Sed post hseo
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl.
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl.
Thomas Carlyle
Nam et in veteri
Testamento, primum a Deo sacerdo-
tium institutum est, postea vero per
sacerdotium, jubente Deo, regalis po-
testas ordinata, unde et adhuc in
ecclesia Dei sacerdotalis dignitas re-
galem potestatem sacrat. Et apostolus,
? ? ' Qui benedicat major est. ' "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
341
emperor, Alexius of Constantinople, the superiority of the
ecclesiastical authority over the secular, and compared the
Church to the sun and the king to the moon ;1 and, what
is much more significant, Innocent ILT. 's citation in his letter
to Philip Augustus of France of that Constitution of Sirmond
which allowed any party in a law-suit to transfer the case to
the Court of the Bishop. 2 In another place again Vincent
cites, from a work which he calls ' Summa de Casibus,' a
passage which lays down the far-reaching principle that the
Church not only can excommunicate and depose any ruler,
either for his own heresy or for negligence in extirpating heresy,
but also can depose any secular prince for general negligence
and incapacity, as Pope Zacharias deposed the King of the
Franks and as Innocent III. deposed the Emperor Otto IV. 3
This is obviously related to the principle set out by Innocent
IV. , Hostiensis, and William Durandus,4 but it goes a little
further than Innocent and Durandus, for while they claimed
that the Pope had the right in cases of incapacity and neg-
ligence to appoint a " curator " or guardian, and that the
Pope " succeeds " to the prince's jurisdiction, the ' Summa
de Casibus ' says that the Pope can depose him. 1
We must, however, observe that in another place Vincent
cites a passage from a work which he calls ' Summa Juris,'
which says very plainly that while a constitution of the prince
has no authority in ecclesiastical matters, in secular matters
and in the secular court it is valid against any canon, unless it
1 Decretals, i. 33. Cf. vol. ii. p.
215.
>> Decretals, ii. 1, 13. Cf. vol. ii.
p. 220.
* Vincent,' Speculum,' ii. 9, 65. (Ex
' Summa de Casibus'): " Ex pramisso
inter alia collige notabiliter quod judex,
vel potestas secularis, non solum prop-
ter heresim suam, sed etiam propter
negligentiam circa heresim extirpan-
dam, potest non solum excommunicari
ab ecclesia, sed etiam deponi. Et
extende banc pee nam, et ecclesise
potestatem, quandocunquo prince pa
aliquis secularis fuerit inutilis, disso-
lutus et negligens circa regimen, et
justitiam observandam. Unde Zacha-
rias Papa doposuit Ludovicum Regem
Francorum, predecessorem Pipini, pa-
tris Caroli, et Innocontius Ottonem
Imperatorem. Et est ratio quia omnia
Christianus ratione peccati efficitur
de foio ecclesise. Unde dominus
ad Prophetam: ' Ecce, constitui te
super gentes et reges. ' Potest etiam
ecclesia propter ipsorum judicum
negligentiam, de illorum aubditis
judicare. "
4 See chap. v.
* It would be interesting if we could
determine the date and authorship of
this work.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 342 TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS. [PABT IL
is contrary to the " Law and the Gospel. " In the ecclesias-
tical court the canons are valid against any secular law. 1
We have discussed this question about the conflict of
laws in some detail in a previous volume. 2 Vincent, in citing
this passage, seems at any rate to be aware that it was not
admitted by the secular lawyers that the Canon Law of the
Church could over-ride the Secular Law of the State.
We cannot indeed say that Vincent's citations enable us
to form a definite or confident opinion about his own position,
but so far as they go, while they do not represent the judgment
of the Canonists whom we have considered in the last chapter,
that the temporal as well as the spiritual authority belonged
to the Pope in principle, they do set out in large terms the
claim to a supreme judicial authority over the secular prince.
In the latter part of the century we come to a writer who,
like the Canonists with whom we have dealt, represents in
the most dogmatic form the principle that the Pope is supreme
in temporal as well as in spiritual matters. This is the author
of the greater part of the ' De Eegimine Principum ' of which
the first book and part of the second were written by St
Thomas Aquinas, and he is now generally identified with
Ptolemy of Lucca. 3
Before, however, we consider his treatment of the temporal
authority of the Pope, it is important to observe that the
1 Id. id. , ii. 7, 33. He quotes Gratian,
Decretum, D. 10, as saying : " Con-
stitutiones vero principum ecclesiasticis
constitutionibus non prseminent scd
ecclesiastibus legibus postponendse
sunt,*' but he goes on to cite a work
which he calls ' Summa Juris ': " Nota
quod constitutio a principe lata, super
ecclesiastico negotio non valet. . . .
Si vero canoni contradicit, tunc etiam
in secularibus et in foro seculari valet,
nisi legi vel evangelio contraria fuerit,
tunc enim non valet, ut sunt leges de
usuris loquentes et de divortiis. In
foro autem ecclesiastico canon, illi legi
contradicens observari debet, et sec-
undum ilium judicari, sicut est ille de
prascriptione 50 annorum. "
" Super seculari vero negotio lata,
si non contradicat canoni, valet, et
ipsam ecclesia tamque suam approbat
et tenet, ac per ea negotia decidit, ubli
canon nil statuit. Quse si et inmuteretur
a principe ipsam quoque immutatam
habere debet ecclesia, nisi per canonem
specialiter fuerit confirmata. "
? Cf. vol. u. , pp. 77-80 and 227-
233.
* For a full discussion of the question
how much of this work is by St Thomas
Aquinas, and of the reasons why the
authorship of the rest of the work is
attributed to Ptolemy of Lucca, we
would refer the reader to Orabmann,
' Die Echten Schriften des H1. Thomas
von Aquino. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
343
author, as we have pointed out in an earlier chapter, is clear
and even dogmatic in asserting that all lordship comes from
God as from the first ruler. 1 He argues that this is evident,
for the nature of the end of the State is to direct the life of
the citizen to virtue and to eternal felicity--that is, the vision
of God. 2 Ptolemy then, following St Augustine in the ' De
Civitate Dei,' contends that it was because the Eomans
above all other rulers pursued good ends, that they
merited the empire; it was their love of their country, their
zeal for justice, and their " civilis benevolentia " which de-
served this. 3 He admits, indeed, that there are other reasons
on account of which God permits lordship; slavery was
caused by sin, and God uses evil rulers as a punishment
for the sins of the people *; but the lordship which is that of
counsel and of direction is natural. 5 Whatever, then, was
1 8t Thomas Aquinas (Ptolemy of
Lucca), ' De Regimine Principum,'
in. 1: " Inde manifesto apparet a Deo
omne pro venire dominium sicut a
primo dominante. "
* Id. id. , iii. 3 : " Concluditur ergo
ex hoc, quod quselibet res quanto
ordinatur ad excellentiorem finem,
tan to plus participat de aetione divina.
Hujusmodi autem est regnum cujus-
cunque communitatis, sou collegii, sive
politise, sive regalis, sive cujuscunque
conditionis : quia cum intendat nobilis-
simum finem, ut Philosophus tangit
in Ethicis et in I. Politicorum, in ipso
divina praintelligitur actio, et suse vir-
tuti dominorum subjicitur regimen. . . .
