Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 7: The Fifth Proposition
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).
“The right of electing the supreme Pontiff and the other pastors and ministers of the Church does not belong to the people by divine right. But if the people could ever do anything in this matter, it had this wholly from the connivance or concession of the Pontiffs.” This proposition is properly established against the Lutherans and Calvinists. And it is proved, first, by the example of Aaron and the testimony of Blessed Paul; for the Apostle writes (Hebrews 5) that no one ought to take the honor to himself unless he be called by God, as Aaron; and yet Aaron was elected high priest by Moses alone, without any consent or counsel of the multitude.
Secondly, the same is proved by the example and word of Christ; for Christ says to the Apostles (John 20): “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.” Wherefore He willed that the Apostles govern the Church by that power and in that manner by which He Himself had governed it at the time when He exhibited His presence to the world. But He Himself elected first the twelve Apostles, and then the seventy-two disciples, without any counsel or vote of the multitude.
Thirdly, from divine law, both natural and written. For by written divine law the bishops are the pastors of the people, and the people are the sheep (John, last chapter; Acts 20; 1 Peter 5). And natural reason most openly teaches that it does not belong to the sheep to feed and rule, but to be ruled and fed. But that to elect pastors pertains to governance and rule is most certain; therefore it does not belong to the people to elect pastors.
You will object perhaps that in an earthly commonwealth the people are called sheep and the kings pastors, and yet the election of the king pertains to the people. I answer that the reasoning of an earthly commonwealth is one, and of the heavenly, that is, the Christian commonwealth, another. For in an earthly commonwealth all men are born naturally free, and accordingly the people itself has political power immediately, until it has transferred it to some king. But the Christian commonwealth never had such liberty, since with it were born its King and Pastor; for Christ at once instituted the Church and set Peter over it. Then the people in an earthly commonwealth can elect a king only when it lacks a king; but the Church never lacks a king, for Christ always lives, and there are also always in the Church some bishops who can elect and create new pastors.
Fourthly, the same is proved by the example of the Apostles, who everywhere elected bishops without any vote of the multitude — as is plain even from this, that they sent bishops created by themselves to peoples absent and infidel. Nor does the answer of Kemnitz avail anything, who (in the Examination of the Council of Trent, in the disputation on the Sacrament of Order) writes that the bishops whom the Apostles sent to the infidels were wont to be elected by the people of that Church where they were ordained. For those who say that elections pertain to the people by divine right give this reason: that the people may not receive a pastor whom it neither knows nor desires. Accordingly they will have it that by divine right the election of the people’s own bishop, not of another’s, pertains to the people. Then by what right can one people elect the bishop of another people? Finally, whence does Kemnitz prove that the bishops whom the Apostles sent were elected by the people of that Church where they were ordained?
Fifthly, our same conclusion is proved from the decrees of the ancient Councils. And first the Council of Laodicea (canon 13) has thus: “It is not to be permitted to the crowds to make the election of those who are to be promoted to the priesthood.” Nor does Calvin’s answer avail, who so interprets that canon as to mean that the crowds are not excluded by it from election, but only that it is established that not the crowds alone elect, but that the elders too be present. For since the elders were always present, the Council would have established nothing at all, if Calvin’s interpretation were true.
Besides, in the Council of Pope Martin, in Martin of Braga (chapter 1 of the decrees), we read thus: “Finally, it is not lawful for the people to make the election of those who are promoted to the priesthood, but let it be in the judgment of the bishops.” Likewise the Second Council of Nicaea (canon 3) has thus: “Every election made by magistrates of a bishop, or priest, or deacon shall remain void. For he who is to be promoted to the episcopate ought to be elected by bishops.” Finally the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is the eighth general (canon 28): “The holy and universal Synod defines that none of the lay princes or powerful men thrust himself into the election or promotion of a patriarch, or metropolitan, or of any bishop — especially since it is fitting that any powerful man, or any of the other laity, have no power in such things, but rather be silent and attend to himself, until the election of the future pontiff receive its end regularly from the college of the Church.”
Sixthly, the same is proved by the examples or testimonies of the ancients who flourished after the Apostles. Saint Jerome (in letter 85 to Evagrius): “At Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the priests always named as bishop one elected from themselves, placed in a higher grade.” Thus he. By which he teaches openly enough that at Alexandria in most ancient times the bishops were wont to be elected not by the people but by the priests. Rufinus (Book X of the history, chapter 9) writes that Frumentius was made bishop of the Indians by Saint Athanasius, the Indians themselves neither knowing nor thinking anything about it. Epiphanius (in the letter to John bishop of Jerusalem) writes that he had ordained Paulinian, the brother of Saint Jerome, a priest, and directed him to a monastery to discharge the priestly office in it, when yet the brethren of that same monastery had written nothing to him about the matter. Saint Augustine, the Apostle of the English, Blessed Gregory designated bishop, and ordered him to be ordained by the bishop of Arles if the English received the faith, and awaited no election or petition of the English. See Bede (Book I of the history of his own nation). Blessed Gregory II too ordained Saint Boniface bishop for the Germans, the Germans knowing or thinking nothing about it. See his life recently published; and very many examples of this kind could be adduced.
Seventhly, the same is proved from the disadvantages which follow popular election. First, the common people are unskilled, nor can they, even if they most wish, judge whether someone is fit for the priesthood or not. Valentinian Augustus, as Theodoret relates (Book IV of the history, chapter 6), when the election of the bishop of Milan was referred to him by the bishops, answered: “The matter is greater than befits us; but you, endowed with divine grace and shining with its splendor, will elect better.” Thus he. But how much more could and ought the unskilled multitude to say this, if it were wise? For how, I ask, will merchants, farmers, masons, and other workmen judge whether someone has the erudition and prudence necessary for a bishop?
Then, if the people have the right of electing, it will be necessary that those always be set in office whom the worse and more foolish wish set there; for the greater part will prevail, and there are more bad than good in any city, more foolish than wise. Wherefore Saint Chrysostom (Book III On the Priesthood) gravely complains that in his time the elections of bishops were in the hand of the people, and says it is not to be wondered at if the worst are set in office and the best men meanwhile neglected, since the electing belongs to those who know nothing but how to judge of temporal things.
Finally, popular election is subject to tumults and seditions, as Saint Augustine says (in letters 110 and 225), where he relates the history of a most turbulent popular commotion in the election of Pinian. Rufinus too (Book XI of the history, chapter 11), narrating the dissension of the people of Milan in designating a bishop: “A grave and dangerous dissension,” he says, “was preparing a ripe destruction for the city.” But a signal contention beyond the others was in the election of Saint Damasus; for the parties clashed with such ardor of mind that in a certain church they killed 137 men, as Ammianus Marcellinus writes (Book XXVII), Jerome (in the Chronicle), and Rufinus (Book XI of the history, chapter 10).
But, says Calvin, if this manner of electing is so disadvantageous, why did the ancients endure it? Therefore, that they did not take it away is an argument that it could not be taken away, because it was established by divine right.
I answer that this manner of electing by the votes of the people crept gradually into the Church, and accordingly ought also to be taken away gradually and gently. For at the beginning, that is, in apostolic times, pastors were elected without the people’s knowledge. Then the people began to be employed to give testimony about the life and morals of the one to be elected. Whence is that of Tertullian (in the Apology, chapter 39): “The approved elders preside, having obtained that honor not by price but by testimony.” Then, that the peoples might more love their bishops, those only began to be ordained whom the people had asked for. Whence is that of Saint Leo (in letter 87 or 89): “Let the wishes of the citizens be awaited, the testimonies of the peoples, the judgment of the honorable, the election of the clergy — which are wont to be kept, in the ordinations of priests, by those who know the rules of the Fathers.” Where Saint Leo attributes to the peoples wishes, that is, desires, and testimonies, but to the clergy election.
