Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 3: The Political Magistrate Asserted from the Scriptures
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Laicis sive Saecularibus (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book III), On the Laity or Secular Persons (On the Members of the Church, Book III). 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).
As to the first point, the Scripture of the Old Testament is full of testimonies. In Exodus 22 the judges of the people are called by God Himself “gods,” as also in Psalm 81: “God hath stood in the assembly of the gods, and in the midst He judgeth the gods.” The reason of this word Jehoshaphat explains (2 Paralipomenon 19), where he says that judges exercise the judgments not of men but of God, that is, judge in God’s place. And similarly (Deuteronomy 1) Moses warns the judges of the people to judge justly, because it is the judgment of God; and Christ (John 10): “If He called them gods to whom the word of God was spoken, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world,” and so on. Where Christ means to say: if God calls princes gods, because to them the divine command was given, that they should judge in His place, why not much more — and so on. For what others say does not fit, that all those were called gods to whom God spoke. If, then, princes are called gods because they hold the place of God, the office of princes cannot be reprehended, unless the office of God Himself be reprehended.
Besides, in Deuteronomy 17 Moses describes laws for the future king; and in the book of Judges, in the last chapter, in the last words, the Holy Spirit, wishing to give the cause of all the evils that happened at that time, says: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed good to himself.” In the same book of Judges, and in the book of Kings, we have everywhere that God raised up for Israel judges or princes, through whom He might deliver the people. Proverbs 8: “By me kings reign.”
The Anabaptists answer that magistrates were permitted to the Jews on account of their imperfection, and that the reasoning of the New Testament is different.
But against this: for first the prophets foretold that all the kings of the earth would serve Christ and the Church — which cannot be, unless there be kings in the Church. Psalm 2: “And now, O kings, understand; receive instruction, you that judge the earth; embrace discipline” — according to the Hebrew, “kiss the Son,” whom in the same Psalm Scripture calls the Messiah. Likewise Psalm 71: “All the kings of the earth shall adore Him; all nations shall serve Him.” Isaiah 60: “The Gentiles shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising.” And chapter 49: “Kings shall be thy foster-fathers, and queens thy nurses; they shall worship thee with their face toward the earth, and they shall lick up the dust of thy feet” — which we certainly see fulfilled in Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, and others, who adored the tombs of the Apostles and Martyrs, and enriched and protected the Churches.
Besides, Christ, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, among other things said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22); and Paul (Romans 13) commands that “every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but from God,” and so on. And in the same place he thrice repeats that the secular princes, to whom tribute is rendered, are the ministers of God. This passage Irenaeus too uses (Book IV, chapter 70). Likewise (1 Timothy 2) the Apostle expressly commands prayer to be made for kings. This passage Tertullian uses (in the Apology, chapter 31), because the heathen calumniated the Christians as unwilling to obey the magistrates; and certainly, if the Gospel did not bear with the magistrate, we ought to pray for the destruction of kings and princes. To Titus 3: “Admonish them to be subject to princes and powers”; and 1 Peter 2: “Fear God; honor the king.”
But they answer that from these testimonies it is proved that we ought to obey a heathen king, but not that it is lawful for Christians to possess kingdoms and hold magistracies. To whom we answer, first: it is no wonder that in the New Testament not much mention is made of magistrates; for Christ came not to establish a political kingdom, but a spiritual and heavenly kingdom; and likewise the Apostles were occupied in commending and propagating this spiritual kingdom; the political they left as it was before.
We add, besides, that although the Scripture of the New Testament does not expressly approve the political magistrate in the Church, yet it is evidently gathered from the testimonies adduced; for if it is lawful for Christians to be subject to a heathen king, why not rather to a Christian king? And if it is lawful for a Christian to be subject, why not to preside? Since to be subject seems more against evangelical liberty than to preside.
Finally, if subjection or civil rule were repugnant to Christian liberty, ecclesiastical rule would be more repugnant, because Christian liberty pertains more to a Christian as a citizen of the Church than as a citizen of the world. But ecclesiastical rule or subjection is not repugnant to Christian liberty, as is plain from that (Matthew 24): “Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom his lord hath set over his household?” And from that (Romans 12): “He that ruleth, with carefulness.” And from that (Hebrews 13): “Obey your prelates.” Therefore neither is political rule or subjection repugnant. And hence the first argument brought against us is solved.
