Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 4: The Same Asserted from the Examples of the Saints
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).
The second argument is taken from examples; for if the principate were an evil thing, holy men would never have held it. But we have in Scripture very many examples of holy princes: as Melchizedek, king of Salem; Joseph the Patriarch, who most usefully presided over all Egypt; Moses, Joshua, almost all the Judges, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Daniel, Mordecai, Nehemiah, the Maccabees, and others.
In the New Testament we see (John 4) that the ruler believed in Christ, and yet was not ordered to renounce his principate; and similarly (Acts 13) the proconsul converted by Paul did not on that account lay down his magistracy. We see, further, that by Saint Fabian, Pope and Martyr, and by the whole Church, the Emperor Philip was admitted, nor was he ordered to lay down the empire, as is gathered from the history of Eusebius (Book VI, chapter 25).
And the reason there is not a greater abundance of examples in the New Testament is that God willed to begin His Church from poor and lowly men, as is said (1 Corinthians 1), lest the increase of the Church should be thought a human work, if it had grown by the favor of princes; nay, on the contrary, God willed for the first 300 years that the Church be attacked with all their might by the emperors of the whole world, that thereby He might show the Church to be His work, and that it could do more by suffering than they could by torturing.
Whence Augustine (in letter 50) says that God willed in the first time that part of Psalm 2 to be fulfilled: “The kings of the earth stood up,” and so on; and then in the following time that other part: “And now, O kings, understand” — as indeed we see fulfilled in Constantine and his successors; since we see Constantine divinely taught and called by God by a singular miracle, as Eusebius relates (Book I On the Life of Constantine). But if the principate were an evil thing, why would Christ Himself have called Constantine to the Church? Where note in passing a discrepancy about this history; for in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius translated by Rufinus (Book IX, chapter 9) it is had that Constantine in sleep saw the sign of the cross in heaven, and then that the angels said to him, “In this conquer”; but in Book I On the Life of Constantine Eusebius relates that on his march he saw with his bodily eyes above the sun the sign of the cross with those letters, “In this conquer,” and that the same sign was beheld by the whole army, and that afterward by night Christ appeared to him, who explained the mystery, and that he heard all these things from Constantine himself in person. And so it is likely that what is had in the history from Rufinus was added. Very many other examples could be added: Jovian, Gratian, Theodosius the younger and the elder, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Otto I, Saint Henry the Emperor, Saint Louis King of the Franks, and many others who, whether in Britain, or in Hungary, or in Bohemia, or in other regions, reigned most holily.
To the argument on the contrary I say, first, that it is false that princes are for the most part bad; for here we are not treating of a particular kingdom, but of the political principate in general, such a prince as Abraham was, and others. As therefore there were bad princes — Cain, Nimrod, Ninus, Pharaoh, Saul, Jeroboam, and the other kings of Israel — so on the contrary there were good princes: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, almost all the Judges, and very many kings of Judah.
Secondly I say that the examples of bad princes do not prove the principate to be evil, for often the bad abuse good things; but the examples of the good rightly prove that the principate is good, because good men do not use evil things. Besides, even bad princes often profit more than they harm, as is plain of Saul, Solomon, and others. Finally, it is more useful for the commonwealth to have a bad prince than none; for where there is none, the commonwealth cannot long subsist, as Solomon says (Proverbs 11): “Where there is no governor, the people shall fall”; and where there is one, though bad, the unity of the people is preserved. See Blessed Thomas (in Opusculum 20, chapter 6, Book I).
