Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Laity or Secular Persons (Book III)
Chapter 18: That the Defense of Religion Pertains to the Magistrate
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 error is of others who, bending to the other extreme, teach that kings ought to care for their commonwealth and the public peace, but not to care for religion — to permit each one to hold what he will and live as he will, provided he do not disturb the public peace. In this error were of old the heathen, who approved all religions and admitted the sects of all the philosophers, as Augustine says (Book XVIII On the City of God, chapter 51). Whence Blessed Leo (sermon 1 on Saints Peter and Paul): “This city, ignorant of the author of its advancement, while it ruled over almost all nations, served the errors of all nations, and seemed to itself to have assumed a great religion, because it rejected no falsehood.” And the philosopher Themistius, as Socrates relates (Book IV of the history, chapter 27), tried to persuade the Emperor Valens that a variety of sects is pleasing to God, since He is thus worshiped in more ways, and is the more esteemed the more difficultly He is known. Likewise a certain heresiarch named Rhetor, in Augustine (in the book On Heresies, chapter 72), taught that all sects are true.
Finally, this liberty the Germans wished and obtained in the year 1526, when the princes of the Empire were gathered at Speyer; and now they are said to seek the same in Flanders. Their arguments are chiefly four. One, that faith is free. Another, that it is a gift of God. Third, that experience teaches that nothing is gained by compulsion. Fourth, that Christians have always tolerated the Jews, though they are enemies of Christ.
But this error is most pernicious, and without doubt Christian princes are bound not to permit their subjects a liberty of believing, but to give effort that that faith be kept which the Catholic bishops, and chiefly the supreme Pontiff, teach must be held. It is proved, first, by Scripture. Proverbs 20: “A king that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his look.” Likewise: “A wise king scattereth the wicked.” Now that heretics are wicked cannot be denied. Likewise Psalm 2: “And now, O kings, understand; receive instruction, you that judge the earth; serve the Lord with fear.”
Augustine (letter 50): “A king serves God in one way because he is a man, in another because he is a king. Because he is a man, he serves by living faithfully; but because he is also a king, he serves by sanctioning with fitting vigor laws that command just things and forbid the contrary — as Hezekiah served by destroying the groves and temples of idols; as King Josiah served by doing such things himself; as the king of the Ninevites served by compelling the whole city to appease the Lord; as Darius served by giving the idol into the power of Daniel to be broken; as Nebuchadnezzar served by prohibiting, with a terrible law, all set in his kingdom from blaspheming God.” And in the same place he adds: “What man of sober mind would say to kings, Care not in your kingdom by whom the Church of your Lord is upheld or attacked; let it not pertain to you in your kingdom who wishes to be religious or sacrilegious — to whom it cannot be said, Let it not pertain to you in your kingdom who wishes to be chaste, who unchaste?”
Besides, in the New Testament (Revelation 2) the angel of Pergamum is reprehended because he had with him some holding the doctrine of the Nicolaites, and the angel of Thyatira because he permitted Jezebel to seduce the servants of God. From which it is gathered that the mixture of heretics with Catholics is harmful to the Church. Romans 16: Christians are bidden to avoid heretics. Galatians 5: “I would they were cut off.” Titus 1: “Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” Therefore kings, who are the nursing-fathers of the Church (Isaiah 49), ought not to permit that confusion.
Secondly, it is proved by the testimonies of Pontiffs and Emperors. Leo (letter 75 to Leo Augustus): “Thou oughtest, Emperor, unhesitatingly to observe that the royal power has been conferred on thee not only for the government of the world, but especially for the protection of the Church, so that, by repressing wicked audacities, thou mayest both defend what has been well established, and restore true peace to things that have been disturbed.” Pope Anastasius II (in the letter to the Emperor Anastasius): “This I chiefly suggest to your serenity, that when the causes of the Alexandrians shall have lain open to your most pious ears, you make them return to the Catholic and sincere faith by your authority, wisdom, and divine commands.” Similar things has Gregory (Book IX, letter 60, to the King of England; Book XI, letter 44, to Leontia Augusta). Similar things has Agatho (in the letter to Constantine IV).
