Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 13: The Fourth Proposition: A Christian Magistrate May Punish the Disturbers of Public Quiet with the Sword
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).
“It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with the sword the disturbers of the public quiet.” It is proved, first, by the Scriptures; for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospel we have precepts and examples of this thing. For in Genesis 9 God says: “Whoever sheddeth man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot mean a prediction, because a prediction of this kind would often be false, but an ordinance and precept. Whence the Chaldee paraphrase renders it: “Whoever sheddeth blood, with witnesses, by the sentence of a judge his blood shall be shed.” Genesis 38: Judah said, “Bring her forth, that she may be burnt.” Where Judah the Patriarch, as prince of the family, adjudged the adulteress to the punishment of fire.
In the law of Moses there are very many precepts and examples. Exodus 21: “He that striketh a man, willing to kill him, let him die the death.” And Moses himself, Joshua, Samuel, David, Elijah, and other holy men killed very many. Matthew 26: “He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword.” Which words cannot be rightly understood except in this way: everyone who commits an unjust slaughter ought likewise to be killed by the magistrate. For the Lord reprehended Peter, not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or the Lord as to avenge the injury done to the Lord, when yet he himself had no public authority — as Augustine (tract 112 on John) and Cyril (Book XI on John, chapter 35) rightly expound. Besides, Romans 13: “If thou do evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister.” The Apostle says the sword was given by God to princes against the criminal; therefore, if such be found in the Church, why cannot they be struck with the sword?
Secondly, it is proved from the testimonies of the Fathers. Innocent I (in letter 3 to Exuperius, chapter 3), asked whether after Baptism it was lawful for the magistrate to punish the guilty with the sword, answers that it is wholly lawful. Hilary (in canon 32, or on Matthew 26) says it is lawful to kill in two cases, namely if one discharge the office of a judge, or use the sword in his own defense. Jerome (on Jeremiah 22): “To punish murderers, and sacrilegious men, and poisoners is not the shedding of blood, but the ministry of the laws.” Augustine (Book I On the City of God, chapter 21): “They by no means acted against that precept by which it was said, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ who, bearing the person of the public power, punished the wicked with death.”
Lastly it is proved by reason. For it belongs to a good prince, to whom the guarding of the common good is committed, to prevent the parts, which are for the sake of the whole, from corrupting it; and therefore, if he cannot keep all the parts entire, he ought rather to cut off one part than to allow the common good to perish — just as farmers cut off the branches and shoots which harm the vine or the tree, and a physician cuts off members which could infect the whole body.
To the argument of the Anabaptists from Matthew 5, “an eye for an eye,” and so on, there are two solutions. One, that the old law, because it was given to imperfect men, permitted the appetite of vengeance, and only commanded that a greater be not sought than the injury had been — not that to seek vengeance is lawful, but that it is a lesser evil to seek moderate than immoderate vengeance; and that Christ, who instructed the more perfect, took away this permission. So Augustine (Book I On the Sermon on the Mount, chapter 35, and against Adimantus, chapter 8); and the same Chrysostom and Hilary hold on this passage. But because in Leviticus 19 vengeance is forbidden, “Seek not revenge,” and in Ecclesiasticus 28 we read, “He that will revenge himself shall find vengeance from the Lord,” perhaps we shall answer more rightly with Saint Thomas and Saint Bonaventure and some others (on the third book of the Sentences, distinction 30): that the Lord, when He says, “You have heard that it was said to them of old, an eye for an eye,” and so on, does not reprehend that law, nor forbid the magistrate to inflict the penalty of retaliation, but reprehends the depraved exposition of the Pharisees, and forbids to private men the desire and the demanding of vengeance. For God (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 24) established a holy law that the magistrate should visit the wicked with the penalty of retaliation; the Pharisees deduced from this that it was lawful for private men to seek vengeance — just as, from the fact that the law said, “Thou shalt love thy friend,” they deduced that it was lawful to hate enemies. But Christ teaches that these are corruptions of the law, and that one ought to love even enemies, and not resist evil, but rather that we ought to be prepared, if need be, to turn the other cheek to him who has struck one. And that the Lord addresses private men is plain from what follows. For thus the Lord says: “But I say to you, not to resist evil; but if anyone strike thee on one cheek,” and so on.