Thirdly I say that the fact that among the kings of Israel not one was good pertains to a signal providence of God; for God willed to permit this because that rebellion of the Israelites from the tribe of Judah signified the schisms of heretics from the Church, as Eucherius teaches at the end of Book III on the book of Kings. For as among Catholics there are both good and bad, but among heretics none can be good, so also among the kings of Judah many were good, many also bad; but of the kings of Israel not one at all was found good.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAFUT IV. Idem asseritur exemplis Sanctorum. Secunda ratio sumitur ab exemplis ; nam si res mala esset principatus, numquam viri sancti eum gessissent ; at habemus in Scriptura plurima exempla sanctorum Prin- cipum, ut Melchisedech Regis Salem, Jose- phi Patriarchae, qui toti ./Egypto utilissime praefuit, Moysis, Josue, omnium fere Judi¬ cum, Davidis, Salomonis, Ezechiae, Josa- phat, Josiae, Danielis, Mardochaei, Nehemiae, Machahaeorum, et aliorum. In Testamento novo videmus Joan. IV. Regulum credidisse in Christum, nec tamen jussum renuntiare principatui ; et similiter Actor. XIII. Proconsulem conversum a Paulo, non propterea, deposuisse magistratum. Vi¬ demus deinde a S. Fabiano Papa, et Mar¬ tyre, et a tota Ecclesia admissum fuisse Philippum Imperatorem , nec illi impera¬ tum, ut deponeret imperium, ut ex historia Eusebii lib. VI. cap. 25. colligitur. Quod autem non sit in Testamento novo major copia exemplorum, ratio est, quia Deus voluit Ecclesiam suam inchoare ab hominibus pauperibus, et vilibus ut dicitur I. Cor. I, ne putaretur augmentum Ecclesiae opus humanum, si favore Principum crevis¬ set : imo e contrario voluit Deus primis 300 annis, ut Ecclesia totis viribus oppugnaretur ab Imperatoribus totius mundi, ut inde os¬ tenderet, opus suum esse Ecclesiam, et plus posse illam patiendo, quam possent illi cru¬ ciando. Unde Augustinus in epist. 50. dicit Deum voluisse primo tempore impleri illam partem Psalmi II : Astiterunt Reges terree etc. Deinde sequenti tempore illam aliam : Et nunc Re¬ ges intelligite : (4) sicut revera impletum vi¬ demus in Constantino, et successoribus ejus; (1) Rom. XIII, 7 et 8. — (2) Gal. V. 13. — (3) Psal. XV, 1. — (4) Psal, II, 2 et 10. CAPUT Y. 9 siquidem videmus Constantinum divinitus edoctum, et vocatum a Deo singulari mira¬ culo, ut Eusebius refert lib. I. de vita Cons¬ tantini. At si res mala esset principatus, quare Christus ipse Constantinum ad Eccle¬ siam vocasset?Ubi nota obiter dissonan¬ tiam circa hanc historiam ; nam in historia Ecclesiastica Eusebii a Ruffino versa lib. IX. cap. 9. habetur Constantinum per soporem vidisse signum crucis in coelo, et deinde An¬ gelos ei dixisse : In hoc vince ; At lib. I. de vita Constantini Eusebius refert, in itinere eum corporeis oculis vidisse supra solem signum crucis cum illis litteris : In hoc vince; et idem signum a toto exercitu conspectum, et noctu postea ei apparuisse Christum, qui mysterium explicuerit, atque haec omnia se ab ipso Constantino coram audivisse. Ita¬ que verisimile est quod in historia habetur a Ruffino additum fuisse. Alia plurima exem¬ pla addi possent Joviani, Gratiani, Theodosii junioris et senioris, Caroli Magni, Ludovici Pii , Othonis I. S. Henrici Imperatoris, S. Ludovici Regis Francorum, aliorumque multorum, qui vel in Britannia, vel in Hun- garia, vel in Bohemia, vel in aliis regionibus sanctissime regnaverunt. Ad argumentum in contrarium dico Primo, falsum esse Prin¬ cipes ut plurimum esse malos ; hic enim non agimus de regno particulari, sed de politico principatu in genere, qualis Princeps fuit Abraham,- et alii ; sicut ergo fuerunt mali Principes, Cain, Nemrod, Ninus, Pharao, Saul, Hieroboam, et alii Reges Israel ; ita e contrario fuerunt boni Principes, Adam, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moyses, Josue, omnes fere Judices, et plurimi Reges Juda. Secundo dico, exempla malorum Princi- pum non probare malum esse principatum, saepe enim mali abutuntur rebus bonis, at exempla bonorum recte probant, principa¬ tum esse bonum, quia homines boni non utuntur rebus malis. Praeterea, etiam Prin¬ cipes mali plus prosunt saepe, quam obsint, ut patet de Saule, Salomone, et aliis. Deni¬ que utilius est Reipub. malum Principem habere, quam nullum, ubi enim nullus est non potest diu consistere Respublica, di¬ cente Salomone Proverb. XI : Ubi non est gubernator , cormxet populus (I); et ubi est, licet maius, conservatur unitas populi. Vide Beatum Thomam in opusc. 20. cap. 6. lib. I. Tertio dico, quod in Regibus Israel nullus fuerit bonus, ad insignem Dei providentiam pertinere : Deus enim id permittere voluit, quia rebellio illa Israelitarum a tribu Juda, significabat schismata Haireticorum ab Ec¬ clesia, ut Eucherius, docet in fine lib. III. super libro Regum : sicut enim inter Catho¬ licos sunt boni, et mali ; at inter Haereticos nullus potest esse bonus, ita quoque inter Reges Juda multi fuerunt boni, multi etiam mali. Ex Regibus Israel nullus omnino in¬ ventus est bonus.