies of the faith were plundering the Church,

Λ·*—’*’

I '

TEMPORAL JURISDICT ION AND SUPREME POM OF POPE

67

or I3ecau.se very grave spiritual injuries arid, sins would resuit, as are wont to occur from wars of this kind among
Christians, the Pope could, to obviate these evils, hold ’
court on a oase of this kind and publish-his opinion, even
to unwilling people, and they would be held to stand for.his ’
Judgment, But if he should not do this, say Victoria, Albert .
Pighius, Durandus, Torquemada and others, it is not that he.
does hot have the power granted to him by divine law, but be-'
cause, he does not dare, fearing that thence may come rebel­
lion from the Apostolic See, or other grave inconveniences.
Likewise when princes are engaged in strife the laws.that ’
give way to the grave spiritual detriment of the very near
and favor wrongs the Pope can order their makers to revoke;
but if they should be unwilling, he himself can revoke, them, '
and by this very act theyjlose all their force, though they
are
ones that would have force if the revocation were ;
set aside. In this way the Pope abrogated that civil law. by
which it which it was laid down that after some certain time
a possessor in bad faith could offer a pretext, as is clear Λ·'
frpm the Chapter vigilanti, and from the last Chapter de ■
praescriptionibus;' .for that prescription without wrong ori ‘
the part of the one offering the pretext could not exist,
and it was inviting men to rapine and other sins. Moreover
when one prince inflicts wrong on another in temporal mat­
ters, whence, -however, grave hurt to the common spiritual
good would not threaten, that case would not come within thepurview of the Pope, unless through the means of the frater­
nal, or rather the paternal, correction, such as is the pre­
rogative of the spiritual father and prelate to subject that
prince to himself to eradicate sin from him;1 in this way all
sins are a matter for the tribunal of the Apostolic See, as
is held in the Chapter Novit de iudiciis. And this not only
when they are public and appear as an offense, but also when
they are secret and have an influence on the future; then
indeed it is the duty of the Pope to compel and restrain of­
fenders of this type, so that they will depart from sinning,
not only by reproof, but also by other external penalties,
as even fines and imprisonment, or exile, if the sin demands
it, as sometimes concubinage is wont to. demand. Yet by this
procedure no prejudice ought to
be inferred to the secu­
lar· court in drawing to the ecclesiastical court cases which
pertain to the former and which the lay powers have been pre­
pared^ according as it would be expedient, to accelerate, in
this manner. Very well Victoria observes in the Rejection on
the Insular. Indians, Part I, Number 29— power for temporal
purposes, as far as spiritual matters require, not only re­
sides in the Pope in .‘respect to all that are of the Church,
but also in any bishop m .respect to his subjects; and
\

: i
'
ΐ
’

i

:j
i
?

68 TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME; POWER OF POPE
·· V.··· \ « .
· ·
'
■
bishops in the same manner could punish and.restrain secu-···:. .’lar<wrongs, not only by reproof ,, but ·also by-exteridr pun­
ishments, of-money and. exile an! other things; provided then
.that,they do.not do it from greed and for gain, but'from •..•■-.necessity and for the convenience of spiritual - things; and
< ; ^very badly do they act, -either princes or tamporal/magis- ·
v. .: ..tpatesywho stand in the way ofthe bishops in thia regard!.
■... :;■■■; Further the -Pope in. his own, order and the other bishops
: ,.ih .their degree have .the power of exacting from the seculara subject to them the owe! assistance for·the admiriistra. ·. -1 ion of spiritual affairs and for’ compelling them in- this ; ’
> but since. a case of this kind .has. reference to · the spiritual
. purpose, . it pertains to the. ecclesiastical- court » ; Likewise
; . ..as a king, when an.urgent necessity, of the.secular;common, ./wealth arises," has; the ‘power of exacting.· aid from his sub/.jeqts/by which he may be helped in·that predicament when
Otherwise he is unable sufficiently to rbe aided; So Ί think
that the Pope, when an urgent. necessity of the Chur ch. uni- ■
t·;:.·! jversal arises,'which otherwise .would ‘not /be aided to advantager has .«the ’powerof requiring.from Christi an? princes and
his‘other subj ects support 'and- aid necessary for this pur­
pose, and of -compelling them to be responsible for this emer­
gency; -The -reason is., tlaat the commonwealth of the church
r : should not be less sufficient to itself than ■ any wfcu'I ar ’
- Commonwealth,--nor is less power believed - to exist in this
regard, in the · supreme Head of the Church than > in ·■ the âdmin...istrators of the secular commonwealths; nor .are;the members
-·. .of\the Church less held to'conserve their own spiritual com··. ~monwealth than their temporal.'One » f. nr qu a taa,ria. --affirma "this,
.:-·.;Summae.,. .-Book II-Chapt e’r CXIV, proposition 8, and Victoria 7
'seems io: agree· in his On the Ecclesiastical Power,-^question
cited. Finally, the Pope has the; ver/ fullest, authority in
temporal affairs,· yet: to. the exact - extent according; to. the
exigency of the· supernatural purpose.j "7"^ .7.7 . 7 .. ·> '.·
. . .Nevertheless correctly Victoria, arid Sot6.· in the- passages
...· cit.ed.· observe the: following— that the' pbpe iri;the .aforesaid
t events should· not', at: once ürishéathp: the temporal, sword, -un' less in-delay there Would be an- instant 'peril j but‘he should
...first use the spiritual power arid Swords giving?:some prelim··. binary order, /either directl/j or üridéT some threatened, oeri.. sure.... For the· ordinary method ôf thé ‘Pope’, is the use of .the
^spiritual power, to which thé temporal -poweris/joined as an
- aid, and· so not sooner must the’ swof d'rif the ytemporâl juris­
diction -bef drawn .than by-trial it has been disrioyered that’
/· the strength of--the '’spiritual sword does not suffice/ .1,
- · Someone’ wil-l1 ask—but i f the Pope, should; give- a -prelimin­
ary advice-to< à secular prince, to revoke soma law,' or to ;