At length in certain places the custom prevailed that the people even usurped to itself the right of voting, as can be understood from Book III of Chrysostom On the Priesthood. But after this had been for some time tolerated, and the confusion and unworthiness of the thing appeared, then too the election and petition were gradually taken away from the people, and only the testimony of life and morals was left. For even now bishops and priests are ordained before the people, and the bishop who is to confer orders addresses the people through the deacon, and asks that if there is anyone who has anything against those to be ordained, he come forward and say it. It remains to answer the arguments.
Matthias Illyricus, in the book On the Election of Bishops, collected almost all the arguments which had been devised by Luther, Brentius, Calvin, and others. And in the first place he draws six arguments from the word of God. The first is of this kind: the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given not to the Pope or the bishops alone, but to the whole Church. For what is said (Matthew 16): “To thee I will give the keys,” and so on, Saint Augustine (tract 124 on John) interprets as said to Peter as he bore the person of the Church. Besides (Matthew 18) it is said to the whole multitude: “Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth,” and so on. For this is said to those to whom it is said a little before: “If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, correct him,” and so on. But by the name of the keys is signified all ecclesiastical power; therefore the whole multitude of the faithful has power from Christ of electing and calling, and even of ordaining ministers.
I answer: of this argument we said much in the first book On the Pontiff; therefore in this place we will dispatch the whole matter in a few words. Those words (Matthew 16), “To thee I will give the keys,” manifestly favor our opinion, nor does Saint Augustine’s interpretation contradict it. For Saint Augustine therefore says that the Apostle Peter received the keys in the person of the whole Church, because he received them for the advantage and utility of the whole Church, and also because he alone was not to use them, but to transmit them to his successors and communicate them with all the other bishops and priests. But in the other passage, “Whatsoever you shall bind,” and so on, the power of binding and loosing is promised to the Church, but such as is in the prelates, not in the rest of the multitude. For the Church is truly said to loose and bind, because its prelates loose and bind — just as a man is said to speak and see, although he speaks only with the tongue and sees with the eyes. And that this is so is deduced from that very passage; for after He had ordered that one who was not moved by fraternal correction, even with two or three witnesses employed, should be brought to the Church, and lest anyone should think the tribunal of the Church to be contemned, He added that promise: “Whatsoever you shall bind,” and so on. Wherefore that is said to the Church, “Whatsoever you shall bind,” of which it was said, “Tell the Church.”
And that word “Tell the Church” is expounded by Chrysostom (in the commentary on that passage) as if it were said, “Tell the prelate of the Church.” The other doctors too, by “the Church” set in that place, understand the prelate, or a Council of prelates; and the use of the Church confirms the same. For always those who are brought to the Church are brought to the bishop or a Council.
The second argument is this: the Lord commands (John 10) that we hear not the voice of strangers; and again (Matthew 7) that we flee false prophets; and the Apostle (Galatians 1) bids that those be anathematized who teach anything beside the Gospel. Therefore the Christian people has a divine command by which it is bound to seek and call good pastors and reject pernicious ones.
I answer: the people ought indeed to discern the true prophet from the false, but by no other rule than by diligently attending whether he who preaches says things contrary to what was said by his predecessors, or to what is said by the other ordinary pastors, and especially by the Apostolic See and the chief Church; for it is commanded to the people to hear its pastors (Luke 10): “He that heareth you heareth me.” And (Matthew 23): “What they say, do.” The people, then, ought not to judge its pastor unless it hear new things, foreign to the doctrine of the other pastors. Besides, this is what Paul admonishes (Galatians 1): that we anathematize those who teach new things, contrary to what was before evangelized. Add that the people, being unskilled, cannot otherwise judge of the doctrine of the pastor. For if it could judge by itself, it would not need preachers. From which it is deduced that the doctrine of Luther, Calvin, and the like ought to have been suspect to the men of this time, who came of themselves and preached new things repugnant to the doctrine of all the pastors of the Church. For when the ordinary pastor and some other who preaches uncalled teach contrary things, the people ought altogether to follow its own pastor rather than that other who is not a pastor, even if perchance it should happen that the pastor erred. For since the people itself cannot judge of the matter, why should it not rather believe him whom it is commanded to obey? Although it is not credible that God would permit an ordinary pastor so to err as to deceive the simple people; for it easily appears whether he teaches things contrary to the other pastors.
It is to be observed besides that the people can indeed by the rule we have set distinguish a true prophet from a false, but cannot on that account depose a false pastor, if he be a bishop, and substitute another in his place. For the Lord and the Apostle only bid that false prophets be not heard by the people, but not that the people depose them. And certainly the use of the Church always held this, that heretical bishops be deposed by Councils of bishops, or by the supreme Pontiffs. From these the second argument remains solved.
The third argument is this: bishops are not lords but ministers of the Church (1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Peter 5); and besides, the Church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3). Therefore the supreme tribunal is in the hands of the Church, not of the bishops; accordingly it can elect and call ministers.
I answer: bishops are ministers of the Church because they labor for it, not by obeying it but by ruling it and presiding over it, as we said elsewhere. For there are two kinds of ministers: some serve by obeying, as slaves; others by commanding, as tutors, and every magistrate. And that bishops serve the peoples by ruling and commanding is plain (Acts 20 and Hebrews 13). And the Church is the pillar of truth because it always hears Peter, for whom the Lord prayed that his faith should not fail.
The fourth argument they take from Acts 1, where not the Apostles alone but the whole Church elected Matthias and Barnabas, that God might take one of them. I answer with Chrysostom (on this passage) that this was done from Peter’s condescension, not from necessity: “What,” says Chrysostom, “was it not lawful for Peter himself to elect? It was, and indeed most fully. But he did not do it, lest he should seem to gratify anyone.” Besides, that was not so much an election as a certain petition, by which they desired someone to be elected by God in the place of Judas. Finally, from one example it is not deduced that something is of divine right. We indeed effectively prove that it is not of divine right that the people elect, when by examples we show that sometimes bishops were elected without the vote of the people, because nothing can rightly be done against divine right. But we do not effectively prove that everything is of divine right which we read was sometime done.
The fifth argument, from Acts 6, where it is said of the multitude of believers: “And they chose Stephen,” and so on. I answer, first, that from this example it is not proved that it is of divine right. Secondly I say that this too was attributed to the people by the concession of the Apostles, as Luke himself openly testifies. Thirdly I say that this passage is not to the purpose; for we treat of the election of pastors, who are set over the Church to be ruled, but those were deacons to be set over the tables.
The sixth argument, from Acts 14: “And when they had appointed for them priests in every city” — the Greek word cheirotonesantes signifies “when they had elected by votes.” For cheirotonia is as it were cheira teino, that is, “I stretch out” or “raise the hand” in sign of a vote; for, as is established from Marcus Tullius (in the oration for Flaccus), the sign of a vote among the Greeks was to raise the hands. Since therefore Paul and Barnabas elected bishops by the votes of the people, it is manifest that they indeed presided over the election, but did not elect alone.