Further, the pious emperors held the same; for Theodosius (in the law Cunctos populos, in the Code, On the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith) rooted out the liberty of believing which some princes had permitted, and ordered all to believe in the way in which the Roman Pontiff teaches that one must believe. Ambrose praises Valentinian the younger (in the funeral oration), because he most bravely resisted Rome seeking back the ancient liberty in religion, that it might worship the gods with sacrifices. Similarly Marcian (in the same Code, law Nemo) severely forbids anyone to reopen what has been defined in the Councils of bishops, or presume to dispute publicly about them.
Constantine the Great, at the beginning of his reign, indeed permitted liberty of religion to all, as is plain from the history of Eusebius (Book X, chapter 5); yet afterward he ordered the temples of idols to be closed, and only the Christian religion to flourish, as Optatus relates (Book II against Parmenian); whom his sons imitated, Constans and Constantius, as Augustine relates (letter 166); and (in Rufinus, Book X, chapter 5) Constantine threatened exile to all those who would not acquiesce in the definition of the Council of Nicaea.
Those who granted liberty of believing are found to be three. Jovian — who, however, lest he mix Catholics with heretics, was gravely admonished by the Council of Antioch, as Socrates writes (Book III, chapter 21). The Arian Emperor Valens, who permitted free religion to all heretics and heathen, as Theodoret writes (Book IV, chapter 22). Finally Julian the Apostate, who permitted liberty because he thus hoped that Christianity could perish; for thus says Augustine (letter 166, elsewhere 165): “Julian, the deserter and enemy of Christ, permitted to heretics the liberty of perdition, and then restored the basilicas to heretics, as he restored the temples to demons; thinking in that way that the Christian name could perish from the earth, if he envied the unity of the Church, from which he had fallen, and permitted sacrilegious dissensions to be free.”
Thirdly it is proved by reasons. First, the temporal and spiritual power in the Church are not disjoined and separated things, like two political kingdoms, but are conjoined, so that they make one body; or rather they are related as body and soul in one man, for the spiritual power is as it were the soul, and the temporal as it were the body, as Nazianzen teaches (in the oration to the people struck with fear). Therefore the temporal power ought to serve the spiritual, and protect and defend it from its enemies, and (as Blessed Gregory says, Book II, letter 61) the earthly kingdom ought to serve the heavenly. But this liberty is deadly to the Church; for the bond of the Church is the confession of one faith (Ephesians 4, “one faith”), and therefore dissension in faith is the dissolution of the Church. Princes, then, ought in no way to permit this liberty, if they wish to discharge their office.
Secondly, when among the Jews the true religion flourished, kings could not permit liberty of religion; therefore much less ought Christian kings to permit it; for the Church ought not to be less ordered than the Synagogue was. The antecedent is plain from Deuteronomy 17, where by the sentence of the political judge those are ordered to be killed who do not obey the priest; and in chapter 18 false prophets are likewise ordered to be exterminated. And the same is plain from the examples which Augustine brings (letter 50) of Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, and other pious kings, who destroyed the groves and temples of idols, and severely punished idolaters, and compelled the people to the worship of the true God. But that a little before the times of Christ various heresies began to be permitted, and chiefly of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, is no wonder, because the Synagogue was then approaching to its ruin, and had no truly Jewish king who might care for these things, but the Idumaean Herod; and the priests could do nothing.
Thirdly, the liberty of believing is pernicious even to the temporal good of kingdoms and to the public peace, as is plain first from Gregory (Book IV, letter 32), where he says that the safety of the civil commonwealth depends on the peace of the Church. Then by reason; for where faith and obedience are kept toward God, there they are also kept toward the prince; for faith itself teaches and requires this. Likewise dissension in faith begets dissensions of minds and wills; but every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation; and the experience of our time shows this so manifestly that we strive in vain to prove it.