Amplius, in regimine legislator
semper debet intendere ut cives diri-
gantur ad vivendum secundum vir-
tutem, immo hie est finis legislatoris,
ut Philosophus dicit in 2 Ethio. . . .
Finis autem ad quem principaliter
Rex intendere debet, in se ipso et in
subditis, est seterna beatitudo, qus? in
visione Dei consistit. Et quia ista
visio est perfectissimum bonum, maxime
debet movere Regem, et quemcunque
dominum, ut hune finem subditi oon-
sequantur: quia tuno optime regit,
si talis in ipso sit finis intentus. "
* Id. id. , iii. t: " Et quia inter
omnes reges, et prinoipes mundi,
Romani ad predieta magis fuerunt
solliciti, Deus iliis inspiravit ad bene
regendum, unde et digne meruerunt
imperium, ut probat Augustinus in
Lib. De Civ. Dei, diversis causis et
rati oni bus quas ad prasens perstrin-
gendo ad tres reducere possumus, aliis
ut tradatur compendiosius resecatis,
quarum intuitu meruerunt dominium,
una sumitur ex amore patrise: alia
vero ex zelo justitiai : tertia autem
ex zelo civilis benevolentia^. "
<< Id. id. , iii. 7 and 8.
s Id. id. , iii. 9 : " Sed utrum domi-
nium hominis super hominem sit
naturale, vel a Deo permissum, vel
pro visum, ex jam dictis Veritas haberi
potest. Quia si loquamur de dominio
per modum servilis subjectionis, intro-
? ? ductum est propter peccatum, ut
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 344
[PART II.
TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS.
Ptolemy's judgment on the relation of the temporal and
spiritual powers, it is evident that he conceived of the political
order as having its origin in God and nature, and that there
is no trace in his work of the supposed Hildebrandine tradition
that it was a thing evil in its origin.
When we now turn to the question of the relation of the
temporal and spiritual powers, we find that Ptolemy sets
out and carefully develops the contention that since the
coming of Christ temporal power properly belonged to Peter
and his successors, for they were the representatives of Christ,
to whom all authority belonged.
All power, he says, belonged to Christ, and he conferred
this upon his vicar--that is, Peter--when he said " Thou art
Peter," for this signified the lordship of Peter and his suc-
cessors over all the faithful, and the Eoman Pontiff may
therefore be called both priest and king. 1 After discussing
the significance of the first three clauses of the saying of
Christ to Peter, he interprets the words " Whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " as
expressing the fulness of lordship (doininii plenitudo) which
Christ conferred upon Peter. For as all movement and
" sensus " in the body comes from the head, so in the mystical
body of Christ, it comes from the supreme Pontiff who is its
head ; and this applies to the temporal power as well as the
spiritual, for the relation of the temporal to the spiritual
is like that of the body to the soul; the body has its being,
its virtues, and its operation through the soul, and thus the
temporal jurisdiction has these through the spiritual juris-
diction of Peter and his successors. This, he contends, can
be proved by the actions of the emperor and popes. Con-
stantine surrendered the empire to Pope Silvester, Pope
Hadrian established Charles the Great as emperor, Pope Leo
did the same by Otto I. Again, Pope Zacharias deposed
1 Id. id. , iii. 10 : " Cum enim eidem Ubi quatuor ponentur clausulse, omnes
(Chriato) secundum suam humanitatem significative dominii Petri, suorumque
omnia sit collata potestas, ut patet successorum super omnes fidelee, et
in Mat. xvi. 18, diotam potestatem propter quas merito summus Pontifex
suo communicavit vicario cum dixit Romanus episcopus dici potest Rex
' Ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus,' &c. et Sacerdoe. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VL] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
345
the King of the Franks, Innocent III. took the empire from
Otto IV. , and Pope Honorius from Frederick II. All this
they did for just causes as the shepherds of the flock, other-
wise they would not have been legitimate lords but merely
tyrants. When therefore the popes act thus for the good of
the whole flock, their authority is supreme over all other
dominion. Ptolemy confirms this by his interpretation of
the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, for after the kingdom of the
Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Eomans, God,
said the prophet, will establish an eternal kingdom above all
others--that is, the kingdom of Christ and of the Eoman
Church, which holds his place. 1
Ptolemy's position is plain and unambiguous. All tem-
1 Id. id. , iii. 10: " Sed dominii
plenitudo ostenditur cum ultimo dicitur:
* Et quodcunque ligavoris super terram
erit legatum et in coelis,' &c. Cum
enim summus pontifex ait caput in
corpora mystico omnium fidelium
Christi et a capite sit omnis motus et
sensus in corpora vero; sic erit in
proposito. . . . Quod si dicatur ad solum
referri spiritualem po testa tem, hoc esse
non potest, quia corporale et temporale
ex spirituali et perpetuo dependet,
sicut corporis operatio ex virtute
animse. Sicut ergo corpus per animam
habet esse, virtutem, et operationem
. . . ita et temporalis jurisdictio prin-
cipum per spiritualem Petri et sue-
cessorum ejus. Cujus quidem argu-
mentum assumi potest per ea quse
invenimus in aotia et gestis sum-
morum pontificum et imperatorum,
quia temporali jurisdictioni cesserunt.
Primo quidem de Constantino apparet,
qui Silvestro in imperio oessit. Item
de Carolo Magno, quem Papa Adrianus
Imperatorem constituit. Idem de
Ottone I. , qui per Leonem creatus est
et Imperator est constitutus, ut his-
toric referunt. Sed ex depositione
principum auctoritate apostolica facta
satis apparet ipsorum potestas.
Primo enim invenimus de Zacbaria
hanc potestatem exercuisse super re gem
Fraucorum, quia ipsum a regno de-
posuit, et omnes barones a juramento
fidelitatis absolvit. Item de Innocentio
iil- qui Ottoni quarto imperium
abstulit: sed et Federioo sec undo hoc
idem accidit per Honorium Innocentii
immediatem successorem. Quamvis in
omnibus istis summi pontifices non
extenderunt manum, nisi ratione de-
lioti, quia ad hoo ordinatur eorum
potestas, et cujuslibet domini, ut
prosint gregi: unde merito pastores
vocantur quibus vigil an tia incumbit
ad subditorum utilitatem. Alias non
sunt legitime domini, sed tyranni, ut
probat philosophus, et dictum supra:
. . . Hoc ergo supposito, quod pro
utilitate gregis agatur, sicut Christus
intendit, omne supergreditur domi-
nium, ut ex dictis apparet: quod ex
visione Nabuchodonosor satis est mani-
? ? festum de statua. . . .