To the first passage of Scripture, then, brought against us in the preceding chapter, it must be said that Christ in that place speaks of Himself only, and most rightly proves that He, since He was the Son of God the supreme King, was not obliged to pay tribute to any prince; otherwise He Himself ordered the tribute to be rendered to Caesar (Matthew 22), and the Apostle (Romans 13): “To whom tribute, tribute,” and so on. And although Christ properly said of Himself, “therefore the sons are free,” yet it is rightly gathered from this passage that ecclesiastics ought to be free from tributes, because the son of a king is so free that on his account his household too is free, as we said above in the book On the Clergy, chapter 25.
To the second: in that place Christ instituted the ecclesiastical magistrate, and distinguished it from the political, and from the corrupt political, to which pomp, pride, and haughtiness are wont to be annexed; and if we understand such a political magistrate to be forbidden to Christians, we say nothing absurd, for there it is not the kingdom that is reprehended, but the manner of ruling.
To the third: Paul does not mean to say, “do not let yourselves be bound by any law,” but “pay all debts in due time”; for there precedes: “Render to all their dues; to whom tribute,” and so on. And because the debt of love alone can never be so paid that we are not always bound to love, therefore he says: “Owe no man anything, but to love one another.”
To the fourth I say: to be made the bondslave of a man in that place signifies to serve a man for the man’s sake only; for otherwise in the same place Paul exhorts servants that, even if they can be made free, they should rather choose servitude; and (Galatians 5): “Serve one another.”
To the last I say: there the name “Lord” is taken properly, in the way it befits none but God; nor on that account are kings and princes done away with, who are not properly lords but ministers of God, who alone is the true Lord, for there is no greater title. For a true lord has two conditions which befit no creature. One, that he can use at his pleasure the thing of which he is lord, and increase, diminish, change, annihilate it, and so on. The other, that he serves none, that is, needs nothing, but suffices of himself for all things — as Augustine rightly notes (Book VIII On Genesis, chapter 11) and deduces from Psalm 15: “I said to the Lord, Thou art my God, for Thou hast no need of my goods”; for in the Hebrew it is, “I said to Adonai, my Lord”; and hence it is that the Seventy interpreters everywhere rendered the proper name of God, Jhvh, by Kyrios, and Jerome by “Lord.” Hence also Augustus, as Tertullian relates (in the Apology, chapter 34), never suffered himself to be called Lord, because he understood that this title befits God alone; and on the contrary Domitian is reprehended by Suetonius for incredible arrogance, because in the amphitheater he willingly heard it acclaimed to himself, “Good fortune to our Lord and Lady,” and because he ordered it to be written of himself, “Our Lord and God commands this to be done.”
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT III.
Ex Scripturis asseritur politicus Magistratus.
Quantum ad Primum, Scriptura Testamen¬
ti veteris plena est testimoniis. Exod. XXII.
Judices populi a Deo ipso vocantur Dii, sicut
etiam Psalm. LXXXI : Deus stetit in Synagoga
Deorum, inmedio autem Deos dijudicat (3); cujus’
vocabuli rationem explicat Josaphat , II.
Paralip. XIX. ubi dicit judices, non homi¬
num, sed Dei judicia exercere, id est, loco
Dei judicare, Et similiter Deuter. I. monet
Moses judices populi, ut juste judicent quia
Dei judicium est; et Christus Joan. X: Si
illos dixit Deos, ad quos sermo Dei factus est,
quem Pater sancti ficavit , et misit in mundum
etc. (4) Ubi Christus vult dicere : Si Principes
Deus vocat Deos, quia ad illos mandatum
divinum factum est, ut judicent loco suo,
(1) Matth. XVII, 24; Luc. XXII, 25; Rom. XIII, 8; I. Cor. VII, 23; II. Cor. VIII, 5: Fph. IV,
5. — (2) Gen. I. 28; III. 16. — (3) Psal. LXXXI, 1. — (4) Joan. X, 35.
CAPUT IIT.
7
cur non magis, etc. non enim quadrat quod
alii dicunt, vocatos Deos eos omnes, quibus
Deus locutus est. Si ergo Principes vocan¬
tur Dii, quia locum Dei tenent, non potest
reprehendi munus Principum, nisi reprehen¬
datur Dei ipsius munus.