I answer to this argument, which is the chief foundation of Illyricus, Calvin, Kemnitz, and the others, that the word cheirotonein can signify three things. First, to elect by votes, as the very reasoning of the etymology teaches, and the use also of profane authors. Secondly, to elect and decree in whatever way it is done; for even though the etymology is taken from the extending of the hands, yet the word is afterward derived to every election and sanction, as happens with many other words. For (Acts 1) Luke says: “The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles” — in Greek synkatepsephisthe, that is, “he was added by votes”; for psephizesthai is to give a vote, and psephos is the vote itself; and yet Blessed Matthias was elected not by votes, but by lot. And so psephizesthai in that place is taken for “to co-opt,” in whatever way it is done. And (Acts 10): “He gave Him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God” — in Greek, tois prokecheirotonemenois apo tou Theou; and yet God did not elect by votes the witnesses to whom He would show Christ risen again. Thirdly, it signifies among ecclesiastical writers to ordain by the imposition of hands. For Chrysostom (homily 14 on Acts), expounding that, “And when they had prayed, they imposed hands on them,” says thus: touto gar esti cheirotonia [“for this is cheirotonia”]. And (homily 10 on 1 Timothy) he asks why the Apostle, when he had given precept about bishops, passes to deacons, omitting priests; and he answers, because bishops and priests are the same, except that bishops ordain, priests do not ordain — ten gar cheirotonian monen anabebekasi [“for they have ascended only by the cheirotonia”]. In the same way the Council of Nicaea, in the letter to the Alexandrians (in Theodoret, Book I of the history, chapter 9), uses the word cheirotonia for ordination. If, then, we take that of Acts 14, cheirotonesantes, in the second or third way, the argument is solved; but if we take it in the first way, then it is to be noted that cheirotonein does not signify to elect by votes given by others, but to elect by one’s own vote, as is plain from the etymology and from the use of authors. For Demosthenes (in the oration against Timocrates) attributes cheirotonia to the people; for he says: ho demos... echeirotonei [“the people voted their opinions concerning the safety of the city”]. Similarly Cicero (in the oration for Flaccus) says of the people: “They stretched out their hands, a decree was born.” When therefore Luke says of Paul and Barnabas cheirotonesantes de autois presbyterous kat’ ekklesian, he does not mean that Paul and Barnabas created bishops by the votes of the people, but by their own votes only — unless the adversaries wish that cheirotonesantes be referred to the people, the whole sense of the Scripture opposing. For of those of whom it is said, “when they had appointed priests,” of the same it is said, “they commended them to God, in whom they had believed” — which without controversy are referred to the Apostles alone.
The seventh argument Luther, Calvin, Kemnitz, and Illyricus take from Cyprian, who (Book I, letter 4) says thus: “Wherefore the people, obeying the Lord’s precepts and fearing God, ought to separate itself from a sinful prelate, and not mingle in the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, since the people itself especially has the power either of electing worthy priests or of refusing unworthy ones; which very thing we see to descend from divine authority, that the priest be chosen in the presence of the people, under the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony.”
I answer in two ways. First, Cyprian does not mean to say that it descends from divine right that a bishop be elected by the people, but from divine examples, as is plain from what follows. For, wishing to prove that this descends from divine authority, he proves it only by three examples of the Scriptures: because, namely, Eleazar (Numbers 20) was ordained before the people, and likewise Matthias (Acts 1), and the seven deacons (Acts 6). But the examples of the Scriptures do not make a thing to be of divine right; it is the precepts of God that make this. Secondly I say that Cyprian in this place attributes nothing to the people concerning the elections of priests, except that they give testimony about the life and morals of those to be ordained — which even now is kept in the Catholic Church. For Cyprian says that the people has the power of electing and of casting a vote, because it can say, if it knows any good or evil of the one to be ordained, and thus by its testimony bring it about that he be elected or not elected. And so the people has, according to Cyprian’s opinion, the power of electing and voting by testimony, not by ballot, after the manner of a witness, not of a judge. Which can be made plain from the same passage; for he says that a bishop ought to be elected in the Church in the way the Scripture teaches Eleazar was elected. But the Scripture (Numbers 20) says that Eleazar was elected by Moses, and attributes nothing to the people except that Eleazar was elected before it. And Cyprian, explaining this, says: “God commands a priest to be constituted before the whole assembly” — that is, He instructs and shows that priestly ordinations ought not to be made except with the knowledge of the assisting people, so that, the people being present, either the crimes of the bad may be detected or the merits of the good proclaimed.” And below: “Wherefore it must be diligently kept and held, from divine tradition and apostolic observance — which among us too, and through almost all the provinces, is kept — that for ordinations rightly to be celebrated, all the nearest bishops of the same province come together to that people for which a prelate is ordained, and the bishop be chosen in the presence of the people, which most fully knows the life of each and has beheld the conduct of everyone by his manner of living.”
The eighth argument Illyricus takes from the Council of Nicaea. For in the letter of that Council to the Alexandrians (in Theodoret, Book I, chapter 9, of the history) these words are had: “It is fitting that you have the power both of electing anyone, and of giving the names of those who are worthy of the clergy, and absolutely of doing all things according to the laws and sanctions of the Church. But if it happen that anyone rest in the Church, then let those who have lately been received be advanced to the honor of the deceased, only if they seem worthy and the people has elected them, the bishop of the city of Alexandria especially decreeing and designating together.”
I answer that from this testimony nothing else can be gathered than that already then the custom had begun that the people be admixed to election — which we by no means deny. But it is not thence gathered that this is of divine right, which the adversaries had to prove. But here a double fraud of Illyricus is to be noted. For the Council of Nicaea, at the beginning of this testimony cited by Illyricus, does not speak of the common people, but of the bishops, and says that they ought to have the power of electing and of doing all things according to the sanctions of the Church; but Illyricus so perverts and changes the words that the Council may seem to attribute to the common people all power of governing the Church. Then, at the end of that testimony, the Council says that a bishop ought to be elected by the people, but that the election be confirmed by the bishop of Alexandria (for it treats of the bishops of Egypt), and accordingly the Council attributes the chief authority in elections to the bishop. But Illyricus changed the words, so that the bishop might seem able to do no more than the people. See the whole passage.
The ninth argument of Illyricus, Calvin, and Kemnitz is taken from the letter of the Second general Council to Damasus, which Theodoret relates (Book V of the history, chapter 9), where we read thus: “We ordained the most reverend and God-beloved Nectarius bishop before the universal Council with all concord, under the eyes also of the God-beloved Emperor Theodosius and of the whole clergy, the whole city decreeing together.” Similar things Calvin brings from Leo (letter 89) and Gregory (Book II, letter 69). Kemnitz adds one testimony from Ambrose (Book X, letter 82), and others which he cites not from the sources but from the decree of Gratian (distinctions 23, 24, 62, 63, 67, and cause 8, question 1, canon Licet); many things also of the same kind Illyricus cites in his book On the Election of Bishops.
I answer, first, that from none of these testimonies is it gathered that it is of divine right that the people elect. Secondly, that in all these, one or two excepted, no mention is made of election, but only of petition or testimony. Thirdly, that we do not deny that the people sometimes elected — as even now in certain places they elect kings — but that they have or had this right from the concession of the Pontiffs, not from divine right. From which it appears how splendidly Calvin lies (Book IV Institutes, chapter 5, section 2) when he says that the rite of electing bishops without the vote of the people conflicts with the word of God and with many decrees of Councils, which established that the election is void if it be done otherwise. For he brought neither any word of God, nor any decree of a Council, nor can any be brought, in which is had what he says.