I

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME PCWER OF POPE

69

change something else in the secblar government' because: he
judged it not at all fitting; but on the other hand the sec­
ular prince should, judge it to be fitting^ whose opinion should stand?'' Victoria responds, on the Ecclesiastical Pow­
er, loc,cit,, Number 14— if the Pope " should, .giye .the. order
Because he judged it to be· by; nomeans fitting for-.the--tern-.
poral government viewed in itselfthen he should'not,-be·, o- "
beyed; because the Judgment of the temporal government in
its own affairs and for attaining of the natural end looks
not to the Pope, but to the secular prince» Even grant that
the Pope should speak the truth, that order in no. way pertains to the authority and the power of the Pope on the very
account that the matter, about which the action, is, would
■ not be antagonistic to the salvation of souls and to the
Christian religion. But. if the Pope should give·,the.· warn­
ing on the account that,he judged it to tend, to the detri­
ment of the salvation of souls, as if he should advise the >
revocation of some law which he judged could not· be kept
without sin, or it Was against divine law,-or fostered sin;
then the judgment of the Pope must be stood for; because, as f
the judgment on spiritual matters,’so this on the temporal
for the attainment of spirituality looks not to secular princes, but'■••'to the Pope, And I say this because it is his duty
"to consider the means to attain the end whose prerogative it
. is to consider the end itself,. Besides, the power of rthe :
Pope is the su perior and is the master architect in compari­
son with thé power of the secular princes, and therefore
they are'held to. obey the Pope in those matters which look
to
the.supernatural purpose. Yet the following must be ;
’’understood when the matter is not wholly certain. . For if it
Were well known that the Pope were in error, or were order­
ing something as a fraud on the lay power, the secular orin■ οθβ would not be held to obey him, observe in this, place
that the Pope should take care that he. is acting for the
^temporal convenience : of the administration of the common­
wealth, nor ought he at once to order whatever offers itself
at first blush as conducive to the promotion of religion and
Christian piety, without any consideration for-.the conveni­
ence of the temporal commonwealth; ’especially since the peo­
ples and icings would not be held, nor could, they be forced .
to the best plan of Christian life, but-only, to à Christian
life within certain limits and boundaries,·
‘ . There remains that we should respond to the arguments set
forth at the beginning,- As to the first argument the minor
premise must be denied. For that power of Christ concerning
temporal affairs was of the. preeminence of Christ, which there­
fore is denied was left. to= the Pope.' As to the- second it must

70

-TEMPORAL

JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

he said, that it only proves that the lay powers are wholly
subject to the Pope in temporal matters so. far; as there is a
necessity for the supernatural purpose ,· For to· this' degree.
the temporal commonwealth is subordinated to the Commonwealth "
of: the Chùrch Universal and is,; as it,·.were j included in-it, </"
however ;in itself .the temporal; commonwealth is a certain; inte­
gral commonwealth in itself, of which the highest power is; the
secular’princeo
·λ.-· .■■■.-///■·
:As to .the first, what is adduced; in the third argument must

