Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 5: That the Election of Ministers Is Not Made by God Alone
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
These things, then, about ordination and vocation being premised, let us come to election, about which the chief question is; and let this be the third proposition: “The election of the ministers of the Church is not made by God alone by reason of predestination — that is, because He alone knows who are predestined.” This proposition is asserted against the errors of John Wycliffe and John Hus, who were condemned in the Council of Constance. For in session 8 is condemned this article of Wycliffe, which is the eighth: “If the Pope is foreknown [as reprobate] and wicked, he has no power over the faithful.” And again that which is article 40, and is deduced from the eighth: “The election of the Pope by the cardinals was introduced by the devil.” And in session 15 are condemned these articles of John Hus. Article 22: “A Pope or prelate who is wicked and foreknown [as reprobate] is a pastor only equivocally.” Article 26, which is deduced from 22: “Not by the very fact that the electors, or the greater part of them, have consented by living voice, according to the rites of men, upon some person, is that person thereby lawfully elected; whence, whether the electors have elected well or ill, we ought to believe by the works of the one elected.” Thus he.
This error is refuted and our opinion is confirmed. First, by the example of God Himself, who does not always elect the predestined to political or ecclesiastical governance. For (1 Kings 10) God elected Saul, who nevertheless afterward was reprobate. And Christ (John 6) elected Judas, who is established to have been by no means predestined: “Have I not,” He says, “chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”
Secondly, by the examples of the Apostles, who (Acts 6) elected deacons, and among them Nicholas, who afterward was a heresiarch. From which it appears that they did not labor, in the election, over whether those whom they elected were predestined or reprobate, since they well understood that this could not be known.
Thirdly, from the Fathers. Origen (homily 4 on the book of Judges) teaches and demonstrates that often the divine providence, to punish the sins of peoples, brings it about that the impious sit at the helm both of kingdoms and of churches. And Chrysostom (in the last homily on the epistle to the Hebrews), Augustine (Book II, chapter 4, against the letter of Parmenian), and Bernard (sermon 66 on the Canticle) teach that bad men can be true bishops if they be lawfully elected — which Saint Bernard also confirms from that testimony of John 11 concerning Caiaphas: “Being the high priest of that year, he prophesied.” For Caiaphas, though wicked and reprobate, was nevertheless high priest, since for the sake of that dignity God gave him to prophesy.
Fourthly, by reason. If God alone elected the pastors of the Church, He would do it either by His will alone, without any external and visible sign, or certainly by some visible sign. If the first be affirmed, of what profit to us would such an election be? For we should never know who was the pastor of the Church. If the second, either that sign would be prodigious and beyond the order of nature, as the descent of a dove, or some heavenly brightness; or certainly, in place of a sign, lots would have to be taken, in the way that the Apostles (Acts 1), desiring Saint Matthias to be elected by God alone, used lots. But those prodigies of the dove and of light are wont to be most rare; certainly at this time we by no means see them.
But to use lots, when a matter can be transacted by human counsel, is in no way lawful. For lots are thought to be governed either by chance, or by heaven, or by the devil, or by God. If by chance, it is foolish that men endowed with reason should wish to elect their pastors by lots, and commit to the rashness of fortune what they could determine by maturity of counsel. If by heaven, it is a vice of superstition to use lots in elections of this kind; for heaven has no power of governing free actions, such as are to cast or draw lots. If by the devil, it is impious and sacrilegious to make the devil the author of sacred things. If, finally, by God, it is a sin of tempting God to seek and await from God that He Himself direct the lots, when He neither promised that He would do this, nor is human counsel lacking. Wherefore the Church deservedly disapproved the manner of electing prelates by lots (chapter Ecclesia, in the title On Divinations). Which manner Jerome too reprehends (on the first chapter of Jonah), and Bede (on the first chapter of Acts).
But, you will say, Solomon (Proverbs 16) asserts that lots are governed by God, when he says: “Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.” I answer that Solomon meant to say that all things are governed by the divine providence, even if they seem to us to happen plainly by a certain chance, as that which befalls someone by lot. Now the divine providence is discerned in lots, not because he who is elected by lot is always better, but because, whether he be better or worse, he is not elected without God’s providence — which providence is discerned in all other events, however most fortuitous. Accordingly this common providence does not take away chance, nor make it better to elect the prelates of the Church by lot than by votes.