Sed post hseo
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 346 TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS. [PAKT II.
poral as well as spiritual power belongs to the Pope as the
representative of Peter and of Christ. His interpretation of
the Donation of Constantine is equally interesting and
significant, for he treats it not as the source of the temporal
power of the Pope, but as merely a recognition of what was
always there; and it is evident that this is not merely in-
cidental, but rather that it is an intrinsic part of his whole
conception. Christ, he says, was indeed the true lord and
monarch of the world, and Augustus was his representative,
although he did not know this. 1 Ptolemy discusses the
reasons why Christ did not at once assume that universal
authority in temporal as well as spiritual matters which
properly belonged to him, and contends that there were two
reasons for this : the first, that he might teach all princes
humility ; the second, that he might show men the difference
between his lordship and that of others. 2 Christ therefore
permitted the prince of the world to rule, both in his life-
time and after his death, until the kingdom should be complete
and ordered in his faithful subjects, and only then at the
fitting time did he cause Constantine to yield the dominion
to the vicar of Christ--that is, to Pope Sylvester, to whom
indeed of right it already belonged. 3
The emperors who succeeded Constantine, after the death
1 Id. id. , iii. 13: " Quia ille natus
erat qui verus erat mundi Dominus
et monarcha, cujus vices gerebat
Augustus licet non intelligens, sed
nutu Dei, sicut Caiphas propheta-
vit. "
Cf. id. id. , iii. 14 : " Sed tuna oritur
questio de isto domini principatu,
quando incepit, quia constat multos
imperasse, ipse vero abjectam vitam
elegit. . . . Ad hanc autem questionem
est responsio quia principatus Christi
incepit statim in ipsa sui nativitate
tempo rab. "
? Id. id. , 14, 15.
3 Id. id. , iii. 16 : " Et hino est quod
rex noster Christus principes seculi
permisit dominari, et eo vivente et eo
moriente, ad tempus, quousque vide-
licet suum regnum esset perfectum et
ordinatum in suis fidelibus, opera-
tionibus virtuosis, et eorum sanguine
laureatum. . . . Opportuno igitur tem-
pore, ut manifestaretur mundo regnum
Christi oompositum, virtus principis
nostri Jesu Christi principem mundi
sollicitavit, Coastantinum videlicet,
percutiens eum lepra ao ipsum curans
supra bum an am virtutem. Qua pro-
bata, in dominio cessit vicario Christi,
beato videlicet Silveetro, cui de jure
debebatur ex causis, et rationibus
superius assignatis: in qua quidem
cessions spirituali Christi regno adjunc-
tum est temporale, spirituali manente
in suo vigors : quia illud per se qus:ri
debet a Christi fidelibus, istud vero
secundario tamquam administrans
primo, aliter autem contra intentionem
sit Christi. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
347
of Julian, were obedient to the Eoman Church,1 but finally,
because the Emperor of Constantinople did not defend the
Eoman Church against the Lombards, the Pope called in the
Frank to protect it and transferred the empire from the
Greeks to the Germans, and thus showed that the authority
of the emperor depends upon the judgment of the Pope. 2
He illustrates this further by a discussion of the history of
the succession to the empire. With Charles the Great the
empire became hereditary, and this lasted to the seventh
generation. Then the Eoman Church was harassed by the
wicked Eomans, and summoned Otto the Duke of the Saxons
to its aid, and he was created emperor by Pope Leo. The
empire again was hereditary in his family until Otto III. 3
Then Gregory V. created the system and method of election,
and this will continue as long as the Eoman Church, which
has the supreme rank in authority, shall judge that it is
useful to the Christian people. *
The principle which is thus set out by Ptolemy of Lucca
that all temporal as well as spiritual power belongs to the
Pope, as the representative of Christ, is not in its essence
1 Id. id. , iii. 17.
* Id. id. , iii. 18: "Tuno igitur
gravata Ecclosia a Longobardis, et
Constantinopolis imperio auxilium non
ferente, quia forte non poterat, ejus
potentia diminuta, advocavit Romanus
pontifex ad sui defensionem contra
predictos barbaros regem Francorum.
Primo quidem Pipinum StephanusPapa,
et successor Zacharias contra Aistul-
phum regem Longobardorum ; deinde
Adrianus et Leo Carolum Magnum
contra Desiderium Aistulphi filium ;
quo extirpato, et devinclo cum sua
gente, propter tantum beneficium
Adrianus concilio celebrato Romrc
centum quinquaginta quinque episoo-
porum, et venerabilium abbatum, im-
perium in personam magnifici principis
Caroli a Graecis transtulit in Germanos ;
in quo facto satis ostenditur qualiter
potestas imperii ex judicio Papse
dependit. Quamdiu enim Constanti-
nopolis principes Romanam ecclesiam
defenderunt ut fecit Justinianus. . . .
ecclesia dictos principes fovit. Post-
quam vero defecerunt, ut tempore
Michaelis contemporanei Caroli, de
alio principe ad sui protectionem pro-
vidit. "
<< Id. id. , 19.
4 Id. id. , iii. 19 : " Et ex tunc, ut
historiss tradunt, per Gregorium quin-
tum, genere similiter Theutonicum,
provisa est electio, ut videlicet per
septem principes Alammaniss flat, qui
o
usque ad ista tempora perseverat, quod
est spatium ducentorum septuaginta
annorum, vel circa : et tantum durabit
quantum Romana Ecclesia, quse supre-
mum gradum in principatu tenet,
Christi fldelibus expediens judicaverit.
In quo casu, ut ex verbis Domini
supra inductis est manifestum, vide-
licet pro bono statu universalis ecclesise,
videtur vicarius Christi habere pleni-
? ? tudinem potestatis, cui competit dicta
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 348
[PABT n.
TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS.
different from that of Innocent IV. and the Canonists with
whose work we dealt in the last chapter, but it is stated in
even more explicit and dogmatic terms. We shall see in a
later chapter that the position of Ptolemy is much the same
as that of Henry of Cremona and others who represented
the extreme papalist view in the conflict between Boniface
VIII. and Philip the Fair.
We must now inquire what was the attitude of St Thomas
Aquinas to these conceptions. It has sometimes been said,
or at least suggested, that in substance at least he agreed
with them ; that is what we must consider.
We have already pointed out that St Thomas was clear
that the authority of the State was derived from God, and
that the function of the temporal order was to lead men to
a life of virtue and to that heavenly blessedness which is the
true end of life. 1 St Thomas, that is, recognised the lofty
character and the high purpose of the temporal power, but
he was also clear that there was a greater and more excellent
authority in the world than this. There is an important
passage in his own part of the ' De Eegimine Principum ' in
which he sets this out. The final end of life of the multitude
gathered together in society is not the. life of virtue, but is
to attain through the life of virtue to the fruition of the
divine, and to this end man needs a rule which is not only
human but also divine. This belongs to Christ, who is not
only man but God, king, and priest, and from Him is derived
the royal priesthood, and all the faithful, insomuch as they
are His members, are both kings and priests. The ministry
(ministerium) of this kingdom, in order that spiritual things
may be distinguished from earthly, belongs not to the earthly
kings but to the priests, and above all to the chief priest,
the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, the Eoman Pontiff,
to whom all kings of the Christian people ought to be subject,
as to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, for those who have the
charge of the lower ends must be subject to him who has the
charge of the final end, and must be directed by his author-
1 Cf. p. 33.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWEK OF THE PAPACY. 349
ity. It was suitable that the priests of the heathen, and even
of the Old Testament, should have been subject to the kings,
for the purpose and promises of these systems of religion
were concerned with temporal prosperity, but the priesthood
of the new law is more lofty, for it leads men to a heavenly
good, and therefore in the law of Christ kings must be subject
to priests. 1
With this careful statement we must compare a very
important passage in the ' Summa Theologica. ' St Thomas,
in discussing the question of usurped jurisdictions, maintains
that the spiritual power does not commit an act of usurpation
when it interferes in these temporal matters in which the
secular power is subject to it, or in those which are left to it
by the secular power. 2
1 St Thomas Aquinas, ' De Regi-
mine Principum,' i. 14: '* Non est
ergo ultimus finis multitudinis con-
gregate vivere secundum virtutem,
sed per virtuosam vitam pervenire
ad fruitionem divinam. . . . Sed quia
finem fruitionis divinse non consequitur
homo per virtutem humanam, sed
virtute divina, juxta illud apostoli
Roman, vi. ' Gratia Dei vita eterna ':
perducere ad illam finem non humani
erit, sed divini regiminis. Ad ilium
igitur regem hujusmodi regimen per-
tinet, qui non est solum homo, sed
etiam Deus, scilicet ad dominum nos-
trum Jesum Christum, qui homines
filios Dei faciens in coelestem gloriam
introduxit. Hoc igitur est regimen ei
traditum quod non corrumpetur:
propter quod non solum sacerdos, sed
rex in scripturis sacris nominatur,
dicente Hierem. xxiii. * Regnabit rex
et sapiens erit. ' Unde ab eo regale
sacerdotium derivatur. Et quod est
amplius, omnes Christi fideles in quan-
tum sunt membra ejus, reges et sneer-
dotes dicuntur. Hujus ergo regni
ministerium, ut a terrenis essent
spiritualia distincta, non terrenis regi-
bus, sed sacerdotibus est commissum,
et precipue summo sacerdoti successori
Petri, Christi Vieario, Romano ponti-
fici, cui omnes reges populi Christiani
oportet esse subditos, sicut ipsi Domino
Jesu Christo. Sic enim ei ad quem
finis ultimi cura pertinet, subdi debent
illi, ad quos pertinet cura anteceden-
tium finium, et ejus imperio dirigi.
Quia igitur sacerdotium gentilium, et
totus divinorum cultus erat propter
temporalia bona conquirenda, quse
omnia ordinantur ad multitudinis
bonum commune, cujus regi cura
incumbit, convenienter sacerdotcs gen-
tilium regi bus subdebantur. Sed et
quia in veteri lege promittebantur bona
torrena, non a dsemonibus, sed a Deo
vero religioso populo exhibenda, inde
et in lege veteri sacerdotes regibus
leguntur fuisse subjecti. Sed in nova
lege est sacerdotium altius, per quod
homines traducuntur ad bona coelestia :
unde et in lege Christi reges debent
sacerdotibus esse subjecti. "
? ? >> Id. , ' Summa Theologica,' 2, 2,
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 350 TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS. [PART II.
These passages certainly do not suggest that St Thomas
conceived of the Pope as holding the temporal power; in
the first he seems clearly to mean that it is for the head of
the spiritual power to guide and direct the temporal towards
the final end of life, and to exercise authority over it with
regard to that final end ; in the second he seems carefully
to limit and circumscribe its temporal authority.
St Thomas is indeed clear that the subjects of a secular
ruler, who has been excommunicated on the ground of apostasy,
are absolved from their oath of allegiance, and that the
Church has power to excommunicate and thus to depose
auch a ruler. He discusses this under the terms of the question
whether the prince, who apostatises from his faith, loses his
authority over his subjects. After stating various arguments
against this, he quotes Gregory VII. (as from Gratian,
' Decretum,' Causa 15, 6, 4) as declaring that he absolved
from their oath of fealty all those who owed allegiance to an
excommunicated person. He then carefully states his own
judgment that unbelief does not in itself affect the
validity of political authority, for, as we have seen in an
earlier chapter, St Thomas fully recognises its validity among
non-Christian peoples. 1 The Church has authority to punish
those who have been believers and become infidels, as it may
also sometimes do for other faults ; and thus, as soon as a
ruler has been excommunicated on the ground of apostasy,
his subjects are ipso facto released from his rule and from
their oaths of allegiance. 2 St Thomas, that is, seems clearly
secularis subditur spirituali, sicut corpus
animse ; ed ideo non est usurpatum
judicium, si spirituals prelatus se
intromittat de temporalibus quantum
ad ea, in qubus subditur ei eecularis
potestas, vel quaa ei a seculari potestaie
relinquuntur. "
1 Cf. p. 34.
>> Id. id. , 2, 2, 12, 2. " Sed contra
est quod Gregorius VII. dicit (Gratian,
' Decretum,' C. 15, 6, i). ' Nos sanc-
torum predecessorum statuta tenentes
eos, qui excommunicatis fidelitate, aut
juramenti sacramento sunt constricti,
apoetolica auctoritate a sacramento
absolvimus; et ne eis fidelitatem
observent, omnibus mud is prohibemus,
quousque ad satisfactionem veniant. '
Sed apostate a fide sunt exoommunicati
sicut et heretici, ut dicit Deoretalis
extra, de hereticis Cap. ' ad abolen-
dum' (Decretals, v. 7, 9); ergo
principibus apostantibus a fide non
est obediendum.
Respondeo dicendum, quod sicut
supra dictum est, infidelitas, secundum
seipsam, non repugnat dominio; eo
quod dominium introduction est de
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
351
to maintain the Hildebrandine principle that, at least for
certain offences, the Church has the right to excommunicate
and depose princes.
This, however, is not the same thing as the doctrine that
the spiritual authority, in principle, also holds all temporal
authority. There are only, as far as we have seen, two passages
in the works of St Thomas which seem to have this meaning.
The first is contained in one of his early works, the Com-
mentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and this is a
very curious and interesting passage, both for what it denies
and what it asserts. When, St Thomas says, an inferior
and a superior authority are both derived from a supreme
authority, neither is subject to the other, except in respect
of those things in which it has been subjected to the other
by the supreme power. This is the case with the spiritual
and secular authorities, which are both derived from the
divine authority. In those things which pertain to the salva-
tion of the soul, the secular power has been subjected by
God to the spiritual and must obey it. The spiritual power
must, on the other hand, obey the secular in matters which
belong to the " bonum civile. " St Thomas is denying any
general authority of the ecclesiastical over the political
authority, he is clearly enforcing the traditional Gelasian
principle of the distinctive character of the two powers.
He proceeds, however, to make one exception--that is,
in the case of the Pope. This (i. e. , the foregoing statement),
he says, is true, unless perchance the secular is combined with
jure gentium, quod est jus humanum :
distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium
est secundum jus divinum, per quod
non tollitur jus humanum ; sed aliquis
per infidelitatem peccans potest sen-
tentialiter jus dominii amittere, sicut
etiam quaudoque propter alias culpas.
Ad ecclesiam autem non pertinet
punire infidelitatem in illis qui nun-
quam fidem susceperunt, secundum
ilium Apost. i. ad Cor. v. ' Quid mi hi
de his, qui foris sunt, judicare. ' Sed
infidelitatem illorum qui fidem susce-
perunt, potest sententialiter punire :
et convenienter in hoc puniuntur, quod
subditis fidelibus dominari non pos-
smt : hoc enim vergoro posset in
magnam fidei corruptionem; quia,
ut dictum est, * homo apostata pravo
corde machinatur malum, et iurgia
seminat,' intendeus homines separaro
a fide ; et ideo quam cito aliquis per
sententiam denuntiatur excommuni-
catus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso
facto ejus subditi sunt absoluti a
dominio ejus, et juramento fidelitatis
quo ei tenebantur. "
? ?