i
i

I

;j
j
I
I
?
j
’
•
•
•
j

I
*

be answered-in that this transfer of power was/ permitted; to ·
the Pope, as far as It was necessary for the conservation of .,·
the Church.·· : Moreover since Germany assumed that .duty of the
Emperor-ship and defender of the Church and offered his. re sour­
ces for that purpose, right reason demanded that the election
of'the Emperor pertained to the German optimates; wherefore
ther.e was·, as it were, a certain covenant in the time of otto
III that the election pertained to those optimates, and the '
"approval and confirmation j of the Emperor, to the, Popej:· and, pn
this account neither is the Pope able,without legitimate cause
to deprive them of this right, nor can the right be taken ?from
the PopeJ which he holds to approve and confirm thé election.
But to the second, which is adduced as to the j deposition of
the Emperor, we must reply, that the deposition of the -Emperor
for just cause pertains to the Pope ; both in view of the ,most
full power which he has in temporal affairs · which the spiritual
’’ good and the supernatural end- requires; and also since by pe'"culiar law the. approval, crowning and anointing of the Emperor
’ is his prerogative ; and ; finally since the duty /of the Empèror
to. defend the 'Church of Rome Universal has been instituted, as
it were, the Emperor is like a minister of the Pope, exercis. ing with his own power the sword of temporal jurisdiction at
the nod of the Pope, and he swears the oath of ..the faithful defender of the Church-to the Pope.
j
'
.
·
To the third which is adduced, we must; say, ' that both are .
lawfulforvthe Popebecause both are necessary for the/spirit­
ual good of .the kingdoms. Besides to both, concurs· the sense
of the demand of the optimates and the peoples of-their realms.
• As to the last, which is-adduced in the same argument, wé
.must say, since the Emperor left neither a successor nor anyone
to whom the Empire was owed, in which manner at the .death of
kings regularly a legitimate successor to thé kingdom; is wont
to remain; and the office of Emperor, after it was transferred
to the Germans in the time of Otto III, as if by an agreement
and by law was very much dependent on the Apostolic Gee itself,
' it is not surprising, if the Emperorls. place is vacant, that it
would pertain to the Apost.oliC; See to sit in judgment on the
subjects of the Roman Empire, However, today with.,the Emperor

.·.’

Ji

;·

-r

/' -K.·’/ //B â

TEMPORAL JURISDICTION AND SUPREME POWER OF POPE

71

alive, a king of the Romans is chosen who is approved and
confirmed by the Apostolic See, so that by the very fact
that the Emperor was dead, without any election and approba*
tion he succeeds to the Empire; and therefore a vacant Empire
is not given.
.
The fourth argument only proves that in the Pope is the
supreme power for temporal affairs, or the temporal .sword,
- in.the sense explained in the third conclusion, hor would
two Popes wished anything else. Therefore the argument.
proved the third conclusion.
To the argument by which the other extreme opinion is
urged we, must say, that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven
■and the power in spiritual matters added as a consequence
have, power in temporal matters in accordance with spiritual
» exigency, as has been shown.
-, *
To-the confirmation it must be said that to use power in
temporal affairs, in accordance with spiritual exigency and
for these things as for a purpose is not to become implicat*
ed in secular affairs, but to bring it about that the tempor­
al zealously serve the spiritual,· and'that the former do not
deviate and cause a destruction of the latter, Furthermore,
- to take temporal jurisdiction, to the degree as is becoming
,. to the authority and splendor of the Apostolic See, ànd is
conducive to à better use of spiritual things and. support for
their temporal administration, is not to entangle ·itself in
temporal matters, but to bring it about that the temporal
take care of the spiritual, which Paul in no way intends to
-prohibit,
·

DISCUSSION XXX

:

!

;
!·■
1
t
i
?
{

j

ί
i
I

WHETHER THE EMPEROR IS THE LORD OF THE.WORLD \
Some of the Jurisconsults, among whom should be numbered
Barto lus,, in 1» hostes»ff» de capit» & post 1» revers» &
in Extravaganci ad reprimendam?'?qy.ae eat Henrici septimi/
in verbo totius orbis? "asserted that the Emperor is the
Lord?of the whole“world, Indeed Bartolus finally on 1» ■; 7
hostes proceeded to the point that he asserted that·to affirm the contrary is perhaps heretical, actuated by;that pas­
sage of Duke 2:’’There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus,
that all·.the world should be taxed#" Nevertheless this opinion is plainly ridiculous, as is manifest from those'matters
which we have mentioned in Discussion XXIV. on the origin of
.« this power, 'added to those that have been-mentioned in the
.preceding Discussion. But here I add only this one ,argument
^gainst’ this opinion, If the Emperor were the Lord of the
world,: either this would be by natural law~ and -this' assertion would be’ silly— or by the election of the whole world,
which would· have shown its consent that there be one common
emperor of all; which without any probability and foundation
would be 'affirmed; or. by. the law of war, and this-- is'-well ;
known to be false, since no one ever, not: only legally, but
never/illegally subjected to himself all -the nation^ every­
where, especially since in our times very many have been ,
found which before were entirely unknown, and many others
even now are unknown; or by the positive law of man, and
that either of the Pope— and this is not so, since in fact
he is not himself ruler of the world—or of the emperors
themselves,or of somebody else, which likewise cannot be
true; because such a law as he might have made could not
have bound those not his subjects; or lastly by divine law,
which is not less false, because no sufficient proof for
this can be adduced. Therefore the Emperor is not the Lord
of the world.
But this passage from Luke 2 proved indeed that an edict
went out from the Roman Emperor that the whole world should
be taxed, whether this was Just or unjust; but not that the
Roman Emperor was the true Lord of the whole world. Add, in
this passage by the expression "whole world" is not under­
stood the whole earth, but by hyperbole that largest part of
the then known world, over which the Roman ruled, is called
the whole world. And in the same sense the emperors arrogant­
ly called themselves at some times masters of the whole world

72

WHETHER THE EMPEROR ÏS LORD OFTHE WORLD

,73.·

and universe
Add also, that it is frequent in the common
use» of' speech that a part of the world, is called the world, ■■
like* this— "You Arabs have come into a- world unknown to ·.’
you.”
.-·
■’.-·· ■
If you should want a longer discussion, .of this matter>
read among others Victoria in the Relection on the insular
Indians. Part I a, Number 24 ; Soto / 4,, on Just'ideque st ion .
4, article 2; and Gov ar ruv las, Rule peccaxum, part 2, para­
graph 9, from number 5.
' .