The tenth argument of Illyricus is taken from the custom of the Church. For he says that this usage was in the Church for almost 1300 years, and was only introduced from the time of Frederick II, who died in the year 1250, that the laity be excluded from election. And he proves that the custom of electing by the votes of the people lasted so long, from Gregory IX, who sat in the time of Frederick. For in the decretal letters issued by Gregory IX (title On Election, chapter Messana) mention of this matter is had, as also in the letter of the same Gregory to the bishop of Bremen, in Krantz (Book VIII of the Metropolis, chapter 3). Finally Illyricus concludes this argument thus: Wherefore there is no doubt at all that election, 300 years ago and for some time afterward, was practiced by the laity beyond all controversy.
I answer that Illyricus lies notably. For, first, in the time of the Apostles and for many years afterward the people could do nothing in elections except give testimony of life, as is plain from what was said above. Then in the following ages the common people crept in to voting, but neither for so long a time, nor beyond controversy, as Illyricus says. For Gregory IX, in the cited letter to the bishop of Bremen, most clearly says that the election was the canons’, although the wishes also — that is, the desires and petitions — of the people were joined. Moreover, the chapter Messana is against Illyricus himself; for in that chapter it is most severely forbidden that the laity elect: “By a perpetual edict,” says Honorius, “we forbid that the election of a pontiff be presumed by laymen together with the canons. And if perchance it be presumed, let it obtain no firmness, notwithstanding a contrary custom, which ought rather to be called a corruption.” Thus he. Not, then, beyond controversy did the laity elect 300 years ago. Besides, the election of Alexander III, 150 years ago, was made by the cardinals alone, as can be known from Radevicus (Book II On the Deeds of Frederick I, chapter 50 and following). Likewise the election of Gregory VII, 500 years ago, was made by the cardinals alone, as is plain from the decree of that election in Platina. Finally, how did the laity elect beyond controversy up to the year 1200, when, as we cited above, the eighth Council 700 years ago, the seventh Council 800 years ago, the Council of Pope Martin 900 years ago, and the Council of Laodicea 1200 years ago, forbade the laity to elect?
The eleventh argument is of the same Illyricus, who brings forward certain political reasons, but most inept ones; such as that the canons and monks almost always elect papist bishops or abbots, rarely or never Lutherans. As if it would greatly profit the churches and monasteries to be governed by those who hate nothing more than clerics and monks. He adds also that it is very inconvenient that, since the bishops and abbots of Germany are also temporal princes, they are sometimes elected by only six or eight men; as though the Emperor were not a far greater prince, who nevertheless is created by only six or seven Electors.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VII. Quinta Propositio. « Jus eligendi summum Pontificem, caete- rosque Ecclesiae Pastores, et Ministros, non convenit populo jure divino. Sed si quid ali¬ quando in hac re populus potuit, id totum habuit ex conniventia, vel concessione Pon¬ tificum. » Haec Propositio proprie statuitur adversus Lutheranos et Calvinistas. Et pro¬ batur Primo exemplo Aaronis, et testimonio B. Pauli ; scribit enim Apostolus ad Hebr. V. Neminem assumere sibi debere honorem, nisi vocetur a Deo, tamquam Aaron ; atqui Aaron a solo Mose fuit electus in Pontifi¬ cem; sine ullo vel consensu, vel consilio multitudinis. (1) Luc. I, 9. — (2) Isai. LXVI, 21. 426 LIBER I. Secundo idem probatur exemplo, et verbo Christi ; Christus enim Joan. X Apostolis ait : Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos (i). Quo¬ circa voluit, ut ea potestate, eaque ratione Apostoli gubernarent Ecclesiam, qua ipse eam gubernaverat eo tempore, quo praesen¬ tiam suam mundo exhibuerat. At ipse Apos¬ tolos primum duodecim, ac deinde discipu¬ los septuaginta duos elegit, sine consilio, aut suffragio ullo multitudinis. Tertio ex jure divino tum naturali, tum etiam scripto ; nam jure divino scripto Epis¬ copi sunt Pastores populi, populi sunt oves, Joan. ult. Act. X, I. Petri V. Ratio autem naturalis apertissime docet, ovibus non con¬ venire, ut pascant, ac regant, sed regantur, atque pascantur. At eligere Pastores, ad gu¬ bernationem et regimen pertinere certissi¬ mum est; non igitur populo convenit Pasto¬ res eligere. Objicies fortasse, quod in terrena Repu- blica populi dicantur oves, reges pastores, et tamen regis electio ad populum spectet. Respondeo, aliam esse rationem terrenae, aliam coelestis, id est, Christianae Reipu- blicae. Nam in terrena Repub. nascuntur omnes homines naturaliter liberi, et proinde potestatem politicam immediate ipse popu¬ lus habet, donec eam in regem aliquem non transtulerit. At -Christiana Respublica num- quam habuit ejusmodi libertatem, siquidem cum ipsa natus est Rex et Pastor ipsius, Christus enim simul Ecclesiam instituit, et Petrum ei praefecit. Deinde populus in ter¬ rena Republica tunc solum potest regem eli¬ gere, cum rege caret : at Ecclesia numquam rege caret, semper enim Christus vivit, sem- per etiam sunt in Ecclesia Episcopi aliqui, qui Pastores novos eligere et creare pos¬ sunt. Quarto idem probatur exemplo Apostolo¬ rum qui Episcopos passim eligebant sine ullo suffragio multitudinis, ut vel ex eo con¬ stat, quod Episcopos a se creatos mittebant ad populos absentes, et infideles. Neque va¬ let quidquam responsio Kemnitii, qui in Exa¬ mine Tridentini Concilii in disputatione de Sacramento ordinis scribit, Episcopos, quos Apostoli mittebant ad infideles, eligi solitos a plebe illius Ecclesiae, ubi ordinabantur. Nam qui dicunt jure divino pertinere electio¬ nes ad populum, eam rationem reddunt, ne populus accipiat Pastorem, quem neque no¬ vit, neque cupit. Proinde volunt jure divino pertinere ad populum Episcopi proprii, non alieni electionem. Deinde quo jure unus po¬ pulus Episcopum alterius populi eligere po¬ test? Denique unde probat Kemnitius, Epis¬ copos, quos Apostoli mittebant, a populo ejus Ecclesiae electos fuisse, ubi ordinaban¬ tur. Quinto probatur eadem nostra conclusio ex Conciliorum veterum decretis, ac 1 Lao- dicenum Concilium canon. 