Fourthly, the liberty of believing is pernicious to those very persons to whom it is granted; for the liberty of believing is nothing else than the liberty of erring, and of erring in the most dangerous of all matters; for the true faith is but one (Ephesians 4, “one faith”), therefore the liberty of departing from that one faith is the liberty of rushing into the abyss of errors. As therefore it is not wholesomely permitted to sheep to wander over the mountains, and a ship is not wholesomely freed from its helm nor suffered to be carried about freely by every wind, so also the liberty of believing is not wholesomely granted to peoples after they have joined themselves to the one true faith. The arguments will be solved in the following Question.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII. Ad magistratum pertinere defensionem Reli¬ gionis. Secundus error est aliorum, qui ad alte¬ rum extremum deflectentes, docent reges debere curare Rempublicam suam, et pacem publicam ; de religione autem non curare, sed permittere singulis ut sentiant prout vo¬ luerint, et vivant ut voluerint, modo non perturbent pacem publicam. In hoc errore fuerunt olim Ethnici, qui omnes religiones approbabant , et omnium Philosophorum sectas admittebant , ut August. dicit lib. XVIII. de civit. Dei cap. 51. unde beatus Leo serm. 1. de SS. Petro et Paulo : « Haec autem civitas, inquit, ignorans sua: provec¬ tionis auctorem, cum pene omnibus domi¬ naretur gentibus, omnium gentium servie- ‘ bat erroribus, et magnam sibi videbatur as¬ sumpsisse religionem, quia nullam respue¬ bat falsitatem. » Et Themistius Philosophus, ut refert Socrates lib. IV, hist. c. 27. Va¬ lenti Imperatori persuadere conatus est, Deo gratam esse sectarum varietatem, dum ita pluribus modis colitur; et pluris fit, dum difficilius cognoscitur. Item haeresiarcha quidam nomine Rethor apud Augustinum libro de haeresibus, cap. 72. omnes sectas veras esse docuit. Denique , hanc libertatem voluerunt et obtinuerunt Germani anno 1526, quando Principes Imperii Spirae congregati fuerunt : et nunc idem feruntur in Flandria petere ; quorum argumenta quatuor praecipue sunt. Unum, quod fides sit libera. Alterum, quod sit donum Dei. Tertium, quod experientia doceat cogendo nihil profici. Quartum, quod Christiani semper Judaeos toleraverint, cum tamen Christi hostes sint. At hic error perniciosissimus est, et sine dubio tenentur Principes Christiani non per¬ mittere subditis suis libertatem credendi, sed dare operam, ut ea fides servetur, quam Episcopi Catholici , et praecipue summus Pontifex docet esse tenendam. Probatur pri¬ mo Scriptura, Proverb. XX : Rex qui sedet in solio judicii, dissipat omne malum intuitu suo. Item : Dissipat impios Rex sapiens . Porro impios esse haereticos negari non potest. Item Psalm. II : Et nunc Reges intelligite, erudimini, qui judicatis terram, servite Do¬ mino in timore (1). Augustinus epist. 