-WHETHER- THE CLERGY ARE EXEMPT FROM CIVIL POWERJBY WHAT LAW. '
*·.■ Now that the civil and the ecclesiastical power hsvfe been ,
explained, .and-how far the jurisdictional. dominion of each ex­
tends t .something* should be said about the exemption of the
clergy frol3 the-civil power. ■
- ·
On this subject let :the .following be the first conclusion.
The clergy now are exempt from the civil power, so that they ·
cannot, be judged either in criminal or in civil oases by a
secular -judge·., but only by ecclesiastical courts. They are .. ·“.
also exempt from taxes,and other burdens. These matters are
manifest ex fota 11» q. ex,capit, non minus de immunitat. Ec-*
>
cles, ex cap, •quUnquam, de cenH^us lib. 6, and from several ‘ ..··.·
other laws. But on each part of the, conclus ion in the follow- ·:·.·
ing. the discussion Will be more complete. -“ ·
.··.,.·
-- Second conclusion. In merely ecclesiastical oases the
clergy, are. exempt by divine law fronrthe civil and lay power,
as interesting bishops and.priests, in distributing dioceses . .
and parishes, in oases growing out of these, and finally in :all
those, cases which of themselves look to the ecclesiastical
.
power4alone. This is proved, since the ^ecclesiastical power,
as is shown in Discussion ΣΧΙ arid after that, ,is distinct. ·
from and superior, to the Civil power,t and also was directly in­
stituted, by Christ and-handed over, to' Feter, the. Apostles, the
disciple^ and their successors; but thei civil power arose from
God through the:Commonwealth and only'extended itself to na­
tural-matters; therefore in cases solely ecclesiastical, which
are peculiar to the ecclesiastical power, the clergy are exempt
by divine law from the civil Power, Therefore the Apostles,"
without, any authority of the lay power, exercised the responsi­
bility of the %administrâtibh of the Church, end in the same way
"their successors have always carried on; ‘Therefore' rightly af- <
ter Wycliffe'arid John Hus were oohdemried" in the* Council of Con··.
stance·,'sessions 8 and 15, Marsilius of Padua was'condemned by
john!XXlij the former asserted that Christ’ paid tribute, not

WHETHER THE CLERGY ARE EXEMPT FROM CIVIL LAW; BY WHAT LAW
■ ■ - ■ .. ·
''
from liberality and condescension, but forced by necessity. f
Likewise it pertains to the Emperor to correct and instruct
the Pope· Likewise it emanates from the.Emperor that one
priest is greater'and has greater power than another priest
has, and that the Emperor can take away this power as he.has
conferred it. He added that neither the Pope nor the-'whole
Church could punish anyone by compulsion, unless the Emperor
had granted the authority. All these things conflict with the
freedom of the Church, The errors of this heretic and the
learned, confutation of them read in Albert pighius, the Eccles-»
last leal Hierarchy, Book V, The same conclusion is confirmed
in the Chapter si Imperator 96th distinction, where Pope John,,
amongst other things, says; "To priests God willed that it
pertain as to what should be done for the Church, not. to the
Powers of the world." This also from other -laws cited, in Dis­
cussion XXIX, It is confirmed.also by that remarkable deed of
Constantine the Great in the Council of Nicaea , which Ru —■
-finus mentions in Book X of Church History and refers to in
the Chapters Continna,and Sacerdotibus 11, question 1« For ·
when the bishops carried to Constantine the booklets of accus­
ations of certain against others, he called them together and<
said, "To you. God gave the power of judging us, but you cannot
be judged by men. " And’all the booklets offered to him he
threw in their pres-eonce into the fire; a thing which he seems
to have gotten from a suggestion of Sylvester, But this which
Constantine affirmed has the most ; powerful reality in pure ■
Church cases; therefore the matters that are solely ecclesigstical do not pertain to the secular powers.-Therefore they who
have the right of giving patronage to bishops and other. Church
benefices have it only by leave of and by concession of the -,
Church power, though it is wont to be granted’to them in.grati­
tude for the temporal assistance which they have conferred on
the institution of benefices or for other just Jcause’,
Cajertan, Small Works, Book I, Tract I, Power of the Pope,Çhap-:
ter 27; Victoria, Rejection .1,. on the Ecclesiastical Power,.
last question, number 3; and Soto, in 4,-Distinction 25, ques­
tion 2, article 2; and priedo,- 2, Christian Liberty;, these asr
sert that if thé .Pope should openly abuse the power ecclesias-...
tical toward the destruction of the Church, by coxif.erring cor­
ruptly ecclesiastical benefices, resulting in the im in of subjectSi thé secular princes could resist him and not obey those .
things which are evilly ordered by him and could deny posses-//
slon’of the benefices to the men selected in this manner. But
although this be true, especially since the^incomes of the benr
efices are contributed by laymen, so that the pastors and rectors may be assigned to them to have the care of their spiritual

