§ 1. No Catholic can speak of the Roman Pontiff without provoking the indignation of heretics; nor is this new. In him Christian unity is bound together and faith is founded—not as in its principal cause, but as in the vicar of the supreme shepherd. Nevertheless, it ought not to seem wonderful that to every sectary the name of the Pontiff is hateful, his very person abominable, and his office Antichristianism; for long ago no one contradicted the truth who was not also an enemy of the Pontiff. To us, indeed, it is exceedingly marvelous that among so many centuries of heresies there has been none which did not set itself against the Roman Pope. This monstrous dissension arose at the Lord’s table, at which Peter, the more fervent lover of the Lord, inquired concerning the betrayer of the Savior; and in the garden he cut off the ear of the enemies’ attendant; finally, he himself condemned Simon. A hereditary hatred belonging to all the enemies of Christ has been joined to the supreme priesthood. