Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 6: The Same Asserted by an Argument Drawn from the Efficient Cause
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 fourth argument is taken from the efficient cause; for it is certain that political power is from God, from whom none but good and lawful things proceed. This Augustine proves in almost the whole of the fourth and fifth books On the City of God. For the Wisdom of God cries (Proverbs 8): “By me kings reign,” and below: “By me princes rule.” And Daniel 2: “The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom and empire,” and so on. And Daniel 4: “Thy dwelling shall be with the beasts and the wild animals; thou shalt eat grass like an ox, and shalt be wet with the dew of heaven; and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.”
But here some things must be observed. First, that political power considered in general — not descending in particular to monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy — is immediately from God alone; for it follows necessarily upon the nature of man, and accordingly is from Him who made the nature of man. Besides, this power is of the law of nature, for it does not depend on the consent of men; for, willing or unwilling, they must be ruled by someone, unless they wish the human race to perish, which is against the inclination of nature. But the law of nature is the divine law; therefore government was introduced by divine law. And this the Apostle seems properly to mean when he says (Romans 13): “He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.”
Secondly, note that this power resides immediately, as in its subject, in the whole multitude; for this power is of divine law. But the divine law gave this power to no particular man; therefore it gave it to the multitude. Besides, positive law being removed, there is no greater reason why, out of many equals, one rather than another should rule. Therefore the power belongs to the whole multitude. Finally, human society ought to be a perfect commonwealth; therefore it ought to have the power of preserving itself, and accordingly of punishing the disturbers of the peace, and so on.
Thirdly, note that this power is transferred from the multitude to one or several by the same law of nature; for the commonwealth cannot by itself exercise this power; therefore it is bound to transfer it to some one, or to some few. And in this way the power of princes, considered in general, is also of the law of nature and of divine law; nor could the human race, even if the whole came together at once, establish the contrary, namely that there should be no princes or rulers.
Fourthly, note that in particular the individual species of government are of the law of nations, not of the law of nature; for it depends on the consent of the multitude to set over itself a king, or consuls, or other magistrates, as is plain; and if a lawful cause be present, the multitude can change a kingdom into an aristocracy or democracy, and conversely, as we read was done at Rome.
Fifthly, note that from what has been said it follows that this power in particular is indeed from God, but by the mediation of human counsel and election, like all other things which pertain to the law of nations. For the law of nations is, as it were, a conclusion deduced from the law of nature by human discourse. From which are gathered two differences between political and ecclesiastical power. One on the part of the subject: for the political resides in the multitude, the ecclesiastical in one man as in its immediate subject. The other on the part of the efficient cause: that the political, considered in general, is of divine law, but considered in particular is of the law of nations; whereas the ecclesiastical is in every way of divine law, and immediately from God.
From these things I answer to the fourth argument of the Anabaptists, first: the argument proves only about a kingdom in particular, not about the principate itself in general; but we here wish to establish the principate in general, not any certain form of it. Add, secondly, that very often kingdoms are just and unjust, from God and not from God. For on the part of those who occupy and invade them, kingdoms are robberies and unjust, and accordingly not from God; yet on the part of the divine providence, which uses the evil intention of men and orders it either to the punishing of sins, or the rewarding of good works, or to other good ends, those kingdoms are just and lawful. For God sometimes, by an admirable reasoning of His providence, so takes kingdoms from some and bestows them on others, that both he who falls from a kingdom falls most justly, and yet he who invades the kingdom does not justly possess it, being himself also destined to pay, in his own time, most just penalties for that invasion. And by a far different reasoning did God deliver Palestine to the children of Israel to be possessed, than that by which afterward either Shalmaneser or Nebuchadnezzar delivered the same. For the children of Israel, under the leadership of Joshua, fought with the Palestinians by a praiseworthy obedience, and, having destroyed them utterly, claimed their lands for themselves. But Shalmaneser and Nebuchadnezzar, by a detestable sacrilege, led the people of God captive; for they wished to obey not the command of God, but their own depraved cupidity, although God used them, even without their knowing it, for that which He most justly willed to be done.