13. sic habet : « Non est permittendum turbis electionem eorum facere, qui sunt ad sacerdotium pro¬ movendi. » Nec valet Calvini responsio, qui cancmem istum ita interpretatur, ut velit non excludi eo canone turbas ab electione, sed solum constitui , ut non solae turbae eligant, sed intersint etiam seniores. Cum enim sem¬ per interfuerint seniores, nihil omnino Con¬ cilium statuisset, si vera esset Calvini inter¬ pretatio. Ad haec in Concilio Martini Papae apud Martinum Bracarensem, cap. 1. decretorum ita legimus : « Denique non licet populo elec¬ tionem facere eorum , qui ad sacerdotium promoventur, sed in judicio Episcoporum sit. » Item Concilium Nicaenum II, can. 3. sic habet : « Omnem electionem , quae fit a magistratibus, Episcopi, vel Presbyteri , vel Diaconi, irritam manere. Oportet enim eum, qui est promovendus ad Episcopatum, ab Episcopis eligi. » Denique Concilium IY Constantinopolita- num quod est octavum generale , can. 28. : <( Sancta, inquit, et universalis Synodus de¬ finit, neminem laicorum Principum, vel po¬ tentium semet inferre electioni, vel promo¬ tioni Patriarchae, vel Metropolitani , aut cu- juslibet Episcopi, praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem, quemlibet potentium, vel caeterorum laicorum habere conveniat, sed potius silere, ac attendere sibi , usque quo regulariter a collegio Ecclesiae suscipiat fi¬ nem electio futuri Pontificis. » Sexto idem probatur exemplis , seu testi¬ moniis veterum , qui post Apostolos florue¬ runt. S. Hieronymus in epist. 85. ad Eva- grium : « Alexandriae, inquit, a Marco Evan- gelista usque < ad Heraclam, et Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum , in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant. » Haec ille. Quo sa¬ tis aperte docet Alexandriae antiquissimis (1) Joan. XX, 21 . CAPUT VII. 427 temporibus Episcopos non a populo , sed a Presbyteris eligi solitos. Ruffinus lib. X hist. cap. 9. scribit, Frumentium a S. Athanasio creatum Episcopum Indorum, Indis ipsis ea de re nihil neque scientibus, neque cogitan¬ tibus. Epiphanius in epistola ad Joannem Episcopum Hierosolymae scribit a se Pauli- nianum, S. Hieronymi fratrem, Presbyterum ordinatum, et directum ad monasterium, ut in eo fungeretur munere sacerdotali, cum tamen de ea re nihil ad se ejusdem monas¬ terii fratres scripsissent. S. Augustinum An- glorum Apostolum B. Gregorius Episcopum designavit, atque ab Arelatensi Episcopo or¬ dinari jussit, si Angli fidem reciperent, ne¬ que electionem, aut postulationem ullam Anglorum exspectavit. Vide Bedam lib. I historiae gentis suae. Beatus quoque Grego¬ rius II, S. Bonifacium Germanis Episcopum ordinavit nihil ea de re scientibus, cogitanti- busve Germanis. Vide ipsius vitam nuper editam, atque ejusmodi exempla plurima possent afferri. Septimo idem probatur ex incommodis, quae popularem electionem consequuntur, Primum, populares imperiti sunt , nec pos¬ sunt etiamsi maxime velint, judicare an ali¬ quis sit idoneus sacerdotio nec ne. Valenti¬ nianus Augustus, ut refert Theodoretus 1. IV hist. cap. 6. cum ad eum deferretur ab Epis¬ copis electio Episcopi Mediolanensis , res¬ pondit : « Major res est, quam ut nobis con¬ veniat, vos autem gratia divina praediti , et illius splendore fulgentes melius eligetis. » Haec ille. At quanto magis id posset, ac de¬ beret dicere imperita multitudo, si saperet? Quo pacto enim, quaeso, judicabunt merca¬ tores, agricolae, caementarii, caeterique opi¬ fices, num quis habeat eruditionem , et pru¬ dentiam Episcopo necessariam ? Deinde , si populus jus habeat eligendi, necesse erit, ut semper ii praeficiantur quos praefici cupient pejores, et stultiores ; nam major pars vincet, plures autem sunt in qua¬ libet civitate mali, quam boni, plures stulti, quam sapientes. Quare S. Ghrysostomus lib. III de sacerdotio graviter queritur, quod suo tempore Episcoporum electiones in manu populi essent, ac dicit non esse mirandum, si pessimi quique praeficiantur et optimi viri interim negligantur, cum eorum sit eligere, qui nihil norunt nisi de rebus temporalibus judicare. Denique, electio popularis obnoxia est tu¬ multibus, ac seditionibus, ut S. Augustinus dicit in epist. 110. et 225. ubi refert histo¬ riam turbulentissimae commotionis popula¬ ris in electione Piniani. Ruffinus quoque lib. XI hist. cap. 11. narrans dissensionem po¬ puli Mediolanensis in Episcopo designando. « Dissentio, inquit, gravis et periculosa urbi propriae maturum parabat exitium. »• Sed insignis contentio praeter caeteras fuit in electione S. Damasi , tanto enim ardore animi partes concurrerunt, ut in quodam templo 137. homines necarent, ut scribunt Ammianus Marcellinus lib. XXVII, Hiero¬ nymus in Chronico, et Ruffinus lib. XI hist. cap. 10. At, inquit Calvinus, si tam est incommo¬ da haec ratio eligendi, cur eam veteres pa¬ tiebantur ? Quod ergo eam non tollerent e medio , argumento est non potuisse tolli, propterea, quod esset jure divino constituta. Respondeo, eam rationem eligendi ad suf¬ fragia populi , paulatim in Ecclesiam irrep¬ sisse, proinde debuisse etiam paulatim sua- viterque de medio tolli ; initio enim, hoc est, Apostolicis temporibus , insciente populo, Pastores eligebantur. Deinde coepit populus adhiberi ad testimonium dandum de vita, et moribus eligendi. Unde est illud Tertulliani in Apolog. cap. 39 : « Praesunt probati qui¬ que seniores, honorem istum non pretio sed testimonio adepti. » Tum ut populi magis diligerent suos Episcopos, coepti sunt ii tan¬ tum ordinari, quos populus postulasset. Un¬ de est illud S. Leonis in ep.87 vel 89 : « Ex- pectarentur vota civium, testimonia populo¬ rum, honoratorum arbitrium, electio Cleri¬ corum, quae in sacerdotum solent ordinatio¬ nibus ab his , qui norunt Patrum regulas, custodiri. » Ubi S. Leo populis tribuit vota, id est, desideria, et testimonia , Clericis au¬ tem, electionem. Tandem obtinuit in quibusdam locis con¬ suetudo, ut etiam jus suffragii sibi populus usurparet, ut intelligi potest ex lib. III Chry- sostomi de sacerdotio. Sed posteaquam hoc aliquandiu toleratum est, et apparuit ejus rei confusio, et indignitas, tum etiam paula¬ tim sublata est populo electio et postulatio, solumque relictum est testimonium vitee et morum. Nam etiam nunc ordinantur Epis¬ copi et Presbyteri coram populo, et Episco¬ pus, qui ordines collaturus est, per Diaco¬ num populum alloquitur, ac petit, ut si quis est, qui aliquid habeat adversus ordinandos, accedat, et dicat. Superest argumenta sol¬ vere. 428 LIBER I. Matthias Illyricus in lib. de electione Epis¬ coporum collegit omnia ferme argumenta, quae a Luthero, Brentio, Calvino, et aliis exco¬ gitata fuerant. Sex autem primo loco ex verbo Dei argumenta depromit. Primum ejusmodi est : Claves regni coelorum non soli Papae aut Episcopis, sed toti Ecclesiae datae sunt. Nam quod dicitur, Matth. XYI : Tibi dabo claves etc. S. Augustinus tract. 