74

'
i
i

!j

i

,
J
l
,=
1
'

F
i

I
ί

WHETHER CLERGY ARE EXEMPT from CIVIL LAW ; BY what law
75
hot
affairs, yet it must/be extended much, nor impudently, but.
the resistencé té the Pope, the.Vicar of Christ, should be
with reverence and submissiveness,
>
Third conclusion» Not every exemption of the clergy is of the divine law.: in this agree Soto, Victoria and Priedo ..
in the places cited·, ; Cajetan, in his Summa, at word excom­
munication, in Chapters XXXI and XXXVlTF^avarrus in his Man­
ual, Chapter XXVII, Number 119; and others; and them is St.
[
TKômas in his piece on Romans 13, "For this cause pay ye trib­
ute also." Although Panormita, Chapter II, de major. & obed­
ient,, and others affirm that thia clergy, so far as their per­
sons and goods go, are exempt from the lay power by divine, law.
Nevertheless our conclusion is proved, since there is no place
whence it is sufficiently conclUûed from the divine law,. Some
adduce that passage of Joseph,·’/, Genesis 47. who made all the
land tributary to Pharaoh except the land of the priests. Yet
this is nothing to the point; for it was an act of kindness on
the part of the king, with right: reason demanding it .Further,
they adduce Matthew 17: "Of whom do the kings of the earth
take custom er tribute? of their children, or of strangers?"
And a little farther on, "Then are the children free." But
this is-only proof about Christ, as is shown in Discussion
XXVII, But if it is probably proof about any other person, it
is only about the. Pope, the Vicar of Christ; as we will sub­
mit. ‘Likewise they bring forth Psalm 105: "Touch not mine
anointed," Yet in this passage it is only directed that no .
hurt be inflicted on the ministers of God, in whom also the
secular princes are understood to be included. The proposed
' conclusion is made more fully manifest frn m the following.
Fourth conclusion. To divine law and. very greatly to na­
tural law'it is agreeable
that the clergy be exempted from,
the secular courts especially in crimes, I think, that the .
Pope J>y divine law is wholly exempt from every earthly power
everywhere · But the other persons of the clergy, not by dir
vine .law, but by human law seem to be exempt from the secular
powers. The first part-is proved, because since the ministers
of the Church have been appointed by divine law with ecclesi­
astical power to be free for spiritual matters, under one su­
preme he ad to whose court in spiritual matters they pertain,
surely the divine law itself by which they have been so ap­
pointed, likewise their grade and dignity and natural light it­
self demand that they be wholly removed from the court of the
seculars who are subject to them in spiritual matters, Then
that they may be rendered more free for being available for.
spiritual matters, they should by no means be drawn away to

.. 76

WHETHER CLERGY ARE EXEMPT. FROM CIVIL LAW ; BY .WHAT LAW

different tribunals, as could often happen at the same, time»
Then’, also, to better conserve their authority over, their' own
subjects, it would certainly be unbecoming that the..bishop
and the parish priest.- to whom the the secular, judges, as'
. children? should be subject in spiritual matters.. should be ·
_ judged; by them in'temporal matters, and punished.; .and there~fore very many'unbecoming and.strongly absurd, situations.?
- could arise when the clergy on account of the', fear, of;thé
..* seculars, on whom they would depend in secular matter sj,-.then:
_- would’ bé'daring to exercise toward them their responsibilities
.-In spiritual-matters, Also, the reverence whichseculars·
• ought:by-divine law to exhibit to the ecclesiastical'persons,
- as fathers arid those called and consecrated to the'worship of
God, would be greatly lessened,, and they would become, contemptible among: the .'seculars,which is by no means expedient for
the honor of God The Best and The Greatest,' arid for the spir··
itual salvation of these·people. The same part .is confirmed
from that remarkable .act of Coristantirie the Great' above'’men­
tioned, likewise from that other of Joseph, Genesis 47, who
on the requirements of right reason left the land of the
priests free from tax.
..,··-■ ;?
?;/
.
?, . Thé . second part, namely, that the Pope by divirie'law;is en.; tirely exempt from all earthly power everywhere '.Briedq -séems
? ; to affirm, on Christian Liberty, I, Chapter XV, where hé' says
that the Pope can be judged or punished by rio earthly1power
outside of the -case of heresy ; and that the Pope ’..himself,* in
the same manner that he cannot put himself to death, thus can; not. give the power to another to kill him,r arid for this'reason
he qannot be ’killed for anÿ crime,/ though: ?of>hfs owri ffëe will
..-he is willing to. submit, himself to the judgment of another.
. This very .point many, seem to affirm, whom’wê have b’ited in
this I, 2,. question 1, article 10, when they as'seft /that the
. Hope, .except. for heresy, cannot be ·' deposed ,by anyone; from the
.. Pontificate .or punished; on this account by divine law he is
/exempt from all; and Victoria agrees at ’the- end 4of the Relectipri cited, Where with Cajetan on the Power .of ririte\Pope,. ’chap: ter .XVII, .he affirms that the Pope by divine /law by no .one for
^./any crime whatsoever can be put to death.»-:vAnd,<aieafiy df the
heathen emperors could have punished delinquent popes,when they
Itarried.in their lands, since the same. secular power ('though he
.. ; stoodon the divine law only) Was in Constantine .ahdj the 'other
emperors who have come into the bosom of- the .Church. (although
, ’ in spiritual matters they were subject to thé Pope} thje: Chris• tian emperors are ’ qualified to punish .a^delinquent.’pope'* “At
all events, that would by no means; be .repugnant _to,· thé divine
law, but it would only be against the.;exemptidn cbhferréà;by