Nor does the example of Saint Matthias, who was elected by lot, contradict these things. For, first, those were perhaps not lots properly so called, but some heavenly light poured by God upon Matthias, as Dionysius the Areopagite seems to indicate (On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 5, part 3). Or certainly those were true and proper lots, but a privilege and a peculiar inspiration of God was the cause why the Apostles used them. For because the other Apostles had been elected by Christ, lest Saint Matthias should seem inferior to the rest, the same Christ perhaps wished to elect him by Himself; and so He inspired the Apostles to use a lot. But a privilege, as Jerome noted (on the first chapter of Jonah), ought not to be drawn into an example for ordinary elections. Or, lastly, the Apostles wished to use lots in that election without any privilege, because Matthias and Barnabas were so equal in holiness and doctrine that by human judgment it could not be discerned which should be preferred. For in cases of that kind the use of lots is lawful, both because God is not tempted when that is sought from Him which cannot be declared by human judgment, and because there is no danger whoever comes out by lot, even if he came out plainly by chance, when those about whose promotion the question is are equal; and the matter of complaints is taken away, and injury is done to none.
Wherefore that lots are to be used in cases of that kind Saint Augustine teaches (Book I On Christian Doctrine, chapter 28, and in letter 180 to Honoratus). In the way that among the Jews, out of many priests, one was elected by lot who at a certain time should burn incense to the Lord; whence is that of Luke 1: “It came forth by lot that Zachary should offer incense,” and so on. And that the Apostles looked to this rite in the election of Saint Matthias, Ambrose testifies (on the first chapter of Luke), and Bede (on the first chapter of Acts).
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT y. Electionem Ministrorum non fieri a solo Deo. His igitur de ordinatione, et vocatione praemissis, ad electionem, de qua praecipua quaestio est, veniamus : sitque haec tertia propositio : « Electio Ministrorum Ecclesiae non fit a solo Deo ratione praedestinationis id est, quia solus novit qui sint praedesti¬ nati. » Haec propositio asseritur adversus errores Joannis Wiclef. et Joannis Huss, qui damnati sunt in Concilio Constantiensi : nam sess. VIII damnatur hic articulus Wiclefi, qui est octavus : « Si Papa sit praescitus, et malus, non habet potestatem super fideles. » Et rursus iste, qui est art. 40, quique ex octavo deducitur : « Electio Papae a Cardi¬ nalibus. per Diabolum est introducta. » Ses¬ sione autem XV, damnantur hi articuli Joan¬ nis Huss. Articulus 22 : « Papa vel praelatus malus, et praescitus, est aequivoce Pastor. » Articulus 26. qui deducitur ex 22 : « Non eo ipso quo electores, vel major pars eorum consenserit viva voce secundum ritus homi¬ num in personam aliquam, eo ipso illa per¬ sona est legitime electa : unde sive electores bene, vel male elegerint, operibus electi de¬ bemus credere. » Haec ille. Refellitur iste error, ac sententia nostra comprobatur. Primum exemplo ipsius Dei, qui non semper eligit praedestinatos ad gu¬ bernacula politica, vel Ecclesiastica. Nam I. Reg. X, Saulem Deus elegit, qui tamen postea reprobus fuit. Et Christus Joannis VI Judam elegit, quem constat minime praedes¬ tinatum fuisse : « Nonne inquit, ego vos (1) Matth. XVI, 19 ; Joan. XXI, 17. Id. XX, 21 et 23. — (2) Tit. I, 5. 424 LIBER I. duodecim elegi, et unus ex vobis Diabolus est. » Secundo exemplis Apostolorum, qui Act. VI. elegerunt Diaconos, et inter eos Nico¬ laum, qui postea fuit haeresiarcha. Ex quo apparet eos non laborasse in electione, essent ne praedestinati, an reprobi, quos eligebant cum satis intelligerent id sciri non posse. Tertio ex Patribus. Origenes hom. 4. in lib. Judicum docet ac demonstrat, saepe di¬ vinam providentiam ad punienda peccata populorum efficere, ut impii sedeant ad gu¬ bernacula tum Regnorum, tum etiam Eccle¬ siarum. Ghrysostomus autem hom. postre¬ ma in epist. ad Hebr. August, lib. II, cap. 4. contra epistolam Parmeniani : et Bernardus serm. 66. in Cantica, docent, homines ma¬ los veros Episcopos esse posse si legitime eligantur, id quod etiam confirmat