Testamento, primum a Deo sacerdo-
tium institutum est, postea vero per
sacerdotium, jubente Deo, regalis po-
testas ordinata, unde et adhuc in
ecclesia Dei sacerdotalis dignitas re-
galem potestatem sacrat. Et apostolus,
? ? ' Qui benedicat major est. ' "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
341
emperor, Alexius of Constantinople, the superiority of the
ecclesiastical authority over the secular, and compared the
Church to the sun and the king to the moon ;1 and, what
is much more significant, Innocent ILT. 's citation in his letter
to Philip Augustus of France of that Constitution of Sirmond
which allowed any party in a law-suit to transfer the case to
the Court of the Bishop. 2 In another place again Vincent
cites, from a work which he calls ' Summa de Casibus,' a
passage which lays down the far-reaching principle that the
Church not only can excommunicate and depose any ruler,
either for his own heresy or for negligence in extirpating heresy,
but also can depose any secular prince for general negligence
and incapacity, as Pope Zacharias deposed the King of the
Franks and as Innocent III. deposed the Emperor Otto IV. 3
This is obviously related to the principle set out by Innocent
IV. , Hostiensis, and William Durandus,4 but it goes a little
further than Innocent and Durandus, for while they claimed
that the Pope had the right in cases of incapacity and neg-
ligence to appoint a " curator " or guardian, and that the
Pope " succeeds " to the prince's jurisdiction, the ' Summa
de Casibus ' says that the Pope can depose him. 1
We must, however, observe that in another place Vincent
cites a passage from a work which he calls ' Summa Juris,'
which says very plainly that while a constitution of the prince
has no authority in ecclesiastical matters, in secular matters
and in the secular court it is valid against any canon, unless it
1 Decretals, i. 33. Cf. vol. ii. p.
215.
>> Decretals, ii. 1, 13. Cf. vol. ii.
p. 220.
* Vincent,' Speculum,' ii. 9, 65. (Ex
' Summa de Casibus'): " Ex pramisso
inter alia collige notabiliter quod judex,
vel potestas secularis, non solum prop-
ter heresim suam, sed etiam propter
negligentiam circa heresim extirpan-
dam, potest non solum excommunicari
ab ecclesia, sed etiam deponi. Et
extende banc pee nam, et ecclesise
potestatem, quandocunquo prince pa
aliquis secularis fuerit inutilis, disso-
lutus et negligens circa regimen, et
justitiam observandam. Unde Zacha-
rias Papa doposuit Ludovicum Regem
Francorum, predecessorem Pipini, pa-
tris Caroli, et Innocontius Ottonem
Imperatorem. Et est ratio quia omnia
Christianus ratione peccati efficitur
de foio ecclesise. Unde dominus
ad Prophetam: ' Ecce, constitui te
super gentes et reges. ' Potest etiam
ecclesia propter ipsorum judicum
negligentiam, de illorum aubditis
judicare. "
4 See chap. v.
* It would be interesting if we could
determine the date and authorship of
this work.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 342 TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS. [PABT IL
is contrary to the " Law and the Gospel. " In the ecclesias-
tical court the canons are valid against any secular law. 1
We have discussed this question about the conflict of
laws in some detail in a previous volume. 2 Vincent, in citing
this passage, seems at any rate to be aware that it was not
admitted by the secular lawyers that the Canon Law of the
Church could over-ride the Secular Law of the State.
We cannot indeed say that Vincent's citations enable us
to form a definite or confident opinion about his own position,
but so far as they go, while they do not represent the judgment
of the Canonists whom we have considered in the last chapter,
that the temporal as well as the spiritual authority belonged
to the Pope in principle, they do set out in large terms the
claim to a supreme judicial authority over the secular prince.
In the latter part of the century we come to a writer who,
like the Canonists with whom we have dealt, represents in
the most dogmatic form the principle that the Pope is supreme
in temporal as well as in spiritual matters. This is the author
of the greater part of the ' De Eegimine Principum ' of which
the first book and part of the second were written by St
Thomas Aquinas, and he is now generally identified with
Ptolemy of Lucca. 3
Before, however, we consider his treatment of the temporal
authority of the Pope, it is important to observe that the
1 Id. id. , ii. 7, 33. He quotes Gratian,
Decretum, D. 10, as saying : " Con-
stitutiones vero principum ecclesiasticis
constitutionibus non prseminent scd
ecclesiastibus legibus postponendse
sunt,*' but he goes on to cite a work
which he calls ' Summa Juris ': " Nota
quod constitutio a principe lata, super
ecclesiastico negotio non valet. . . .
Si vero canoni contradicit, tunc etiam
in secularibus et in foro seculari valet,
nisi legi vel evangelio contraria fuerit,
tunc enim non valet, ut sunt leges de
usuris loquentes et de divortiis. In
foro autem ecclesiastico canon, illi legi
contradicens observari debet, et sec-
undum ilium judicari, sicut est ille de
prascriptione 50 annorum. "
" Super seculari vero negotio lata,
si non contradicat canoni, valet, et
ipsam ecclesia tamque suam approbat
et tenet, ac per ea negotia decidit, ubli
canon nil statuit. Quse si et inmuteretur
a principe ipsam quoque immutatam
habere debet ecclesia, nisi per canonem
specialiter fuerit confirmata. "
? Cf. vol. u. , pp. 77-80 and 227-
233.
* For a full discussion of the question
how much of this work is by St Thomas
Aquinas, and of the reasons why the
authorship of the rest of the work is
attributed to Ptolemy of Lucca, we
would refer the reader to Orabmann,
' Die Echten Schriften des H1. Thomas
von Aquino. '
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
343
author, as we have pointed out in an earlier chapter, is clear
and even dogmatic in asserting that all lordship comes from
God as from the first ruler. 1 He argues that this is evident,
for the nature of the end of the State is to direct the life of
the citizen to virtue and to eternal felicity--that is, the vision
of God. 2 Ptolemy then, following St Augustine in the ' De
Civitate Dei,' contends that it was because the Eomans
above all other rulers pursued good ends, that they
merited the empire; it was their love of their country, their
zeal for justice, and their " civilis benevolentia " which de-
served this. 3 He admits, indeed, that there are other reasons
on account of which God permits lordship; slavery was
caused by sin, and God uses evil rulers as a punishment
for the sins of the people *; but the lordship which is that of
counsel and of direction is natural. 5 Whatever, then, was
1 8t Thomas Aquinas (Ptolemy of
Lucca), ' De Regimine Principum,'
in. 1: " Inde manifesto apparet a Deo
omne pro venire dominium sicut a
primo dominante. "
* Id. id. , iii. 3 : " Concluditur ergo
ex hoc, quod quselibet res quanto
ordinatur ad excellentiorem finem,
tan to plus participat de aetione divina.
Hujusmodi autem est regnum cujus-
cunque communitatis, sou collegii, sive
politise, sive regalis, sive cujuscunque
conditionis : quia cum intendat nobilis-
simum finem, ut Philosophus tangit
in Ethicis et in I. Politicorum, in ipso
divina praintelligitur actio, et suse vir-
tuti dominorum subjicitur regimen. . . .
Amplius, in regimine legislator
semper debet intendere ut cives diri-
gantur ad vivendum secundum vir-
tutem, immo hie est finis legislatoris,
ut Philosophus dicit in 2 Ethio. . . .