124. in Joan. interpretatur dictum esse Petro, ut is per¬ sonam gerebat Ecclesiae. Praeterea Matth. XVIII toti multitudini dicitur : Quaecumque alligaveritis super terram etc. Illis enim hoc di¬ citur, quibus dicitur paulo ante : Si peccave¬ rit in te frater tuus , vade corripe eum etc. (1). At nomine clavium significatur omnis potes¬ tas Ecclesiastica, igitur tota multitudo fide¬ lium potestatem habet a Christo eligendi et vocandi, atque etiam ordinandi Ministros. Respondeo, de hoc argumento multa dixi¬ mus in 1. lib. de Pontifice ; idcirco paucis hoc loco rem totam expediemus. Igitur ver¬ ba illa Matth. XYI : Tibi dabo claves , senten¬ tiae nostrae manifeste favent, neque illi re¬ pugnat S. Augustini interpretatio. Nam propterea S. Augustinus dicit , Apostolum Petrum in persona totius Ecclesiae, accepisse claves, quia in totius Ecclesiae commodum et utilitatem eas accepit , et etiam quia non ipse solus illis usurus erat ,• sed transmissu¬ rus ad successores, et communicaturus cum aliis omnibus Episcopis et presbyteris. In altero autem loco : Qucecumque alliga¬ veritis etc. promittitur Ecclesia potestas li¬ gandi et solvendi, sed quae in Praelatis sit, non in reliqua multitudine. Yere enim dici¬ tur Ecclesia solvere et ligare, quiaPraelati ejus solvunt et ligant, quemadmodum dicitur homo loqui et videre , licet non nisi lingua loquatur, et oculis videat. Id autem ita esse, ex ipso illo loco deducitur; nam posteaquam jusserat, ut qui correptione fraterna, adhi¬ bitis etiam duobus aut tribus testibus, non moveretur, deferretur ad Ecclesiam, et ne quis Ecclesiae tribunal contemnendum puta¬ ret, adjecit eam promissionem : Qucecumque alligaveritis etc. quare illi Ecclesiae dicitur : Qucecumque alligaveritis , de qua dictum est : Dic Ecclesiae. Illud autem : Dic Ecclesice , exponitur a Chrysostomo in commentario ejus loci, ac si dictum esset : Dic Praelato Ecclesiae; Caeteri quoque Doctores per Ecclesiam eo loco po¬ sitam intelligunt Praelatum , aut Concilium Praelatorum : et usus Ecclesiae idem confir¬ mat. Semper enim qui ad Ecclesiam defe- feruntur, ad Episcopum aut Concilium defe¬ runtur. Secundum argumentum tale est : Imperat Dominus, Joan. X ut non audiamus vocem alienorum. Et rursus Matth. YII ut fugiamus falsos Prophetas , et Apostolus ad Calat. I jubet anathematizari eos, qui docent aliquid praeter Evangelium : Igitur populus Christianus divinum habet mandatum , quo tenetur bonos Pastores quaerere et vocare, et perniciosos rejicere. Respondeo, populum debere quidem dis¬ cernere verum a falso Propheta , sed non alia regula, quam diligenter attendendo, an is, qui praedicat, dicat contraria iis, quae di¬ cebantur a praedecessoribus, vel iis, quae di¬ cuntur ab aliis ordinariis Pastoribus, et prae¬ sertim ab Apostolica sede , et Ecclesia prin- cipadi ; nam imperatum est populo, ut audiat Pastores suos. Luc. X : Qui vos audit, me audit. Et Matt. XXIII : Quae dicunt , facite (2). Non igitur debet populus judicare suum Pas¬ torem nisi nova audiat, et a doctrina alio¬ rum Pastorum aliena. Praeterea, hoc est quod Paulus monet ad Galat. I ut anathematizemus, qui docent no¬ va, et contraria iis, quae antea evangelizata sunt. Adde, quod populus cum sit rudis, non potest aliter judicare de doctrina Pastoris. Si enim per se posset judicare, non egeret praedicatoribus : ex quo deducitur, debuisse hominibus hujus temporis suspectam esse doctrinam Lutheri, Calvini, et similium, qui per se veniebant, et praedicabant nova et pugnantia cum doctrina omnium Pastorum Ecclesiae. Nam cum Pastor ordinarius et ali¬ quis alius qui praedicat non vocatus, contra¬ ria docent, debet omnino populus Pastorem suum potius sequi, quam illum alterum, qui non est Pastor, etiamsi forte contingeret, ut Pastor erraret. Nam cum ipse populus non possit de ea re judicare, cur non potius cre¬ det illi, qui jussus est obedire? Quanquam non est credibile, Deum permissurum, ut or¬ dinarius Pastor ita erret, ut decipiat simpli¬ cem populum ; facile enim apparet , an do¬ ceat contraria cseteris Pastoribus. Observandum est praeterea, populum pos¬ se quidem ea regula, quam posuimus, inter¬ noscere verum Prophetam a falso , sed non propterea posse falsum Pastorem, sisitEpis- (1) Matth. XVI, 10; X.VIII, 18 et 15. — (2) Luc. X, 16; Matth XXIII, 3. CAPUT VII. 429 copus, deponere, et alium ejus loco substi¬ tuere. Nam Dominus et Apostolus tantum jubent, ut falsi Prophetae non audiantur a populo : non autem ut populus eos depo¬ nat. Et certe usus Ecclesiae semper hoc ha¬ buit, ut haeretici Episcopi a Conciliis Episco¬ porum, vel a summis Pontificibus depone¬ rentur. Ex his secundum argumentum manet solutum. Tertium argumentum est hoc : Episcopi non sunt Domini , sed ministri Ecclesiae, I. Cor. III et I. Petri V. Et praeterea Ecclesia est columna et firmamentum veritatis, I. Tim. III. Igitur summum tribunal est penes Ecclesiam, non penes Episcopos, proinde ipse potest eligere et vocare Ministros. Respondeo, Episcopos esse Ministros Ec¬ clesiae, quia pro ea laborant, non illi obe- diendo, sed eam regendo , eique praesiden¬ do, ut alias diximus. Duplex enim est genus Ministrorum, cum alii serviant obediendo, ut mancipia; alii imperando, ut paedagogi, et omnis magistratus ; porro Episcopos ser¬ vire populis regendo et imperando , patet Actor. XX et ad Hebr. XIII. Est autem Ec¬ clesia columna veritatis, quia semper audit Petrum, pro quo Dominus oravit, ne defice¬ ret fides ejus. Argumentum Quartum summunt ex Act. I ubi non soli Apostoli, sed tota Ecclesia ele¬ git Matthiarn et Barnabam, ut ex eis Deus unum assumeret. Respondeo cum Chrysostomo in hun£ lo¬ cum, id factum esse ex confessione Petri, non ex necessitate : « Quid, inquit Chrysos- tomus , an non licebat ipsi Petro eligere ? licebat, et quidem maxime. Verum id non fecit, ne cui videretur gratificari. » Praeterea illa non tam electio fuit, quam postulatio quaedam, qua cupiverunt a Deo aliquem eligi in locum Judse. Denique ab exemplo uno non deducitur aliquid esse de jure di¬ vino. Nos quidem efficaciter probamus, non esse de jure divino, ut populus eligat, quan¬ do exemplis ostendimus, aliquando , sine