But it must be observed that when it is said, “not to resist evil,” a just defense is not forbidden, but a striking back; for Christ commands that thou strike not him who struck thee, as Theophylact rightly teaches. And he is said to strike who strikes to harm, not he who strikes to guard himself; and, in brief, not defense but vengeance is forbidden, according to that of Romans 12: “Not defending yourselves, dearly beloved” — that is, not avenging yourselves. For so it is in the Greek, ekdikountes; whence follows: “But give place to wrath, for it is written: Vengeance is mine, and I will repay.” But not even vengeance itself is simply forbidden, if it be sought from a lawful judge, and sought for a good end — namely, either because the malefactor must be amended by this punishment, or because his malice could not otherwise be repressed and hindered, and he would go on to harm if dismissed unpunished. Therefore only that vengeance is forbidden which private men wish to exercise of themselves, and which they seek from a judge out of a desire to harm an enemy and to satisfy their own wrath and hatred.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIII. Quarta propositio. « Licet Christiano magistratui gladio pu¬ nire perturbatores publicae quietis. » Piaba¬ tur primo Scripturis; nam in lege naturae, Mosis, et Evangeiica habemus praecepta, et exempla hujus rei. Nam Genes. IX. Deus ait : Qui effuderit humanum sanguinem , funde¬ tur sanguis illius. Quae verba non possunt so¬ nare praedictionem, quia praedictio hujusmo¬ di saepe esset falsa, sed ordinationem et prae¬ ceptum. Unde Chaldaica paraphrasis vertit: Qui effuderit sanguinem cum testibus, ex sen¬ tentia judicis fundetur sanguis illius. Genes. XXXVIII. dixit Judas : Producite eam, ut comburatur (5). Ubi Judas Patriarcha tam¬ quam princeps familiae adjudicavit adulte¬ ram ad ignis supplicium. In lege Mosis plurima sunt praecepta, et exempla. Exod XXI : Qui percusserit ho¬ minem volens occidere , morte moriatur. Et ipse Moses, Josue, Samuel, David, Elias, aliique SS. viri plurimos occiderunt. Matth. XXVI: Qui acceperit gladium, gladio peribit (6). Quae verba non possunt recte intelligi, nisi hoc modo : Omnis, qui caedem injustam fecerit, debet a magistratu pariter occidi. Repre¬ hendit enim Dominus Petrum, non quod justa defensio sit illicita, sed quod non tam se aut Dominum defendere, quam injuriam Domino factam ulcisci vellet, cum tamen ip¬ se non haberet publicam auctoritatem, ut recte exponunt August. tract. 112. in Joan. et Cyrill. lib. XI. in Joan. cap. 35. praeterea Rom. XIII : Si male egeris, time ; non enim si¬ ne causa gladium portat, minister enim Dei est (7). Apostolus dicit datum gladium a Deo principibus contra facinorosos : ergo si in (1) Psal. II, 10; Isai XXXIII, 22; Jerem. XXIII, 5 — (2) Deut. XVI, 18; I. Cor. VI. — (3) Matth. V, 40 et 39; Joan. XVIII, 23. — (4) I. Cor. VI, 7. — (5) Gen. IX, 6; XXXVIII, 24. — (6) Exod. XXI, 12; Matth. XXVI, 52. — (7) Rom. XIII, 4. 22 LIBER III. Ecclesia tales reperiantur, cur gladio feriri non poterunt? Secundo probatur ex Patrum testimoniis. Innocentius I, in epist. 