Finis autem ad quem principaliter
Rex intendere debet, in se ipso et in
subditis, est seterna beatitudo, qus? in
visione Dei consistit. Et quia ista
visio est perfectissimum bonum, maxime
debet movere Regem, et quemcunque
dominum, ut hune finem subditi oon-
sequantur: quia tuno optime regit,
si talis in ipso sit finis intentus. "
* Id. id. , iii. t: " Et quia inter
omnes reges, et prinoipes mundi,
Romani ad predieta magis fuerunt
solliciti, Deus iliis inspiravit ad bene
regendum, unde et digne meruerunt
imperium, ut probat Augustinus in
Lib. De Civ. Dei, diversis causis et
rati oni bus quas ad prasens perstrin-
gendo ad tres reducere possumus, aliis
ut tradatur compendiosius resecatis,
quarum intuitu meruerunt dominium,
una sumitur ex amore patrise: alia
vero ex zelo justitiai : tertia autem
ex zelo civilis benevolentia^. "
<< Id. id. , iii. 7 and 8.
s Id. id. , iii. 9 : " Sed utrum domi-
nium hominis super hominem sit
naturale, vel a Deo permissum, vel
pro visum, ex jam dictis Veritas haberi
potest. Quia si loquamur de dominio
per modum servilis subjectionis, intro-
? ? ductum est propter peccatum, ut
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 344
[PART II.
TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS.
Ptolemy's judgment on the relation of the temporal and
spiritual powers, it is evident that he conceived of the political
order as having its origin in God and nature, and that there
is no trace in his work of the supposed Hildebrandine tradition
that it was a thing evil in its origin.
When we now turn to the question of the relation of the
temporal and spiritual powers, we find that Ptolemy sets
out and carefully develops the contention that since the
coming of Christ temporal power properly belonged to Peter
and his successors, for they were the representatives of Christ,
to whom all authority belonged.
All power, he says, belonged to Christ, and he conferred
this upon his vicar--that is, Peter--when he said " Thou art
Peter," for this signified the lordship of Peter and his suc-
cessors over all the faithful, and the Eoman Pontiff may
therefore be called both priest and king. 1 After discussing
the significance of the first three clauses of the saying of
Christ to Peter, he interprets the words " Whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven " as
expressing the fulness of lordship (doininii plenitudo) which
Christ conferred upon Peter. For as all movement and
" sensus " in the body comes from the head, so in the mystical
body of Christ, it comes from the supreme Pontiff who is its
head ; and this applies to the temporal power as well as the
spiritual, for the relation of the temporal to the spiritual
is like that of the body to the soul; the body has its being,
its virtues, and its operation through the soul, and thus the
temporal jurisdiction has these through the spiritual juris-
diction of Peter and his successors. This, he contends, can
be proved by the actions of the emperor and popes. Con-
stantine surrendered the empire to Pope Silvester, Pope
Hadrian established Charles the Great as emperor, Pope Leo
did the same by Otto I. Again, Pope Zacharias deposed
1 Id. id. , iii. 10 : " Cum enim eidem Ubi quatuor ponentur clausulse, omnes
(Chriato) secundum suam humanitatem significative dominii Petri, suorumque
omnia sit collata potestas, ut patet successorum super omnes fidelee, et
in Mat. xvi. 18, diotam potestatem propter quas merito summus Pontifex
suo communicavit vicario cum dixit Romanus episcopus dici potest Rex
' Ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus,' &c. et Sacerdoe. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VL] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
345
the King of the Franks, Innocent III. took the empire from
Otto IV. , and Pope Honorius from Frederick II. All this
they did for just causes as the shepherds of the flock, other-
wise they would not have been legitimate lords but merely
tyrants. When therefore the popes act thus for the good of
the whole flock, their authority is supreme over all other
dominion. Ptolemy confirms this by his interpretation of
the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, for after the kingdom of the
Assyrians, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Eomans, God,
said the prophet, will establish an eternal kingdom above all
others--that is, the kingdom of Christ and of the Eoman
Church, which holds his place. 1
Ptolemy's position is plain and unambiguous. All tem-
1 Id. id. , iii. 10: " Sed dominii
plenitudo ostenditur cum ultimo dicitur:
* Et quodcunque ligavoris super terram
erit legatum et in coelis,' &c. Cum
enim summus pontifex ait caput in
corpora mystico omnium fidelium
Christi et a capite sit omnis motus et
sensus in corpora vero; sic erit in
proposito. . . . Quod si dicatur ad solum
referri spiritualem po testa tem, hoc esse
non potest, quia corporale et temporale
ex spirituali et perpetuo dependet,
sicut corporis operatio ex virtute
animse. Sicut ergo corpus per animam
habet esse, virtutem, et operationem
. . . ita et temporalis jurisdictio prin-
cipum per spiritualem Petri et sue-
cessorum ejus. Cujus quidem argu-
mentum assumi potest per ea quse
invenimus in aotia et gestis sum-
morum pontificum et imperatorum,
quia temporali jurisdictioni cesserunt.
Primo quidem de Constantino apparet,
qui Silvestro in imperio oessit. Item
de Carolo Magno, quem Papa Adrianus
Imperatorem constituit. Idem de
Ottone I. , qui per Leonem creatus est
et Imperator est constitutus, ut his-
toric referunt. Sed ex depositione
principum auctoritate apostolica facta
satis apparet ipsorum potestas.
Primo enim invenimus de Zacbaria
hanc potestatem exercuisse super re gem
Fraucorum, quia ipsum a regno de-
posuit, et omnes barones a juramento
fidelitatis absolvit. Item de Innocentio
iil- qui Ottoni quarto imperium
abstulit: sed et Federioo sec undo hoc
idem accidit per Honorium Innocentii
immediatem successorem. Quamvis in
omnibus istis summi pontifices non
extenderunt manum, nisi ratione de-
lioti, quia ad hoo ordinatur eorum
potestas, et cujuslibet domini, ut
prosint gregi: unde merito pastores
vocantur quibus vigil an tia incumbit
ad subditorum utilitatem. Alias non
sunt legitime domini, sed tyranni, ut
probat philosophus, et dictum supra:
. . . Hoc ergo supposito, quod pro
utilitate gregis agatur, sicut Christus
intendit, omne supergreditur domi-
nium, ut ex dictis apparet: quod ex
visione Nabuchodonosor satis est mani-
? ? festum de statua. . . .
Sed post hseo
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 346 TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS. [PAKT II.
poral as well as spiritual power belongs to the Pope as the
representative of Peter and of Christ. His interpretation of
the Donation of Constantine is equally interesting and
significant, for he treats it not as the source of the temporal
power of the Pope, but as merely a recognition of what was
always there; and it is evident that this is not merely in-
cidental, but rather that it is an intrinsic part of his whole
conception. Christ, he says, was indeed the true lord and
monarch of the world, and Augustus was his representative,
although he did not know this. 1 Ptolemy discusses the
reasons why Christ did not at once assume that universal
authority in temporal as well as spiritual matters which
properly belonged to him, and contends that there were two
reasons for this : the first, that he might teach all princes
humility ; the second, that he might show men the difference
between his lordship and that of others. 2 Christ therefore
permitted the prince of the world to rule, both in his life-
time and after his death, until the kingdom should be complete
and ordered in his faithful subjects, and only then at the
fitting time did he cause Constantine to yield the dominion
to the vicar of Christ--that is, to Pope Sylvester, to whom
indeed of right it already belonged. 3
The emperors who succeeded Constantine, after the death
1 Id. id. , iii. 13: " Quia ille natus
erat qui verus erat mundi Dominus
et monarcha, cujus vices gerebat
Augustus licet non intelligens, sed
nutu Dei, sicut Caiphas propheta-
vit. "
Cf. id. id. , iii. 14 : " Sed tuna oritur
questio de isto domini principatu,
quando incepit, quia constat multos
imperasse, ipse vero abjectam vitam
elegit. . . . Ad hanc autem questionem
est responsio quia principatus Christi
incepit statim in ipsa sui nativitate
tempo rab. "
? Id. id. , 14, 15.