populi suffragio Episcopos fuisse electos, quia non potest recte fieri contra jus divi¬ num. At non efficaciter probamus esse de jure -divino id omne, quod aliquando factum legimus. Quintum argumentum ex Actor. VI ubi de multitudine credentium dicitur : Et elege¬ runt Stephanum etc. (1). (1) Act. VI, 5. — (2) Act. XIV, 22. — Respond-eo Primo, ab hoc exemplo non probari, id esse de jure divino. Secundo di¬ co, id etiam esse tributum populo ex conces¬ sione Apostolorum, ut Lucas ipse aperte tes¬ tatur. Tertio dico, locum hunc non esse ad propositum : Nos enim agimus de electione Pastorum, qui -praeficiuntur Ecclesiae regen¬ dae, isti autem Diaconi erant praeficiendi mensis. Argumentum Sextum actor. XIV : Et cum constituissent illis per singulas civitates Presby¬ teros (2), verbtnn Graecum ysipo tovyktkvts; sig¬ nificat, cum elegissent per suffragia. Nam ysipoTo-jio est quasi yJiptxazdvM, id est, manus tendo, seu attollo in signum suffragii ; ut enim constat ex M. T. in oratione pro Flacco, signum suffragii apud Graecos erat, attollere manus. Cum ergo Paulus et Barnabas elege¬ rint Episcopos ad suffragia populi, manifes¬ tum est, eos praefuisse quidem electioni, sed non solos elegisse. Respondeo ad hoc argumentum, quod est praecipuum fundamentum Illyrici, Calvini, Kemnitii, et aliorum , verbum ystpoToviv tria significare posse. Primo, eligere per suffra¬ gia, ut ratio ipsa etymologiae docet , et usus etiam profanorum auctorum. Secundo, eligere ac decernere quocumque id fiat modo : Nam etiam si etymologia ab extensione manuum sumpta sit, tamen deri¬ vatur postea verbum ad omnem electionem, et sanctionem, ut multis aliis verbis accidit. Nam Actor. I. Lucas dicit : Cecidit sors su¬ per Mathiam , et annumeratus est cum undecim Apostolis l3). Graece xai <r byxars ■tyyitfiaBvi, id est, suffragiis additus est. Nam ^Yiyl&aQou est dare suffragium, et est ipsum suffragium, et tamen B. Matthias non suffragiis, sed sorte electus est. Itaque ipr^^sa-dai eo loco accipitur pro cooptare, quocumque modo id fiat, et Act. X : Dedit eum manifestum fieri non omni populo , sed testibus praeordinatis a Deo (4). Graece, all a gxprvpttn r olg 7 rpoxs y&tpo- Tovvjpivots ano roO 0soO. Nec tamen Deus suffra¬ giis elegit, quibus ostenderet Christum redi¬ vivum . Tertio, significat apud Ecclesiasticos , or¬ dinare per manuum impositionem. Nam Chrysostomus hom. XIV in Acta , exponens illud : Et cum or assent, imposuerunt illis ma¬ nus (3) . Sic ait : roitro yxp iazi ysipozovLx . Et hom. 10. ini. Tim. quaerit, cur Apostolus, cum praecepit de Episcopis , transit ad Dia- (3) Act. I, 26. — (4) Act. X, 40. — (5) Act. VI, G. 430 LIBER I. conos, omissis Presbyteris : et respondet, quia Episcopi et Presbyteri sunt iidem , nisi quod Episcopi ordinant, Presbyteri non or¬ dinant. rr/V qxp yeipOTOvic/;j p,dvv jv avaj3e|3r)xa(Ti. Eo¬ dem modo Concilium Nicaenum in epist. ad Alexandrinos apud Theodoretum lib. I hist. cap. 9. utitur voce ystpozovla. , pro ordinatio¬ ne : si igitur accipiamus illud Actor. XIV ^gipoTovwavres, secundo modo , vel tertio, ar¬ gumentum solutum est , si autem accipia¬ mus primo modo, tunc notandum est, yjipo- 7 rovsiv, non significare eligere ]5er suffragia ab aliis data, sed eligere proprio suffragio, ut patet ex etymologia, et ex usu auctorum. Nam Demosthenes in oratione contra Timo¬ cratem, tribuit populo yzipozoviht. Sic enim ait : 6 §-?/p.og zag ipuxg r/vcop.xg tt epi iarcozvipttxg zr,g rolewg iyeipoTovet. Similiter Cicero in oratione pro Flacco, de populo dicit : Porrexerunt ma¬ nus, psephisma natum est. Cum ergo Lucas dicit de Paulo et Barnaba yBiporovrtacnreg Ss uvzoig npzcr^vzepovg x«ra exx).Yj<n'av, non vult di¬ cere, Paulum, et Barnabam ad suffragia po¬ puli creasse Episcopos, sed ad suffragia pro¬ pria tantum, nisi velint adversarii illud, yzi- /Borovvjo-avrs?, referri ad populum, repugnante tota sententia Scripturae. Nam de quibus di¬ citur : cum constituissent Presbyteros, de iisdem dicitur : Commendaverunt illos Deo , in quem crediderant (1), quae sine controversia ad Apostolos tantum referuntur. Argumentum septimum sumunt Lutherus, Calvinus, Kemnitius, et Illyricus ex Cypria¬ no, qui 1. I, epist. 4. sic ait : « Propter quod plebs obsequens praeceptis Dominicis, et Deum metuens, a peccatore praeposito sepa¬ rare se debet , nec ad sacrilegi Sacerdotis sacrificia miscere, quando ipsa maxime ha¬ beat potestatem, vel eligendi dignos Sacer¬ dotes, vel indignos recusandi , quod et ip¬ sum videmus de divina auctoritate descen¬ dere, ut Sacerdos plebe praesente , sub om¬ nium oculis deligatur, et dignus atque ido¬ neus publico judicio ac testimonio compro¬ betur etc. » Respondeo dupliciter. Primo , Cyprianum non velle dicere, descendere ex jure divino, ut Episcopus a populo eligatur, sed ab exem¬ plis divinis, ut patet ex sequentibus. Nam probare volens , hoc descendere de divina auctoritate, probat solum tribus exemplis Scripturarum ; quia nimirum Eleazarus, Nu- mer. XX coram populo ordinatus est, et si¬ militer Matthias , Act. I et septem Diaconi, Actor. VI. At exempla scripturarum non fa¬ ciunt rem esse de jure divino, sed praecepta Dei suqt, quae hoc faciunt. Secundo dico, Cyprianum hoc loco nihil tribuere populo circa electiones Sacerdotum, nisi ut ferant testimonium de vita et moribus ordinandorum, quod etiam nunc servatur in Ecclesia Catholica. Dicit autem Cyprianus, populum habere potestatem eligendi, et suf¬ fragium ferendi, quia potest dicere , si quid noverit boni vel mali de ordinando, et sic testimonio suo efficere , ut eligatur, vel non eligatur. Itaque habet populus, secundum Cypriani sententiam , potestatem eligendi et suffragandi per testimonium, non per calcu¬ lum, more testis, non judicis. Id quod ex eo¬ dem loco perspicuum fieri potest ; dicit enim debere in Ecclesia eligi Episcopum, quomo¬ do Scriptura docet fuisse electum Eleazarum. At Scriptura Num. XX dicit, Eleazarum elec¬ tum a Mose, et nihil tribuit populo , nisi co¬ ram eo fuisse Eleazarum electum. Et Cy¬ prianus explicans hoc, ait : « Coram omni Synagoga jubet Deus constitui Sacerdotem, id est, instruit, et ostendit ordinationes sa¬ cerdotales , non nisi sub populi assistentis conscientia fieri oportere, ut plebe praesente, vel detegantur malorum crimina, vel bono¬ rum merita praedicentur. » Et infra : « Prop¬ ter quod diligenter de traditione divina et Apostolica observatione servandum est, et tenendum, quod apud nos quoque , et ferre per provincias universas tenetur, ut ad ordi¬ nationes