Annotation LXXII

”To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 16:19

Whether the supreme pontiff has the power of secular rule.

John Ferus, in the third book of the Commentaries on Matthew, coming to the explanation of this passage, seems to take away from Peter, and from his successors, all power of earthly principate, and [all] dominion over temporal things, when he writes thus: “Thirdly, this too is to be observed — that he expressly says, ‘To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ He does not say, ‘of the kingdom of the earth.’ These words regard nothing of earthly power — which, nevertheless, [some] strive to establish from these words, asserting that Peter received the plenitude of power not only in spiritual [matters], but also in external [ones]. Which [claim] Bernard, in the first book On Consideration to Eugene, manifestly refutes: ‘In crimes,’ he says, ‘not in possessions, is your power; since for the sake of the former, and not for the sake of the latter, you received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ And there follows: ‘Which power seems to you the greater — [that] of remitting sins, or [that] of dividing estates? These earthly and lowest [matters] have their own judges — the kings and princes of the earth. Why do you invade others’ boundaries? Why do you extend your sickle into another’s harvest? Why do you wish to be greater than the Lord? — who, being interpellated by a certain [man] saying, “Tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me,” answered, “Who appointed me a judge over you?”¹ — and so forth.’” These [things] from Bernard, [reports] Ferus, adding a little below these [words]: “You have heard that it was said to Peter, ‘To thee I will give the keys.’ These keys, as I said, are not material, but metaphorically signify power. Power, therefore, Peter received — not any earthly [power], such that he might, namely, give, take away, [or] alienate kingdoms, principalities, etc.; nor such a power that it should be lawful for him to do whatever he pleased (which most [men] dream); but he received the power of binding and loosing, of remitting sins and retaining [them], of opening and closing — and that not at his own pleasure, but as a minister, fulfilling the will of the Lord.”

Thus far Ferus — or rather some other [person] under the name of Ferus. For there are not lacking trustworthy witnesses who assert for certain that his commentaries on Mat-

[his commentaries on] Matthew were, after the author’s death, before they were printed, corrupted by heretics — especially in this passage. John Calvin, the heresiarch of our times, in that impious Institution of his, chapter 8, abuses the same testimony of Bernard against the pontifical dignity — which [testimony], however, if — private hatreds laid aside — it be considered with an even mind, does not infer that which Calvin wrongly gathers from it, namely, that the Roman pontiff has no right in secular kingdoms. For to whom would it be credible that Bernard held such [views] — [Bernard] who, writing to the same pontiff, and in the same books, ascribes to him the true power of both spiritual and temporal [things], and girds him with each sword — the ecclesiastical, namely, and the royal? In the third volume of the work already cited he freely confesses, and clearly pronounces, that there is in the Roman bishop not only the pontifical majesty of Aaron the high priest, but also that jurisdiction of political principate which of old was in Samuel the judge, in Moses the leader, in Melchizedek the king and priest. For thus he addresses Pope Eugene: “Come, let us investigate yet more diligently who thou art — that is, what character thou bearest for the time in the Church of God. Who art thou? A great priest, the supreme pontiff. Thou [art] the prince of bishops, thou the heir of the apostles; thou in primacy [art] Abel, in governance Noah, in patriarchate Abraham, in order Melchizedek, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judgeship Samuel, in power Peter, in unction Christ.” And in the fifth book of the same volume, speaking of both swords, he addresses the pontiff in these words: “Why dost thou attempt anew to usurp the sword, which thou wast once bidden to put into [its] sheath? — which [sword], nevertheless, whoever denies to be thine seems to me not sufficiently to attend to the word of the Lord, who says thus: ‘Put up thy sword into the sheath.’ It, then, is also thine own — to be drawn, perhaps, at thy nod, though not by thy hand. Otherwise, if it in no way pertained to thee, when the apostles said, ‘Behold, [there are] two swords here,’² the Lord would not have answered, ‘It is enough,’ but, ‘It is too much.’ Both swords, therefore, are the Church’s — the spiritual, namely, and the material; but the one [is to be wielded] for the Church, the other also by the Church: the one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of the soldier — yet, to be sure, at the nod of the priest and the command of the emperor. And of this [I have spoken] elsewhere.” These [things says] Bernard — from which it is clear that he did not take away from the Roman pontiff the dominion of a temporal kingdom, but rather conferred [it].

But you will say: How, then, are his premised words — which seem contrary to these — to be understood? John of Torquemada, cardinal-priest, in the second book of the Summa on the Church, chapter 113, weighing Bernard’s words, says that the power over temporal things is twofold — the monarchical, namely, and the pastoral. Now he calls “monarchy” that [power] which constitutes a man the monarch of the universe — that is, which so makes him the supreme and singular lord of all lands, that it is lawful for him not only to claim for himself the right and name of monarch, but also to take up subjects of his own dominion into [the governance of] principalities, kingdoms, and empires, howsoever it seem [good] to him; and to depose those [thus] taken up, even without cause, from those same kingdoms, and to transfer those kingdoms from one [person] to another at the discretion of his own will. This kind of power, therefore, he judges that the Roman pontiff cannot, by the right of the pontificate, usurp to himself.

Since indeed, whereas he is himself the successor of the apostolate of Peter, he cannot by apostolic right arrogate to himself that which Christ forbade to Peter and the Apostles, when — as they were disputing among themselves about the monarchy of a temporal kingdom — he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those who are greater exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be greater among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be first among you, shall be your servant:³ even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,” etc. Nor do the Roman pontiffs deny this — who, in their decrees, distinction 96, chapter Cum ad verum, confess that it is not lawful for them to snatch the titles and rights of emperors, and to usurp the secular dominions of princes.

But the pastoral power over temporal things is that which it befits the ecumenical pastor of the whole Christian world to have, from the office of pastoral care, for the preservation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and for the administration and dispensation of the spiritual goods of the Church. This [power] indeed the Roman pontiff is bound to have by apostolic right and evangelical precept. For since it was commanded him by Christ that — as the pastor of the universal Christian sheepfold — he should feed the whole flock of Christ, and to him the keys were given, by which, as the doorkeeper and key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom, he might bring the sheep entrusted to him into eternal felicity: it is necessary that he take care of princes, kings, and emperors — who are the chief sheep of the Christian flock — and strive with the utmost diligence that their dignities, empires, kingdoms, and other earthly advantages may serve for the illustration of Christ’s glory, for the propagation of the worship of the Christian religion, for the strengthening of the Church’s peace, and for the attaining of the beatitude of the eternal kingdom — to which, as to the mark and ultimate end of ruling, all the kingdoms of Christian kings look. It is necessary also that he himself employ a huge and assiduous solicitude, lest through the negligence or malice of secular princes heresies, schisms, dissensions, wars, and other things like these arise among the sheep committed to [his] apostolic care; and, if they have arisen, it is his part first to admonish paternally the princes who are disturbers of ecclesiastical peace, and to correct and rebuke [them] according to the law of Paul and of Christ; then, if they neglect the admonitions, to coerce them with ecclesiastical animadversions and censures. But if, perchance — given over to a reprobate sense — they despise these too: then the pontiff (if, nevertheless, he shall know it to be expedient for ecclesiastical tranquility) will be able to absolve the peoples from the oath of obedience by which they had bound themselves to those lords, while [the latter] still ruled justly. It will also be lawful for him to deprive those lords themselves — as incorrigible and rebels against the Church — of the jurisdiction of their principalities, and to transfer their rights to other orthodox princes; summoning also, if need be, the military aids of pious dukes and kings for the correction of the rebelling sons. Which [thing] the gravest writers testify was of old, and often, and by right, done by the Roman pontiffs — among whom Innocent, pontiff, the first of that name, on account of the unjust expulsion of John Chrysostom, marked with anathema Arcadius Augustus; whose father, Theodosius the Great, Augustus, St. Ambrose — on account of the slaughter of certain inno-

[on account of the slaughter of certain] innocent Christians, not long before had expelled from the Church. Gelasius the First bound Anastasius the Emperor — [who] thought not rightly concerning religion — with the bond of excommunication. Zacharias the First cast down Carloman, king of the Franks, from the royal dignity, because he was useless in administering the kingdom, Pippin — his brother, and the father of Charlemagne — being substituted in his place. Hadrian the First compelled Desiderius, king of the Lombards, hastening to the sacking of the city of Rome, by pontifical edict to return into Insubria; and, Charlemagne, king of the Franks, being summoned, shook off the Lombard yoke from the neck of Italy. Gregory the Third interdicted the emperor Leo the Third from the communion of the faithful, because he had caused all the sacred images to be cast out of the churches. Leo the Third, pontiff, when he saw the care of the Christian commonwealth neglected by the Greek emperors, transferred the rights of the Roman empire from Constantine, son of Irene, to Charlemagne, king of the Franks; and conferred on him the title of Augustus and the insignia of emperor. Leo the Eighth again, for just causes, transferred the empire from the Franks to the Germans, and named Otto, duke of the Saxons, the first emperor from Germany; and not long after, Gregory the Fifth granted to the German princes the perpetual right of electing the Caesars — the authority of confirming those whom they should have elected being nevertheless reserved to himself and to his successors. Gregory the Seventh interdicted the emperor Henry the Third [IV], rebelling against the Apostolic See, from all sacred [things], and deposed [him] from the empire; nor did he restore him to his former dignity except [when] begging pardon for [his] error. Alexander the Third permitted the emperor Frederick Barbarossa — ensnared with anathema and cast down from the imperial majesty, because he assailed the Roman Church with an unjust war — not to be recalled to the empire before he, [as] a suppliant, should beg that his fault be forgiven him. I pass over, for the sake of brevity, Urban the Second, by whose edict, standard, and watchword that holy and memorable war against the Saracens was accomplished, by which the kingdoms of Jerusalem and Syria were again received [back] by the Christians. I omit Gregory the Fourth, Leo the Fourth, Nicholas the First, John the Eighth, and very many other pontiffs, who by warlike expeditions vindicated into liberty Italy, Sicily, and various shores of Spain, snatched from the servitude of the Saracens. All which [things], indeed, since neither they themselves could bring to effect without a certain procuration, administration, and jurisdiction over temporal things, nor can other pontiffs fulfill such offices of the pastoral duty without that same jurisdiction: it is manifest that the supreme prelate of the Christian religion has, over the earthly resources of the whole Christian commonwealth, a certain pastoral, administrative, and dispensatory power and authority — such as it befits the ecumenical pastor of the Christian world to have.

These [things], therefore, being weighed in this way, to those [objections] which John Calvin and John Ferus raise from Bernard, we reply that that blessed man [Bernard] did not write such [things] with the intent of taking away from the Roman pontiff the pastoral power of administering and dispensing temporal things — [a power] which he himself proved, as we have now shown, by most abundant testimony; but that he [wrote them] to admonish the Roman

pontiff not to usurp to himself, by apostolic right, the monarchical domination over secular possessions — [a domination] forbidden to the apostles by Christ. Which [thing] he himself indicated not obscurely, when, in the second book of the aforesaid work — after he had discoursed much about the pontiff’s authority — he at last added: “The apostolic form, therefore, is this: domination is forbidden, ministration is enjoined.” Subscribing to whom, St. Thomas, in the Secunda Secundae, question 100, article 1, says: “Although the goods of the Church belong to the Pope as the chief dispenser, yet they are not his as [their] lord and possessor.”