Praeterea Deuteron. XVII. describit Moses
leges Regi futuro, et in lib. Judicum cap.
ult. in ultimis verbis reddere volens Spiritus
sanctus causam omnium malorum, quae ac¬
ciderunt illo tempore, dicit : In diebus illis
non erat Ilex in Israel , sed unusquisque, quod
bonum sibi videbatur , hoc faciebat {i). In eodem
libro Judicum, et in libro Regum passim
habemus Deum excitasse Israeli Judices, aut
Principes , per quos populum liberaret.
Prov. VIII : Per me Reges regnant (2).
Respondent Anabaptistae , Judaeis luisse
permissos Magistratus propter imperfectio¬
nem : ac aliam rationem esse Testamenti
novi.
At contra ; nam in primis Prophetae prae¬
dixerunt omnes Reges terrae servituros Chris¬
to, et Ecclesiae :lquod non potest fieri, ni siin
Ecclesia sint Reges. Psam. II : Et nunc Re¬
ges intelligite, erudimini , qid judicatis terram ,
apprehendite disciplinam (3) ; secundum He¬
braeum ia 1pu?3 osculamini filium, quem in
eodem Psalmo Scriptura vocat Messiam ;
item Psalm. LXXI : Adorabunt eum omnes
Reges terree , omnes Gentes servient ei (4)
Isaiae LX. Ambulabunt Gentes in lumine tuo,
et Reges in splendore ortus tui. Et cap. XLIX :
Erunt Reges nutricii tui, et Regince nutrices
tuce vultu in terra demisso adorabunt te, et
pulveres pedum tuorum lingent (5); quod certe
impletum videmus in Constantino, Theodosio,
Carolo Magno, et aliis, qui adoraverunt
sepulchra Apostolorum et Martyrum, et Ec¬
clesias ditaverunt, protexerunt.
Praeterea, Christus, praedicans Evange-
lium regni, inter alia dixit : Reddite quee sunt
Caesaris, Caesari, Matth XXII. et Paulus Ro-
man. XIII. jubet, ut Omnis anima potestati¬
bus sublimioribus subdita sit ; non enim est po¬
testas, nisi a Deo etc (6). Et ibidem ter repetit,
Principes saeculares, quibus tributa reddun¬
tur, esse ministros Dei. Quo loco utitur
etiam Irenaeus lib. IV. cap. 70. Item I. Ti-
moth. II. jubet Apostolus nominatim orari
pro Regibus. Quo loco utitur Tertullianus in
Apologet, cap. 31. quia calumniabantur
Ethnici Christianos, quod Magistratibus nol¬
lent parere ; Ac certe si Evangelium non
ferret Magistratum, oporteret orare pro des¬
tructione Regum et Principum. Ad Titum III :
A dmone illos principibus et. potestatibus subdi¬
tos esse : et I. Petri II : Deum timete, Regem
honorificate (7).
Sed respondent, ex his testimoniis probari,
oportere nos parere Regi Ethnico, non au¬
tem licere Christianis regna possidere, et
Magistratus gerere. Quibus nos responde¬
mus, Primum, non esse mirum, in Testa¬
mento novo non fieri multam mentionem
magistratuum ; nam Christus non venit
constituere regnum politicum, sed regnum
spirituale, et coeleste ; et similiter Apostoli
in hoc regno spirituali commendando, et
propagando occupati fuerunt : politicum re¬
liquerunt, ut antea erat.
Addimus praeterea , Licet non expresse
Scriptura novi Testamenti approbet in Ec¬
clesia magistratum politicum, tamen eviden¬
ter colligi ex adductis testimoniis ; nam si
Christianis licet subesse Regi Ethnico, cur
non potius Regi Christiano ? et si licet
Christiano subesse, cur non prseesse ? cum
subesse, videatur magis contra libertatem
Evangelicam, quam praeesse.