S. Ber¬ nardus ex testimonio illo Joan. XI de Cai- pha : Dum esset Pontifex anni illius propheta¬ vit (I). Fuit enim Caiphas, etsi iniquus et reprobus, tamen Pontifex, cum ejus dignita¬ tis gratia Deus ei dederit, ut prophetaret. Quarto ratione. Si solus Deus eligeret Pas¬ tores Ecclesiae, aut id faceret sola sua volun¬ tate, sine ullo signo externo et visibili, aut certe visibili aliquo signo ; si primum affir¬ metur, quid nobis ejusmodi electio prodes¬ set? Numquam enim sciremus quis Eccle¬ siae esset Pastor ; si secundum, aut signum illud esset prodigiosum, ac praeter ordinem naturae, ut columbae descensus, aut coelestis aliquis fulgor, aut certe loco signi accipien¬ dae essent sortes, quomodo Apostoli Actor. I. cupientes S. Matthiam eligi a solo Deo, sortibus usi sunt. At prodigia illa columbae, et luminis rarissima esse solent ; certe hoc tempore minime ea videmus. Sortibus autem uti, cum humano consilio res transigi potest, nullo modo licet. Nam aut sortes existimantur gubernari a casu, aut a coelo, aut a Diabolo, aut a Deo. Si a casu, stultum est homines ratione praeditos velle sortibus eligere Pastores suos, et com¬ mittere fortunae temeritati, quod poterant consilii maturitate definire : si a coelo, super¬ stitionis vitium est uti sortibus in ejusmodi electionibus. Neque enim coelum vim habet moderandi liberas actiones, quales sunt' jacere sortes, vel educere : si a Diabolo, im¬ pium, et sacrilegum est, rerum sacrarum auctorem Diabolum facere : si denique a Deo, peccatum est tentationis Dei, expetere, atque expectare a Deo, ut ipse sortes diri¬ gat, quando neque ipse id se facturum pro¬ misit, neque deest humanum consilium. Quo¬ circa Ecclesia rationem eligendi praelatos sortibus, merito improbavit, capite Ecclesia, extra de Sortilegiis. Quam rationem repre¬ hendunt etiam Hieronymus in caput. I Jonae, et Beda in cap. I. Actor. At, inquies, Salomon Proverb. XVI. asse¬ rit sortes a Deo gubernari, cum ait : Sortes mittuntur in sinum , a Domino autem temperan¬ tur (2). Respondeo, Salomonem dicere vo¬ luisse omnia gubernari a divina providentia, etiamsi nobis plane casu quodam fieri videan¬ tur, ut id, quod sorte alicui contingit. Porro divina providentia in sortibus cernitur, non quod semper qui sorte eligitur sit melior, sed quod sive melior, sive pejor sit, non sine Dei providentia eligatur; qualis providentia in omnibus aliis eventibus, quamvis maxime fortuitis, cernitur. Proinde non tollit ista communis providentia casum ; neque facit ut melius sit sorte praepositos Ecclesiae eli¬ gere, quam suffragiis. Neque his repugnat exemplum S. Matthiae, qui sorte electus fuit. Nam in primis non fuerunt fortasse illae sortes proprie dictae, sed coeleste aliquod lumen super Matthiam a Deo effusum, ut indicare videtur Dionysius Areopagita de Eccles. hierarch. cap. 5, par. 3. Aut certe sortes illae verae, ac pro¬ priae fuerunt, sed privilegium, atque inspi¬ ratio Dei peculiaris causa fuit, cur iis Apos¬ toli uterentur. Quia enim Apostoli ceeteri a Christo electi fuerant, ne videretur S. Mat- thias caeteris inferior, voluit fortasse idem Christus per se illum eligere. Itaque inspira¬ vit Apostolis, ut sorte uterentur. Sed privi¬ legium, ut Hieronymus notavit in caput I Jonae, non debet trahi in exemplum ordina¬ riarum electionum. Aut postremo sine ullo privilegio sortibus Apostoli in ea electione uti voluerunt, quod Matthias et Barnabas adeo essent pares sanctitate, et doctrina, ut humano judicio discerni non posset uter praeponendus esset. In ejusmodi enim casi¬ bus licitus est sortium usus, tum quia non tentatur Deus, cum id ab eo exquiritur, quod humano judicio declarari non potest, tum quia nullum est periculum, quicumque sorte exeat, etiamsi plane casu exiret, quando pa¬ res sunt, de quibus praeficiendis agitur, et (1) Joan. XI, 49. — (2) Prov. XVI, 33. CAPUT VI. 425 tollitur materia querimoniarum, nullique fit injuria. Quapropter sortibus utendum esse in ejus¬ modi casibus, docet S. August. lib. I doctri¬ nae Christianae, cap. 28 et in epist. 180. ad Honoratum. Quomodo apud Judaeos ex mul¬ tis sacerdotibus sorte eligebatur unus, qui certo tempore thus Domino adoleret ; unde est illud Luc. I : Sorte exiit, ut Zacharias in¬ censum poneret , etc. (1) Atque ad hunc ritum respexisse Apostolos in electione S. Matthise testantur Ambrosius in cap. I Lucae, et Be- da in cap. I Actor.