This matter Saint Augustine explains accurately (in the book On Grace and Free Choice, chapters 20 and 21), and Hugh of Saint Victor (Book I On the Sacraments, part 1, chapter 29); nor are testimonies of the Scriptures lacking. For in Isaiah 10 we read thus: “Asshur is the rod of my fury, and the staff is in their hand; it is my indignation. I will send him to a deceitful nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take away the spoils and to seize the prey, and to lay it to be trodden down like the mire of the streets. But he shall not take it so, and his heart shall not think so,” and so on. Where he speaks of Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, who with a wicked mind occupied the regions of Israel; yet God, without their knowing it, used their work to punish the Israelites.
So Isaiah 45: “Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings. I will go before thee, and will humble the great ones of the earth,” and so on, “for the sake of my servant Jacob and Israel my elect; and I have called thee by thy name, I have made thee like myself, and thou hast not known me.” From which passage it appears that Cyrus acquired the monarchy for himself out of cupidity of ruling, and not for the sake of obeying God; and yet that God was with him, and gave him the monarchy which he sought, that he himself might free the people of Israel from the Babylonian captivity.
Jeremiah 27: “I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, my servant; moreover I have given him the beasts of the field, that they may serve him; and all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the time of his own land come; and many nations and great kings shall serve him. But the nation and kingdom that will not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and whosoever shall not bend his neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, I will visit that nation with the sword and with famine and with pestilence, saith the Lord almighty.” And yet who doubts that Nebuchadnezzar subjected to himself so many kingdoms with an evil intention?
Ezekiel too says (chapter 29): “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made his army to serve with a great service against Tyre, and there was no reward given him from Tyre for the service by which he served me against it.” And below: “I have given him the land of Egypt, because he hath labored for me, saith the Lord God.”
So the Romans sought the monarchy not for God’s sake, but out of cupidity of glory, as Blessed Augustine shows at length (Book V On the City of God, chapter 12); and yet God gave them the monarchy, both that He might render a reward to their good moral works, as the same Augustine teaches (Book V, chapter 13, On the City of God), and also that, through the union of all nations under one principate, a way might be prepared for the preaching of the Gospel, as Blessed Leo says (sermon 1 on Saints Peter and Paul).
Add, however, that even if at the beginning those who established kingdoms were, for the most part, invaders, yet in the course of time either they themselves or their successors become lawful princes, because the peoples gradually consent. In this way the kingdom of the Franks is now lawful by the consent of all, although at the beginning the Franks unjustly occupied the Gauls. And the same can be said of the Spanish kingdom, which began from the invasion of the Goths; and of the kingdom of the English, which began from the unjust occupation of the Anglo-Saxons; and of the Roman Empire itself, which was established by Julius Caesar, the oppressor of his fatherland; which nevertheless afterward began to be so lawful that the Lord said (Matthew 22): “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” and so on.