Denique, si Christianae libertati repugna¬
ret subjectio, vel praefectura civilis, magis re¬
pugnaret Ecclesiastica, quia Christiana liber¬
tas magis pertinet ad Christianum, ut est civis
Ecclesiae, quam ut est civis mundi : At non
‘repugnat Christianae libertati praefectura,
vel subjectio Ecclesiastica, ut patet ex illo
Matth. XXIV : Quis putas est' fidelis servus et
prudens, quem constituit Dominus super fami¬
liam suam ? Et ex illo Rom. XII : Qui preeest
in sollicitudine. Et ex illoHebr. XIII : Obedite
praepositis vestris (8). Neque igitur repugnat
praefectura , vel subjectio politica. Atque
hinc solvitur primum argumentum contra
allatum.
Ad Primum ergo locum Scripturae, supe¬
riore capite contra allatum, dicendum est,
Christum eo loco de seipso tantum loqui, et
rectissime probare se, qura Filius Dei summi
Regis esset, non fuisse obligatum solvere
tributum ulli Principi, alioqui ipse idem
jussit reddi censum Caesari, Matth. XXII. et
(1) Jud. XXI, 24. — (2) Prov. VIII, 15. — (3) Psal. II, 10. — (4) Psal. LXXI, 11. — (5) Isai
LX, 3; XLIX, 23; — (6) Matth. XXII, 21; Rom. XIII, 1. — (7) Tit. III, 1; I. Petr. II. 17. —
(8) Matth. XIV; 45; Rom. XII, 8 ; Hebr. XIII, 17.
8
LIRER III.
Apostolus Rom. XIII. Cui tributum , inquit,
tributum etc. quamvis autem Christus de se
proprie dixerit : Ergo liberi sunt filii, recte
tamen ex hoc loco colligitur, Ecclesiasticos
debere esse liberos a tributis, quia filius
Regis ita liber est, ut propter eum etiam
familia ejus libera sit, ut supra diximus in
libro de Clericis cap. 25.
Ad Secundum, eo loco Christus instituit
Ecclesiasticum Magistratum, et eum distin¬
guit a politico, et a politico corrupto, cui
pompte, superbia, fastus, annexa esse solent,
qualem etiam politicum Magistratum , si
intelligamus prohibitum esse Christianis,
nihil absurdi dicemus, ibi enim non repre¬
henditur regnum, sed modus regnandi.
Ad Tertium, non vult Paulus dicere, non
sinatis vos obligari ulla lege, sed solvite
mature omnia debita; praecedit enim : Red¬
dite omnibus debita, cui tributum etc. Et quia
solius amoris debitum numquam ita reddi
potest, quin semper teneamur amare, ideo
ait : Nemini quidquam debeatis, nisi ut invi¬
cem diligatis (1).
Ad Quartum dico, fieri servum hominis
eo loco significare servire homini propter
hominem tantum, nam alioqui ibidem Pau¬
lus hortatur servos, ut etiam si possint fieri
liberi, tamen magis eligant servitutem : et
Galat. Y : Seimite, inquit, invicem (2).
Ad Ultimum dico, ibi nomen Domini pro¬
prie accipi, quomodo non convenit nisi Deo;
nec propterea tolluntur Reges, et Principes,
qui non proprie domini sunt, sed ministri
Dei, qui unus verus est Dominus, nullus
enim est titulus major. Nam verus Dominus
duas habet conditiones, quae nulli creaturae
conveniunt. Una est, ut possit pro libito uti
re, cujus est Dominus, et eam augere, mi¬
nuere, mutare, annihilare etc. Altera, ut
nulli serviat, id est, nulla re indigeat, sed
seipso sufficiat ad omnia; ut recte notat Au¬
gustinus lib. de Genes. VIII . cap. H. et dedu¬
cit ex Psam. XY : Dixi Domino, Deus meus
es tu, quia bonorum meorum non eges (3) ; nam
in Hebraeo est, dixi Domino, Dominus meus
'JVtfc et hinc est quod LXX. interpretes
ubique nomem proprium Dei hin' reddide¬
runt per rrjptoa, et Hieronymus per Dominum :
hinc etiam Augustus, ut Tertullianus refert
in Apologet, cap. 34. numquam seDominum
appellari passus est, quod intelligeret hunc
titulum soli Deo convenire, et e contrario
reprehenditur a Suetonio incredibilis arro¬
gantiae Domitianus, quod in Amphitheatro
sibi acclamari libenter audiret : « Domino , et
Dominae feliciter : » et quod juberet de se
scribi : « Dominus, et Deus nostei', sic fieri
jubet. »