WHETHER CIERG Y ARE EXEMPT FROM CIVIL LAW ; BY WHAT LAW ? 7 r.

the emperors by human law on the Church and the pope s, 4
Moreover we can prove this part since it was most becoming
that the Pope, as the Head, of the Christian Commonwealth,
to whom seculars should be subject,' should have this exemp­
tion, especially since, as we shall say, through his,own
power he could remove clerics from the power of the secular
princes who are subject to the Church; but Christ could have
given him such exemption; therefore it is probable that He . ■ . did give it to him, and so he is exempt by divine law from
the lay power, especially if he i®· one of the members of the
Church. It is confirmed, since Christ had this immunity, as
is shown in Discussion XXVIII; since therefore He left the
Pope as His Vicar on earth, it is probable that He granted
him this. This Matthew 17 seemed sufficiently to indicate,
where, after in Chapter 16 He had .promised the Papacy to him,
when the publicans were collecting the tribute and Christ
was concluding with, "Then are the children free," He added;
"Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to
the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first
cometh up; when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find
a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and
thee.” Then only to avoid offense He ordered the tribute to
be paid, also for His Vicar, joining him with Himself, of
him after Himself making mention; but no mention of the oth­
ers of the Apostles. · ' >
··
.
The third part of the conclusion, that, the other per­
sons of the clergy, not by divine law, but by human seem to
be exempt from the secular .powers,· from this is manifest,
that,; as is said in the preceding conclusion, sufficient
testimony cannot be adduced from divine law by which this
may be rightly proved. But you will, ask, ’!Bywhom then have
they been exempted?" I answer, in the first place by thé
emperors and the other Christian princes, with the consent
of the people, because the thing itself demands it. indeed : · · -· ·
this· exemption once given and granted to the .’Church they ■ ■ ■
'
cannot
recall
without the consent of the Church. Next
I answer, that the Pope alone through thé power which he has
for temporal matters consequent to spiritual exigency, could
wholly exempt clerioSfcJÿgm the lay power, and also by the
nature of the matt er/taken them out from under his own eocles- ·
lastleal laws, which in this condition ought to be obeyed.
For it has been shown—the exemption of the clergy was ex­
pedient very especially as suitable arid for the common goodof the whole Christian Commonwealth and was very agreeable
to natural and divine law; and for this reason in this mat­
ter the Church laws must have preference over the civil.

/i J

1
<

i

ί
p
p
I :
J i
p
: !
j
,
y

■

/ -

-·'