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT VI. Idem asseritur ratione ducta ab efficiente. Quarta ratio ab efficiente sumitur ; nam ' certum est politicam potestatem a Deo esse, a quo non nisi res bonae, et licitae procedunt. Id quod probat Augustinus in toto fere IV et V. libro de civit. Dei; Nam sapientia Dei clamat Proverb. VIII: Per me Reges regnant. Et infra : Per me Principes imperant. Et Da- niel II : Deus cceli , regnum et imperium dedit tibi etc. Et Daniel IV : Cum bestiis , ferisque erit habitatio tua , fcenum, ut bos, comedes , et rore cceli infunderis, septem quoque tempora mutabuntur super te, donec scias quod domine- tur excelsus super regnum hominum, et cui¬ cumque voluerit , det illud (2). Sed hic observanda sunt aliqua. Primo, politicam potestatem in universum conside- (1) Prov, XI, 14. — (2) Prov. VIII, 15 et 16; Dan. II, 37; IV, 22. CAPUT VI. 11 ratam, non descendendo in particulari ad Monarchiam, Aristocratiam, vel Democra- liam, immediate esse a solo Deo : nam con¬ sequitur necessario naturam hominis, proinde tsse ab illo, qui fecit naturam hominis. Prae¬ terea haec potestas est de jure naturae, non enim pendet ex consensu hominum : nam velint, nolint, debent regi ab aliquo, nisi ve¬ lint perire humanum genus, quod est contra naturae inclinationem. At jus naturae est jus divinum, jure igitur divino introducta est gubernatio ; et*hoc videtur proprie velle Apostolus, cum dicit Roman. XIII: Quipotes- tati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit (1). Secundo nota, hanc potestatem immediate esse tamquam in subjecto, in tota multitu¬ dine : nam haec potestas est de jure divino. At jus divinum nulli homini particulari dedit hanc potestatem : ergo dedit multitudini. Praeterea sublato jure positivo, non est ma¬ jor ratio cur ex mullis aequalibus unus po¬ tius, quam alius dominetur. Igitur potestas totius est multitudinis. Denique humana so¬ cietas debet esse perfecta Respublica : ergo debet habere potestatem seipsam conser¬ vandi, et proinde puniendi perturbatores pacis etc. Tertio nota, hanc potestatem transferri a multitudine in unum vel plures eodem jure naturae : nam Respublica non potest per seipsam exercere hanc potestatem : ergo te¬ netur eam transferre in aliquem unum, vel aliquos paucos; et hoc modo potestas prin- cipum in genere considerata, est etiam de jure naturae et divino, nCc posset genus hu¬ manum , etiamsi totum simul conveniret, contrarium statuere, nimirum, ut nulli essent principes vel rectores. Quarto nota, in particulari singulas spe¬ cies regiminis esse de jure gentium, non de jure naturae, nam pendet a consensu mul¬ titudinis, constituere super se regem vel con¬ sules, vel alios magistratus, ut patet ; et si causa legitima adsit, potest multitudo mutare regnum in Aristocratiam aut Democratiam, et e contrario ut Romae factum legimus. Quinto nota, ex dictis sequi, hanc potesta¬ tem in particulari esse quidem a Deo, sed mediante congflio, et electione humana, ut alia omnia, quae ad jus gentium pertinent. Jus enim gentium est quasi conclusio deducta ex jure naturae per humanum discursum. Ex quo colliguntur duae differentiae inter potes¬ tatem politicam, et Ecclesiasticam ; una ex parte subjecti, nam politica est in multitu¬ dine, Ecclesiastica in uno homine tamquam in subjecto immediate; altera ex parte effi¬ cientis, quod politica universa considerata est de jure divino, in particulari considerata est de jure gentium; Ecclesiastica omnibus modis est de jure divino, et immediate a Deo. Ex his ad argumentum quartum Ana- baptistarum respondeo, Primo : Argumen¬ tum solum probare de regno in particulari, non de ipso principatu in universum, nos autem hoc loco principatum in universum, non certam aliquam ejus formam constituero volumus. Adde secundo, saepissime regna esse justa et injusta ; a Deo, et non a Deo; nam ex parte ipsorum occupantium et inva¬ dentium, regna sunt latrocinia, et injusta, et proinde non a Deo ; tamen ex parte divinae providentiae, quae utitur matfa intentione ho¬ minum, et illam ordinat vel ad peccata pu¬ nienda, vel remuneranda bona opera, vel ad alios bonos fines, regna illa sunt justa, et legitima. Deus enim interdum admirabili ra¬ tione providentiae suae, ita quibusdam regna adimit, quibusdam largitur, ut et qui regno cadit, justissime