3. ad Exuperium, cap. 3, interrogatus, an post Baptismum li¬ ceret magistratui gladio animadvertere in sontes ? Respondet, omnino licere. Hilarius in can. 32. sive in cap. XXYI Matth. dicit licere occidere in duobus casibus, nimirum si quis judicis fungatur officio, aut in sui de¬ fensionem utatur gladio. Hieronymus in cap. XXII. Hieremiae : « Homicidas, inquit, et sacrilegos, et venenarios punire non est effusio sanguinis, sed legum ministerium. » Augustin. lib. I. de civit. Dei, cap. 21 : « Ne¬ quaquam contra hoc praeceptum fecerunt, quo dictum est: Non occides, qui personam gerentes publicae potestatis sceleratos morte punierunt. » Ultimo probatur ratione: Nam ad bonum principem, cui bonum commune tuendum commissum est, pertinet impedire, ne par¬ tes, quae sunt propter totum, illud corrum¬ pant, et ideo si non potest omnes partes in¬ tegras servare, potius debet unam partem amputare, quam sinere ut bonum commune pereat : sicut agricolae amputant ramos et sarmenta, quae officiunt viti , vel arbori et medicus amputat membra, quae totum cor¬ pus inficere possent. Ad rationem Anabaptistarum ex Matth. Y : Oculum pro oculo etc. duae sunt solutio¬ nes. Una, quod lex vetus, quia dabatur ho¬ minibus imperfectis, permiserit vindictae appetitum, et solum praeceperit ne major expeteretur quam fuerit injuria : non quod petere vindictam sit licitum, sed quod sit minus malum expetere moderatam, quam immoderatam : porro Christum, qui perfec¬ tiores instruebat, hanc permissionem sus¬ tulisse. Ita August. lib. I. de serm. in mon¬ te, c. 35. et contra Adimantum, cap. 8. et idem sentit Chrysostomus et Hilarius in hunc locum; sed quia in Levit, cap. XIX. prohi¬ betur vindicta : Ne quaeras ultionem. Et in Eccles. cap. XXYIII. legimus: Qui vindicari vult, a Domino inveniet vindictam (1) ; rectius fortasse respondebimus cum S. Thoma, et S. Bonaventura, et aliis nonnullis in III. Sentent. dist. 30. Dominum cum ait : Audis¬ tis , quia dictum est antiquis, oculum pro oculo etc. non reprehendere legem illam, nec pro¬ hibere magistratum infligentem poenam ta¬ lionis, sed reprehendere pravam Phari- saeorum expositionem, et prohibere privatis homipibus desiderium, et postulationem vin¬ dictae. Deus enim Exod. XXI. et Levit. XXIV, sanctam legem constituit, ut magis¬ tratus poena talionis afficiat sceleratos ; Pha- risaei inde deducebant, licere privatis homi¬ nibus appetere vindictam ; sicut ex eo quod lex dicebat : Diliges amicum tuum, deduce¬ bant licere odisse inimicos ; Christus autem docet, istas esse legis corruptiones, et opor¬ tere diligere etiam inimicos, et non^resistere malo, sed potius paratos nos esse debere, si opus sit, ad vertendam alteram maxillam ei, qui unam percusserit. Et quod alloquatur Dominus privatos homines, patet ex iis, quae sequuntur. Sic enim Dominus ait : Ego au¬ tem dico vobis, non resistere malo, sed si quis te percusserit in maxillam unam etc. (2) Est autem observandum, cum dicitur, non resistere malo, non prohiberi justam de¬ fensionem, sed repercussionem; jubet enim Christus, ne ferias eum qui te percussit, ut Theophylactus recte docet. Ille autem dici¬ tur ferire, qui ferit ut noceat, non ille qui ferit ut se tueatur ; ac breviter non defensio sed vindicta prohibetur, juxta illud Rom. XII : Non vos defendentes charissimi, id est, non vos ulciscentes. Sic enim est in Graeco, exStxoOvTsc, unde sequitur : Sed date locum irce, scriptum est enim : Mihi vindictam, et ego retribuam (3). Sed nec ipsa vindicta simpli¬ citer prohibetur’, si petatur a legitimo judi¬ ce, et petatur ad bonum finem, nimirum, vel quia est emendandum hac poena male¬ factorem, vel quia non aliter posset reprimi, et impediri ejus malitia, et pergeret nocere, si impunitus dimitteretur ; solum ergo pro¬ hibetur vindicta, quam privati homines per se exercere volunt, et quam petunt a judice ex desiderio nocendi inimico, et satisfacien¬ di propriae iracundiae, atque odio.