-

~--J·

*’ύλ -

>-■’’/

78’WHETHER CLERGY ARE EXEMPT FROM CIVIL LAWf ^IWHAT’KLAW

β

Victor la and Soto observe in the passages cited, that,
if the freedom of the cleric, results in the manifest hurt
of the secular commonwealth, and if through lack of punish­
ment of the of the clergy laymen are killed, and the latter
do not wish to apply the remedy of the admonition of the
Pope, of course the secular princes can take counsel of
? ..their,own subject, for the immunity and privilege of the ‘
cTërgÿ~ is ήό impediniexit,...The., reason; is that since the civ­
il commonwealth is sufficient'unto-itself p’tixer.efore·.·-in the
^^qanfé mfeumer that" it.· can defend itself by. it» proper àuthor’’ rty^andSavejits elf unharmed..from anyj^sthér commoihweaith/,
.. ;i^cijdl8o; from the clerics.' · ■ But rightly"aléb-'-they -^dvise^y
' that this £owef--is r‘in the prince. LUt/i^t tn thé jttâgé%fsihd
-)7v : magistrates} 'andtherefore'it. is wrong* for thé latter· to
7... proceed "by their owncauthorlty.àgàinst ;;thé-freedom of .the
,;.Ohu^ch,by'infringing·' ecclesiastical dr “civil -laws^in this
..^regayd^tr by’seising the clergy., ''dr. byfdrâggirig malefactors
from the;*’dhùrchèsj;' or .by. transgressingj'the' laws.Mn;;anyth. fey· jjianiiprί though ·they, in repelling,, forcé with* aomoderption
; of. '^effehse ' that' is not’ blamey/orthy. ean"‘defe'hd'''themsblves and
safe against; the:. eëclèsfàstïcsi .
λ; iFlfth çoï^lxrsïôiï^-ï The .clergy.'tojare- ’
.I·;».concerned, 'are' ^empt- fxtom: taxes not., by àivihé lawsbut- by hurman^ ar right rse&oh demandsa; ;St ►.'ïhdm^s· hfes thisrjir his
• :/jeomMÛi*lQnÆ'ç'inè^iq ;13 , '^or this ‘causé ;pay -ÿe ‘itecibut^^so ,”
fjwhere jhç^sâys-j’iihé exempt ion of, the ’‘çièrgÿ from -xaxes. -has
reouiti^
J1&: -net ;pfne.ee ssit y., * as ■ ifjit iwduld ybe ;by di...yrne fdw.·· -But.the.j.eq^ty,by which ’under:huwn-La^s. tWèÿ are
■J.;exemg€ Is-thia^..Since wheà?,triT«ite “is roffered 'tQ“)cirigs for.
the .support’of -the temporal commonwealth, rand for. ils Works
;;,âîid. administration by which·they adniinister-ii/lhltdiffii)‘ciral‘‘; af|àirs; but-theclergy-not '.lésé/work offeri:to "the same com­
monwealth- in spiritual, administration;* it is.? elear^ eiuit··’
>q abl.e,. and. the dignity of thei" clergydemandaidt-j<’ that, apt.
less,, thah·'..the4 nobleq; who., at;.some .time- have- J>e^;usjefv,l?to .·..
the Jcointidhwealth tin ..war· .or IK other We 11'· .donei Matters' they
iShould^be exefaip^'from.-taxes, ?(The coiiclusion^is confirmed
;from .the' .Same eitefl^assagq of PhulV for - thé: order-was to
:«Qil χ-lthôu't..distinCtion\.to- offer;tyihnttfhto-the.grinças, nor
.•did the ; cleric^ get 'exemption^ ' For^ie rsai’d;p ^For/hy^this"
wSl;? cause ;pày.ÿê tribute-ialsoî -for theÿ ^é Sodlsiministers,
at­
tending
cohtinààlliTon
ihisï
very,
thingK·
Bender.thaief
ore
to
? .'· I
idllitheir dues·, - tribute to «whoia tribùté^isïdnei vgust^n to
whom; custom; fear to' whom. fear;...honour to Whom,honour. Owe
nh man ^aiythiiig/ but! to love; onei another, P of ;. course; the
Clergy who- tarry in-rthe·’ commonwea'lth of- thee infidels '.are
heid-to pay tribute to the - prince s\of· thati st at
certainly
■W1'·.·

.i '

'

λ·'..·.

1 CT.’·..·:

‘

'I/

WHETHER CIERGY ARE EXEMPT .FROM CIVIL LAW; BY WHAT LAW

'

79

those princes administer and. defend, the commonwealth hot less.
for the good of those than others} wherefore since they were
not exempted from the privilege of those princes} aild ·the pope■ : has no power over that commonwealth, since it isnot subject '1· ·
to the Church; they are held in the forum of the conscience.· <
to pay the taxes. Nay, rather, so in civil cases as in crim-.. '
inal ones they were subjected to the princes of that state,
as Albert Pighius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Book V,
Chapter VII, correctly affirms! The conclusion*Tesides from
the chapter on Tributes, with the following eleven, question
1, where Ambrose admits it, is stated., Moreover for the same
reason and from the very same question it is well known that
the clergy were exempted from the lay power so far as the
person was concerned with respect to taxes. The same conclu­
sion is confirmed by those things which have been said in the
preceding conclusion about the exemption in the matter of the
person. But if you nevertheless object that in the subhead
on property, Book VI, it is asserted that the Churches and
clerical persons and their property are exempted not only by
human law but also by the divine, it must be said with Dorninicus, cited by Soto, that the churches and the clerical persons and their possessions are exempt even by divine law only
so far as the cases are merely ecclesiastical; but as for the
remainder of the cases it is consonant only with divine law
and the natural light according to the sense above explained·
Sixth conclusion. -Ecclesiastics neither by divine law nor
by human are exempt from those civil laws which are not
counter to the freedom of the Church, but are instituted for
the good administration of the commonwealth,suoh as are those
by which the prices of the grain and other things are set,
and by which such and suoh type of building is prohibited, or
something is set down on the manner of succeeding to an inher­
itance, and other like matters common to all citizens. This
is Victoria’s and Soto’s idea in the passages cited, and Syl­
vester’s at the word lex, question 15, and is common. It is
proved, since the clergy are part of the Commonwealth and.have
the same common king or governor with laymen; therefore they
are held to be subject to his laws common to the whole Common­
wealth to the extent that under the circumstances it does not
-r,an counter to their freedom and exemption. Especially since
the Commonwealth’s government needs laws that are common to
al1 its citizens; and it does not pertain to the Pope but to
their princes to determine them in temporal affairs. If there­
fore the clerics sell grain above the price justly set by the
commonwealth, both do they sin just like the laymen, and they
are held to make restitution. Yet they cannot be brought in
on this matter to be judged by the secular judge, but before

jl·

.*
ι I
I

i
| ;
ΐ
i
(· ·
{
< ?
·
i

80

WHETHER CLERGY ARE EXEMPT FROM CIVIL LAWS; BY WHAT LAWS

an ecclesiastical court, who Is held to observe laws of this->
kind by inflicting on them the due penalties, so that they. .
fully restore what they have taken beyond the price lawfully
set by the commonwealth,