50 : « Aliter servit, in¬ quit, Rex Deo, quia homo est, aliter quia Rex est ; quia homo est, et servit vivendo fideliter; quia vero etiam Rex est, servit, leges justa praecipientes, et contraria prohi¬ bentes, convenienti vigore sanciendo : sicut 3 (1) Prov. XX. 8 ; Psal. II, 10. Tom. III. 34 LIBER III. servivit Ezechias, lucos et templa idolorum destruendo : sicut servivit Rex Josias, talia et ipse faciendo : sicut servivit Rex Ninivi¬ tarum, universam civitatem ad placandum Dominum compellendo : sicut servivit Da¬ rius, idolum frangendum in potestatem Da- nieli dando : sicut servivit Nabuchodonosor, omnes in regno suo positos a blasphemando Deo lege terribili prohibendo. » Et ibidem subjungit : « Quis mente sobrius Regibus dicat, Nolite curare in regno vestro, a quo teneatur , vel oppugnetur Ecclesia Domini vestri ? Non ad vos pertineat in regno ves¬ tro, quis velit esse sive religiosus, sive sacri¬ legus ; quibus non potest dici : Non ad vos pertineat in regno vestro, quis velit esse pu¬ dicus, quis impudicus. » Praeterea in testamento novo Apoc. II. re¬ prehenditur Angelus Pergami, quod haberet apud se aliquos tenentes doctrinam Nicolai- tarum, et Angelus Thiatyrce. quod permit¬ teret Jezabel seducere servos Dei. Ex qui¬ bus colligitur, noxiam esse Ecclesiae, mixtio¬ nem haereticorum cum Catholicis. Roman. XVI, jubentur Christiani declinare haereticos. Galat. V : (Jtinam, inquit, abscindantur, Tit. I. Increpa illos dure ut sani sint in fide (1), ergo Reges, qui sunt Ecclesiae nutricii, Isaiae XLIX. non debent permittere istam confusio¬ nem. Secundo probatur testimoniis Pontificum et Imperatorum. Leo epist. 75. ad Leonem Augustum : « Debes, inquit, Imperator in¬ cunctanter advertere regiam potestatem tibi non solum ad mundi regimen, sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidium essecollatam, ut au¬ sus nefarios comprimendo, et quae bene sunt statuta, defendas, et veram pacem his, quae sunt turbata, restituas. » Anastasius II. Papa in epist. ad Anastasium Imperatorem : «Hoc, inquit, praecipue insinuo serenitati tuae, ut cum causae Alexandrinorum patuerint piis- simis auribus vestris, ad Catholicam et sin¬ ceram fidem eos auctoritate, sapientia, di¬ vinisque vestris mandatis redire faciatis. » Similia habet Gregorius lib. IX, epist. 60. ad Regem Angliae, lib. XI, epist. 44. ad Leontiam Augustam. Similia habet Agatho in epistola ad Constantinum IV. Porro Imperatores pii idem senserunt; nam Theodosius L. cunctos populos, C. de summa Trinitate, et fide Catholica, radici¬ tus evulsit libertatem credendi, quam aliqui Principes permiserant, ac jussit omnes cre¬ dere eo modo, quo Romanus Pontifex docet esse credendum. Valentinianum juniorem laudat Ambrosius in oratione funebri, quod Romai repetenti antiquam libertatem in re¬ ligione, ut colere posset sacrificiis Deos, for¬ tissime restiterit. Similiter Martianus C. eo¬ dem, L. Nemo, severe prohibet, ne quis ea, qua} sunt in Conciliis Episcoporum definita, revolvat, aut de iis publidtf disputare prae¬ sumat. Constantinus Magnus initio quidem impe¬ rii permisit libertatem religionis omnibus, ut patet ex Historia Eusebii lib. X, cap. 5. tamen postea jussit claudi templa idolorum, et solam Christianam religionem vigere, ut Optatus refert lib. II. contra Parmen. quem filii sunt imitati, Constans et Constantinus, ut Augustinus refert epist. 166. et (apud Ruffinum lib. X, cap. 5.) exilium minatus est Constantinus iis omnibus qui non acquies¬ cerent Nioartii Concilii definitioni. Qui libertatem credendi concesserunt, tres inveniuntur. Jovianus, qui tamen ne Catho¬ licos cum ha}reticis misceret, graviter ad¬ monitus est a Concilio Antiocheno, ut scri¬ bit Socrates lib. III. capite 21. Valens Impe¬ rator Arianus omnibus haereticis et Ethnicis liberam permisit religionem, ut scribit Theo- doretus, lib. IV, cap. 22. Denique Julianus Apostata, qui ideo permisit libertatem, quia sic sperabat posse interire Christianismum ; sic enim ait Augustinus epist. 