rite celebrandas ad eam plebem, cui Praepositus ordinatur, Episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi quique conveniant, et Episcopus deligatur, plebe praesente , quae singulorum vitam plenissime novit, et unius¬ cujusque actum de ejus conversatione per¬ spexit. » Argumentum Octavum sumit Illyricus ex Nicaeno Concilio. Nam in epist. ejusdem Concilii ad Alexandrinos, apud Theodoretum lib. I, cap. 9. hist. habentur haec verba : « Dignum est, vos potestatem habere, et eli¬ gendi quemlibet , et nomina eorum dandi, qui Clero sunt digni, et absolute facere om¬ nia secundum leges et sanctiones Ecclesiae. Si quem vero contigerit requiescere in Ec¬ clesia, tunc provehi in honorem defuncti eos, qui nuper assumpti sunt, solummodo si videantur digni, et populus eos elegerit, com (1) Act. XIV, 22, CAPUT VII. 431 decernente simul et designante maxime Ale¬ xandrinae civitatis Episcopo. » Respondeo, ex hoc testimonio nihil aliud colligi posse , nisi jam tum coepisse consue¬ tudinem, ut populus electioni admisceretur, quod nos minime negamus. Non autem inde colligitur, id esse de jure divino , quod ad¬ versariis erat probandum. Sed notanda est hoc loco duplex fraus Illyrici. Nam Conci¬ lium Nicaenum initio hujus testimonii ab Il¬ lyrico citati, non loquitur de plebe , sed de Episcopis, atque illos dicit habere debere po¬ testatem eligendi, et omnia faciendi secun¬ dum Ecclesiae sanctiones : Illyricus autem sic pervertit, et immutavit verba , ut videa¬ tur Concilium tribuere plebi omnem potes¬ tatem gubernandi Ecclesiam. Deinde ad fi¬ nem ejus testimonii Concilium dicit debere eligi Episcopum a populo, sed confirmari electionem ab Episcopo Alexandrino (nam de Episcopis dEgypti agitur) et proinde tri¬ buit Concilium praecipuam auctoritatem Episcopo in electionibus. Illyricus autem im¬ mutavit verba, ut videretur, Episcopus nihil amplius posse, quam populus. Yide totum locum. Argumentum Nonum Illyrici , Calvini et Kemnitii, sumitur ex epistola Concilii II ge¬ neralis ad Damasum, quam refert Theodo- retus lib. Y liist. cap. 9. ubi sic legimus : « Reverendissimum et Deo amabilem Necta- rium Episcopum ordinavimus coram univer¬ sali Concilio cum omni concordia , sub as¬ pectu etiam Deo amabilis Imperatoris Theo¬ dosii, universique Cleri , cuncta decernente pariter civitate. » Similia profert Calvinus ex Leone epist. 89. et Gregorio lib. II epist. cap. 69. Addit Kemnitius unum testimonium ex Ambrosio lib. X, epist. 82. et alia, quae non ex fontibus citat, sed ex decreto Gra¬ tiani, dist. 23. 24. 62. 63. 63. 67. et 8. quaest. 1. can. Licet, multa etiam ejusdem generis citat Illyricus in suo libro de elec¬ tione Episcoporum. Respondeo Primo, ex nullo horum testi¬ moniorum colligi, esse de jure divino, ut po¬ pulus eligat. Secundo, in his omnibus , uno vel altero exceptis , nullam fieri mentionem electionis, sed solum postulationis vel testi¬ monii. Tertio, nos non negare, quin aliquan¬ do populus elegerit, sicut etiam nunc in qui¬ busdam locis eligunt Reges, sed id juris ha¬ bere eos, vel habuisse ex confessione Ponti¬ ficum, non ex jure divino. Ex quibusapparet, quam splendide mentiatur Calvinus 1. 1 Y Inst. cap. 5, §. 2. cum dicit ritum eligendi Epis¬ copos sine suffragio populi, pugnare cum verbo Dei, et cum multis Conciliorum de¬ cretis, quae statuerunt, irritam esse electio¬ nem si aliter fiat. Nam nec ullum verbum Dei attulit, nec ullum Concilii decretum, nec ullum afferri potest, in quo habeatur quod ipse dicit. Argumentum Decimum Illyrici, sumitur a consuetudine Ecclesiae. Dicit enim , fuisse usum istum in Ecclesia per annos fere 1300, et solum a tempore Friderici II, qui obiit anno 1250, introductum, ut Laici exclude¬ rentur ab electione. Probat autem, quod tamdiu duraverit consuetudo eligendi ad suffragia populi , ex Gregorio IX : qui sedit tempore Friderici. Exstat enim in decretali¬ bus epistolis a Gregorio IX editis , tit. de electione, cap. Messana, mentio hujus rei, necnon in epistola ejusdem Gregorii ad Episcopum Bremensem, apud Krantiumlib. YIII Metropolis, cap. 3. Denique ita conclu¬ dit Illyricus hoc argumentum. Quare nul¬ lum prorsus est dubium , quin electio ante annos 300. et deinceps quoque aliquandiu a Laicis citra omnem controversiam sit fac¬ titata. Respondeo, Illyricum egregie mentiri. Nam in primis, Apostolorum tempore, et deinceps multis annis nihil potuit in electio- tionibus populus, nisi testimonium vitae da¬ re, ut ex supra dictis patet. Deinde conse¬ quentibus saeculis irrepsit plebs ad suffra¬ gia, sed nec tam longo tempore , nec citra controversiam, ut Illyricus dicit. Nam Gre- gorius IX , in epist. citata ad Bremensem Episcopum clarissime dicit, Canonicorum fuisse electionem , licet accesserint etiam vota, id est, desideria et postulationes po¬ puli. Porro caput Messana, est contra ipsum Il¬ lyricum ; nam in eo capite prohibetur seve¬ rissime, ne Laici eligant : « Edicto , inquit Honorius, perpetuo prohibemus, ne perLai- cos cum Canonicis Pontificis electio praesu¬ matur. guod si forte praesumpta fuerit, nul¬ lam obtineat firmitatem, non obstante con¬ traria consuetudine, quae dici debet potius corrupteia. » Haec ille. Non igitur citra con¬ troversiam Laici ante annos trecentos elige¬ bant. Praeterea, electio Alexandri III, ante annos 150, per solos Cardinales facta est, ut cognosci potest ex Radevico lib. II de rebus gestis Friderici I, cap. 50 et sequentibus. Item electio Gregorii VII ante annos quin- 432 LIBER I. gentos, per solos Cardinales facta est, ut pa¬ tet ex decreto* electionis illius apud Piati- nam. Denique , quomodo citra controver¬ siam usque ad annum 1200, Laici elege¬ runt? cum, ut supra citavimus, Concilium octavum ante annos 700, et Concilium sep¬ timum ante annos 800, et Concilium Martini Papae ante annos 900 , et Concilium Laodi- cenum ante annos 1200 , interdixerint, ne Laici eligant. Argumentum Undecimum est ejusdem Il¬ lyrici , qui politicas rationes quasdam pro¬ fert, sed ineptissimas ; qualis illa est, quod Canonici et Monachi fere semper eligant Episcopos, aut Abbates Papistas , raro aut numquam Lutheranos. Scilicet, valde expe¬ diret Ecclesiis et Monasteriis, ut ab iis gu¬ bernarentur, qui nihil oderunt magis, quam Clericos et Monachos. Addit etiam , valde esse incommodum , quod cum Episcopi et Abbates Germaniae sint etiam Principes tem¬ porales, a sex tantum aut octo interdum ho¬ minibus eligantur; quasi Imperator non sit Princeps longe major , qui tamen a sex tan¬ tum aut septem Electoribus creatur.