3 Id. id. , iii. 16 : " Et hino est quod
rex noster Christus principes seculi
permisit dominari, et eo vivente et eo
moriente, ad tempus, quousque vide-
licet suum regnum esset perfectum et
ordinatum in suis fidelibus, opera-
tionibus virtuosis, et eorum sanguine
laureatum. . . . Opportuno igitur tem-
pore, ut manifestaretur mundo regnum
Christi oompositum, virtus principis
nostri Jesu Christi principem mundi
sollicitavit, Coastantinum videlicet,
percutiens eum lepra ao ipsum curans
supra bum an am virtutem. Qua pro-
bata, in dominio cessit vicario Christi,
beato videlicet Silveetro, cui de jure
debebatur ex causis, et rationibus
superius assignatis: in qua quidem
cessions spirituali Christi regno adjunc-
tum est temporale, spirituali manente
in suo vigors : quia illud per se qus:ri
debet a Christi fidelibus, istud vero
secundario tamquam administrans
primo, aliter autem contra intentionem
sit Christi. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
347
of Julian, were obedient to the Eoman Church,1 but finally,
because the Emperor of Constantinople did not defend the
Eoman Church against the Lombards, the Pope called in the
Frank to protect it and transferred the empire from the
Greeks to the Germans, and thus showed that the authority
of the emperor depends upon the judgment of the Pope. 2
He illustrates this further by a discussion of the history of
the succession to the empire. With Charles the Great the
empire became hereditary, and this lasted to the seventh
generation. Then the Eoman Church was harassed by the
wicked Eomans, and summoned Otto the Duke of the Saxons
to its aid, and he was created emperor by Pope Leo. The
empire again was hereditary in his family until Otto III. 3
Then Gregory V. created the system and method of election,
and this will continue as long as the Eoman Church, which
has the supreme rank in authority, shall judge that it is
useful to the Christian people. *
The principle which is thus set out by Ptolemy of Lucca
that all temporal as well as spiritual power belongs to the
Pope, as the representative of Christ, is not in its essence
1 Id. id. , iii. 17.
* Id. id. , iii. 18: "Tuno igitur
gravata Ecclosia a Longobardis, et
Constantinopolis imperio auxilium non
ferente, quia forte non poterat, ejus
potentia diminuta, advocavit Romanus
pontifex ad sui defensionem contra
predictos barbaros regem Francorum.
Primo quidem Pipinum StephanusPapa,
et successor Zacharias contra Aistul-
phum regem Longobardorum ; deinde
Adrianus et Leo Carolum Magnum
contra Desiderium Aistulphi filium ;
quo extirpato, et devinclo cum sua
gente, propter tantum beneficium
Adrianus concilio celebrato Romrc
centum quinquaginta quinque episoo-
porum, et venerabilium abbatum, im-
perium in personam magnifici principis
Caroli a Graecis transtulit in Germanos ;
in quo facto satis ostenditur qualiter
potestas imperii ex judicio Papse
dependit. Quamdiu enim Constanti-
nopolis principes Romanam ecclesiam
defenderunt ut fecit Justinianus. . . .
ecclesia dictos principes fovit. Post-
quam vero defecerunt, ut tempore
Michaelis contemporanei Caroli, de
alio principe ad sui protectionem pro-
vidit. "
<< Id. id. , 19.
4 Id. id. , iii. 19 : " Et ex tunc, ut
historiss tradunt, per Gregorium quin-
tum, genere similiter Theutonicum,
provisa est electio, ut videlicet per
septem principes Alammaniss flat, qui
o
usque ad ista tempora perseverat, quod
est spatium ducentorum septuaginta
annorum, vel circa : et tantum durabit
quantum Romana Ecclesia, quse supre-
mum gradum in principatu tenet,
Christi fldelibus expediens judicaverit.
In quo casu, ut ex verbis Domini
supra inductis est manifestum, vide-
licet pro bono statu universalis ecclesise,
videtur vicarius Christi habere pleni-
? ? tudinem potestatis, cui competit dicta
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 348
[PABT n.
TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS.
different from that of Innocent IV. and the Canonists with
whose work we dealt in the last chapter, but it is stated in
even more explicit and dogmatic terms. We shall see in a
later chapter that the position of Ptolemy is much the same
as that of Henry of Cremona and others who represented
the extreme papalist view in the conflict between Boniface
VIII. and Philip the Fair.
We must now inquire what was the attitude of St Thomas
Aquinas to these conceptions. It has sometimes been said,
or at least suggested, that in substance at least he agreed
with them ; that is what we must consider.
We have already pointed out that St Thomas was clear
that the authority of the State was derived from God, and
that the function of the temporal order was to lead men to
a life of virtue and to that heavenly blessedness which is the
true end of life. 1 St Thomas, that is, recognised the lofty
character and the high purpose of the temporal power, but
he was also clear that there was a greater and more excellent
authority in the world than this. There is an important
passage in his own part of the ' De Eegimine Principum ' in
which he sets this out. The final end of life of the multitude
gathered together in society is not the. life of virtue, but is
to attain through the life of virtue to the fruition of the
divine, and to this end man needs a rule which is not only
human but also divine. This belongs to Christ, who is not
only man but God, king, and priest, and from Him is derived
the royal priesthood, and all the faithful, insomuch as they
are His members, are both kings and priests. The ministry
(ministerium) of this kingdom, in order that spiritual things
may be distinguished from earthly, belongs not to the earthly
kings but to the priests, and above all to the chief priest,
the successor of Peter, the vicar of Christ, the Eoman Pontiff,
to whom all kings of the Christian people ought to be subject,
as to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, for those who have the
charge of the lower ends must be subject to him who has the
charge of the final end, and must be directed by his author-
1 Cf. p. 33.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWEK OF THE PAPACY. 349
ity. It was suitable that the priests of the heathen, and even
of the Old Testament, should have been subject to the kings,
for the purpose and promises of these systems of religion
were concerned with temporal prosperity, but the priesthood
of the new law is more lofty, for it leads men to a heavenly
good, and therefore in the law of Christ kings must be subject
to priests. 1
With this careful statement we must compare a very
important passage in the ' Summa Theologica. ' St Thomas,
in discussing the question of usurped jurisdictions, maintains
that the spiritual power does not commit an act of usurpation
when it interferes in these temporal matters in which the
secular power is subject to it, or in those which are left to it
by the secular power. 2
1 St Thomas Aquinas, ' De Regi-
mine Principum,' i. 14: '* Non est
ergo ultimus finis multitudinis con-
gregate vivere secundum virtutem,
sed per virtuosam vitam pervenire
ad fruitionem divinam. . . . Sed quia
finem fruitionis divinse non consequitur
homo per virtutem humanam, sed
virtute divina, juxta illud apostoli
Roman, vi. ' Gratia Dei vita eterna ':
perducere ad illam finem non humani
erit, sed divini regiminis. Ad ilium
igitur regem hujusmodi regimen per-
tinet, qui non est solum homo, sed
etiam Deus, scilicet ad dominum nos-
trum Jesum Christum, qui homines
filios Dei faciens in coelestem gloriam
introduxit. Hoc igitur est regimen ei
traditum quod non corrumpetur:
propter quod non solum sacerdos, sed
rex in scripturis sacris nominatur,
dicente Hierem. xxiii. * Regnabit rex
et sapiens erit. ' Unde ab eo regale
sacerdotium derivatur. Et quod est
amplius, omnes Christi fideles in quan-
tum sunt membra ejus, reges et sneer-
dotes dicuntur. Hujus ergo regni
ministerium, ut a terrenis essent
spiritualia distincta, non terrenis regi-
bus, sed sacerdotibus est commissum,
et precipue summo sacerdoti successori
Petri, Christi Vieario, Romano ponti-
fici, cui omnes reges populi Christiani
oportet esse subditos, sicut ipsi Domino
Jesu Christo. Sic enim ei ad quem
finis ultimi cura pertinet, subdi debent
illi, ad quos pertinet cura anteceden-
tium finium, et ejus imperio dirigi.