166. alias 165 : « Julianus, inquit, desertor Christi et inimi¬ cus, haereticis libertatem perditionis permi¬ sit, et tunc Basilicas haereticis reddidit, quando templa Damioniis; eo modo putans, Christianum nomen posse perire de terris, si unitati Ecclesiae, de qua lapsus fuerat, in¬ videret, et sacrilegas dissensiones liberas esso permitteret. » Probatur tertio rationibus. Primo, potes¬ tas temporalis et spiritualis in Ecclesia non sunt res disjunctae et separatae, ut duo regna politica, sed silnt conjunctae, ita ut unum corpus faciant ; vel potius ita se habent, ut corpus et anima in uno homine, est enim potestas spiritualis quasi anima, et tempo- ralis quasi corpus, ut Nazianzenus docet in oratione ad populum timore perculsum ; ergo debet potestas temporalis spirituali servire, eamque ab hostibus suis protegere ac de¬ fendere , ac (ut B. Gregorius ait, lib. II, (1) Gal. V, 12 ; Tit. I, 13. CAPUT XVIII. 35 epist. 61 ) terrenum regnum coelesti famu¬ lari; sed Ecclesiae exitialis est haec libertas; nam vinculum Ecclesiae est unius fidei con¬ fessio, ad Ephes. IV. Una fides, et ideo dis¬ sensio in fide, Ecclesiae est dissolutio. De¬ bent igitur Principes hanc libertatem nullo modo permittere, si fungi munere suo vo¬ lunt. Secundo, quando apud Judaeos vera reli¬ gio florebat, non poterant Reges permittere libertatem religionis, ergo multo minus de¬ bent permittere Reges Christiani ; non enim minus ordinata debet esse Ecclesia, quam fuerit Synagoga. Antecedens patet Deuter. XVII. ubi ex sententia judicis politici juben¬ tur occidi, qui non obediunt Sacerdoti. Et cap. XVIII. Pseudoprophetae similiter exter¬ minari jubentur; et idem patet exemplis, quae affert Augustin. epist. 50. de Ezechia, Josaphat, Josia, et aliis piis Regibus, qui destruebant lucos, et templa idolorum, et severe puniebant idololatras, et populum ad cultum veri Dei compellebant. Quod autem paulo ante Christi tempora coeperint per¬ mitti variae haereses, ac praecipue Saddu- caeorum, qui negabant resurrectionem, non est mirum, quia Synagoga tunc ad interi¬ tum propinquabat, nec habebat Regem vere Judaeum, qui ista curaret, sed Idumaeum Herodem, Pontifices autem nihil poterant. Tertio, libertas credendi perniciosa est, etiam temporali bono regnorum, et publicae paci, ut patet primum ex Gregorio lib. IV, epist. 32. ubi dicit, Reipub. civilis incolumi¬ tatem, ex Ecclesiae pace pendere. Deinde ra¬ tione ; nam ubi servatur fides et obedien- tia Deo, ibi etiam servatur Principi ; nam fides ipsa hoc docet et exigit. Item dissen¬ sio in fide parit animorum et voluntatum dissensiones : omne autem regnum in se- ipsum divisum, desolabitur; et experientia nostri temporis adeo manifeste hoc ostendit, ut frustra id probare nitamur. Quarto, libertas credendi perniciosa est illis ipsis , quibus conceditur ; nam libertas credendi nihil est aliud, quam libertas er¬ randi, et errandi in re omnium periculosis¬ sima; nam fides vera non est nisi una, Ephes. IV. Una fides, ergo libertas ab ista una fide recedendi, est libertas in errorum # baratrum ruendi. Sicut ergo salubriter non permittitur ovibus libertas vagandi per mon¬ tes, et salubriter non liberatur gubernaculo, nec sinitur libere a quolibet vento circum¬ ferri navis ; ita quoque salubriter non con¬ ceditur populis libertas credendi, postea- quam uni verae fidei se adjunxerunt. Argu¬ menta solventur in sequenti Quaestione.