cadat, nec tamen juste pos¬ sideat, qui regnum invadit, daturus etiam ipse suo tempore illius invasionis justissimas poenas. Ac longe alia ratione Deus filiis Is¬ rael Palestinam tradidit possidendam, quam illam eamdemvel Salmanasar, velNabucho- donosor postea tradiderit. Siquidem filii Is¬ rael, duce Josue, laudabili obedientia cum Palaestinis pugnabant, illisque ad interne¬ cionem deletis, terras eorum sibi vendica- bant. Salmanasar vero, et Nabuchodonosor, detestabili sacrilegio, Dei populum capti¬ vum ducebant; neque enim imperio Dei, sed pravae suee cupiditati obsequi vole¬ bant, tametsi Deus ipsis et etiam ignoranti¬ bus utebatur ad id quod justissime fieri vo¬ lebat. Explicant hanc rem accurate S. Augus- tin. lib. de gratia, et libero arbit. cap. 20 et 21, et Hugo Yictorinus lib. I. de Sacramen¬ tis, par. I. cap. 29, nec desunt scripturarum testimonia. Nam Isaire X. sic legimus : Assur virgo furoris mei, et baculus ipse est, in manu eorum indignatio mea. Ad gentem fallacem mit¬ tam eum, et contra populum furoris mei man¬ dabo illi, ut auferat spolia, et diripiat praedam, (1) Rom. XIII, 2. LIBER III. 12 et ponam illum iu conculcationem , quasi lutum platearum ; ipse autem non sic arbitratur, et cor ejus non ita existimabit etc. (1) Ubi loquitur de Salmanasar, et Sennacherib, qui animo iniquo occupaverunt regiones Israel; tamen Deus illis nescientibus usus est eorum opera ad puniendum Israelitas. Sic Isaice XLV : Haec dicit Dominus Christo meo Cyro, cujus apprehendi dexteram, ut sub¬ jiciam ante faciem ejus gentes, et dorsa regum vertam. Ego ante te ibo , gloriosos terree humiliabo etc. propter servum meum Jacob, et Israel electum meum; et vocavi te nomine tuo, assimilavi te, et non cognovisti me (2). Ex quo loco apparet Gyrum acquisivisse sibi Monar¬ chiam ex cupiditate dominandi, et non prop¬ ter Dei obsequium : et tamen Deum illi affuisse, et Monarchiam, quam quaerebat, illi dedisse, ut ipse liberaret populum Israel de Babylonica captivitate. Hierem. XXVII : Ego dedi omnes terras istas in manu Nabuchodonosor Regis Babylo- lonis servi mei ; Insuper et bestias agri dedi ei, ut serviant illi, et servient ei omnes gentes, et filio ejus, et filio filii ejus, donec veniat tempus terree ejus, et ipsius , et servient ei gentes multee, et reges magni. Gens autem, et regnum, quod non servierit Nabuchodonosor regi Babylonis, et quicumque non curvaverit collum suum sub jugo regis Babylonis, in gladio et in fame et in peste visitabo super gentem illam , ait Domi¬ nus omnipotens (3). Et tamen quis dubitat, quin Nabuchodonosor mala intentione sub¬ jecerit sibi tot regna? Ezechiel quoque ait, cap. XXIX : Nabu¬ chodonosor Rex Babylonis servire fecit exer¬ citum suum servitute magna adversus Tyrum, et merces non est reddita ei de Tyro pro servi¬ tute, qua servivit mihi adversus eam. Et in¬ fra : Dedi ei terram xEgypti pro eo quod labo¬ raverit mihi, ait Dominus Deus (4). Sic Romani non propter Deum, sed cupi- date gloriae quaerebant Monarchiam, ut B. August. ostendit prolixe libr. V. civit. Dei cap. 12. et tamen Deus Monarchiam eis dona¬ vit, tum, ut mercedem redderet bonis eorum operibus moralibus, ut idem Augustin. docet lib. V. cap. 13. civit. Dei, tum etiam, ut per unionem omnium Gentium sub uno princi¬ patu pararetur via Evangelicae praedicationi, utB. Leo dicit serm. I. de SS Petro et Paulo. Adde tamen, quod etiamsi initio, qui re¬ gna constituerunt, fuerint invasores, ut plu¬ rimum ; tamen successu temporis fiunt vel ipsi, vel successores eorum legitimi Princi¬ pes, quia populi paulatim consentiunt. Hoc modo regnum Francorum nunc omnium consensu legitimum est, licet initio Franci injuste Gallias occupaverint. Atque idem dici potest de regno Hispanico, quod ab in¬ vasione Gothorum coepit; et de regno An- glorum, quod caepit ab injusta occupatione Anglosaxonum ; et de ipso Imperio Romano, quod a Julio Caesare patriae oppressore con¬ stitutum est; quod tamen postea adeo legi¬ timum esse coepit, ut Dominus dixerit Mat- th. XXII : Reddite quoe sunt Caesaris, Caesari etc. (3).