Quia igitur sacerdotium gentilium, et
totus divinorum cultus erat propter
temporalia bona conquirenda, quse
omnia ordinantur ad multitudinis
bonum commune, cujus regi cura
incumbit, convenienter sacerdotcs gen-
tilium regi bus subdebantur. Sed et
quia in veteri lege promittebantur bona
torrena, non a dsemonibus, sed a Deo
vero religioso populo exhibenda, inde
et in lege veteri sacerdotes regibus
leguntur fuisse subjecti. Sed in nova
lege est sacerdotium altius, per quod
homines traducuntur ad bona coelestia :
unde et in lege Christi reges debent
sacerdotibus esse subjecti. "
? ? >> Id. , ' Summa Theologica,' 2, 2,
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 350 TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL POWERS. [PART II.
These passages certainly do not suggest that St Thomas
conceived of the Pope as holding the temporal power; in
the first he seems clearly to mean that it is for the head of
the spiritual power to guide and direct the temporal towards
the final end of life, and to exercise authority over it with
regard to that final end ; in the second he seems carefully
to limit and circumscribe its temporal authority.
St Thomas is indeed clear that the subjects of a secular
ruler, who has been excommunicated on the ground of apostasy,
are absolved from their oath of allegiance, and that the
Church has power to excommunicate and thus to depose
auch a ruler. He discusses this under the terms of the question
whether the prince, who apostatises from his faith, loses his
authority over his subjects. After stating various arguments
against this, he quotes Gregory VII. (as from Gratian,
' Decretum,' Causa 15, 6, 4) as declaring that he absolved
from their oath of fealty all those who owed allegiance to an
excommunicated person. He then carefully states his own
judgment that unbelief does not in itself affect the
validity of political authority, for, as we have seen in an
earlier chapter, St Thomas fully recognises its validity among
non-Christian peoples. 1 The Church has authority to punish
those who have been believers and become infidels, as it may
also sometimes do for other faults ; and thus, as soon as a
ruler has been excommunicated on the ground of apostasy,
his subjects are ipso facto released from his rule and from
their oaths of allegiance. 2 St Thomas, that is, seems clearly
secularis subditur spirituali, sicut corpus
animse ; ed ideo non est usurpatum
judicium, si spirituals prelatus se
intromittat de temporalibus quantum
ad ea, in qubus subditur ei eecularis
potestas, vel quaa ei a seculari potestaie
relinquuntur. "
1 Cf. p. 34.
>> Id. id. , 2, 2, 12, 2. " Sed contra
est quod Gregorius VII. dicit (Gratian,
' Decretum,' C. 15, 6, i). ' Nos sanc-
torum predecessorum statuta tenentes
eos, qui excommunicatis fidelitate, aut
juramenti sacramento sunt constricti,
apoetolica auctoritate a sacramento
absolvimus; et ne eis fidelitatem
observent, omnibus mud is prohibemus,
quousque ad satisfactionem veniant. '
Sed apostate a fide sunt exoommunicati
sicut et heretici, ut dicit Deoretalis
extra, de hereticis Cap. ' ad abolen-
dum' (Decretals, v. 7, 9); ergo
principibus apostantibus a fide non
est obediendum.
Respondeo dicendum, quod sicut
supra dictum est, infidelitas, secundum
seipsam, non repugnat dominio; eo
quod dominium introduction est de
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:49 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/uc1. b3318617 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. VI. ] TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY.
351
to maintain the Hildebrandine principle that, at least for
certain offences, the Church has the right to excommunicate
and depose princes.
This, however, is not the same thing as the doctrine that
the spiritual authority, in principle, also holds all temporal
authority. There are only, as far as we have seen, two passages
in the works of St Thomas which seem to have this meaning.
The first is contained in one of his early works, the Com-
mentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, and this is a
very curious and interesting passage, both for what it denies
and what it asserts. When, St Thomas says, an inferior
and a superior authority are both derived from a supreme
authority, neither is subject to the other, except in respect
of those things in which it has been subjected to the other
by the supreme power. This is the case with the spiritual
and secular authorities, which are both derived from the
divine authority. In those things which pertain to the salva-
tion of the soul, the secular power has been subjected by
God to the spiritual and must obey it. The spiritual power
must, on the other hand, obey the secular in matters which
belong to the " bonum civile. " St Thomas is denying any
general authority of the ecclesiastical over the political
authority, he is clearly enforcing the traditional Gelasian
principle of the distinctive character of the two powers.
He proceeds, however, to make one exception--that is,
in the case of the Pope. This (i. e. , the foregoing statement),
he says, is true, unless perchance the secular is combined with
jure gentium, quod est jus humanum :
distinctio autem fidelium et infidelium
est secundum jus divinum, per quod
non tollitur jus humanum ; sed aliquis
per infidelitatem peccans potest sen-
tentialiter jus dominii amittere, sicut
etiam quaudoque propter alias culpas.
Ad ecclesiam autem non pertinet
punire infidelitatem in illis qui nun-
quam fidem susceperunt, secundum
ilium Apost. i. ad Cor. v. ' Quid mi hi
de his, qui foris sunt, judicare. ' Sed
infidelitatem illorum qui fidem susce-
perunt, potest sententialiter punire :
et convenienter in hoc puniuntur, quod
subditis fidelibus dominari non pos-
smt : hoc enim vergoro posset in
magnam fidei corruptionem; quia,
ut dictum est, * homo apostata pravo
corde machinatur malum, et iurgia
seminat,' intendeus homines separaro
a fide ; et ideo quam cito aliquis per
sententiam denuntiatur excommuni-
catus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso
facto ejus subditi sunt absoluti a
dominio ejus, et juramento fidelitatis
quo ei tenebantur. "
? ?