INDEXES

NAME INDEX
Aaron, 6,7,.66*Abel, 2, 65. Ab- - sint · legit IM ; -Oh « » 61. Cepe" bot, de sententia & re iudlcâ- rano, 32,-Chaldea, 28,
. .ta,; Ch,, 31. Abraham, 2, 66, ■' Charlemagne j·-’26/ 27, 32; 53.
.( JBulensis, 41, Ad Apostolicae Chevÿ Chase,/Iàd,.,.iv, vil,
, de sententia &’re iudicata, ■ Childerio, 53. ‘ Chrysostom,St
. . Ch·Vi; 53, ' Adac, ‘1, .39.
2,5Alx-la-Chapelle, 27:. Alex-r <. .Christ,.anointed,
_________ _ —
42,,---domin* ' ' 46,
* Λ heir
*
I
.. ander, 28.; . Alexander 111,61, . ion.' property,744,
Alius
,.
Ch.,
53.
Almain.
39.45.
~
'
■<
39, 4Ô, -43, .44; -45, 46, humil­
Alplï5nso. 53, Ambrose, 9,41,
ity; 44, 48 i 50; ‘judge ,44,49,50,
' 43, 47, 78. Anastasias ifI,
■
kingdom,
;spiritual, 40-42,4927, 56’, Ancona, 52. Anthony, 50, eternal,
.43,-44, kings, de­
• , St., 39, ’52,. Apennines, 32, .. pose ,'47, lay power, 43, 52,
·. Apocalypse,40». Apologia, Ca- lowly,-48,.needy, 48, poverty,
. ; / j et an, 55 .Arabs, 737
.
44,·48; 50, ■ 51, power, tempor. .Aristotle,· 1, 11, 13, 14,15, - al,-39-42, plenary, 49-51,
■ 29,1.23, 63,: Arithpertus, 32. reign, 42-43,..rejecting, 48;
' Armagh; 45, /.Assyria, 28. As- property, 44, 52; power, spir­
.. tulphus-, 26. .
itual, plenitude, 44r,47;.
.·, Augustine, 41, 47, Augustine self-denial; 48, 50, 51, tem­
... oft Ancora,: 52'. Augustus, 27, ’; poral kingdom, —
—, 52, —
40-42,
no,,
, . Babylon, 28, Bachonius, 39, 46 tribute,’ 48; possession of
·. ς 45. Bartholomew of Medina,41. World, 39, 4748, 49, 52.
r. "·,. Bartolus,. '30; 31, 72. Behjas< : t Christian Commonwealth, xi.
min/ 6, 42, 46.· Behevenuto, ’ . Christian Freedom, Briedo,
■ · ; ïîukedom/ 32'. .
... fg8·;· g3t-b5, 74, ^757 II ChronBernard/ St/, 39-40,/57, .58, ;7ioias,‘ 6.746/<;Chronologies,
C~,
..
65,- ,Bibliothèque, Nation— .(jenebrarduS; -26,-27,
277 Çhronr àle', xi;, Blôndùs, 27., BphemNauclerus,·
--- -----—- , 26
- J · Church
ia, King, 27. Boniface,Pope,;. Hierarchy
“
- ‘
/ <A -/Pighius
, 28/32, L
66.’ Boniface' VÏII, h.3, 65. t
■39. . Church His t o‘ry, Ruffinus,
Braga, 55. British Museum,xi.
74, church' power, Almain, 39.
. ■ Burroughs Grammar School,Lan- Civil "Power ', Victoria, 24 , 33,
. : paster Township; Pa.,. xv., ·
Clearfield, Pa,, iv. ClearBrandenburg ; Margrave., ; 27,
■field Republican, Pa., iv.
B.urgens’is, 39, 45. ; .·■
Clemens Romanus,- 28. Clemen­
.. Caesar Augustus, 72. . Cain,2, tina pastoralis, -53, Coercive
Cajetan,;. 55, 62., 74, 75, 76.
er hr · pur pose enj pine d, bo.
Cano; 46·. Castro, Alphojiso,
Cologne
, Archbishop,, 27 . Co. Â; 21,. 22/. 33.-, - Catholic. Unir, ‘ losaiaus;
40. Condeixa, 55."
ver.sity ,of America,'; xi. Cav-t ' Congress, Library of, xi,Conj-.alry; xv...Cavalry Joutnal.xv.. .’ -γ^Λία";
4aH Zita. ’.. hnnrad/ 27
27. Cbnsi-

'

extra,

mil-

··■■'

iernari.W^T

* "57, !6Î; 65/"* ’·

■ ‘

81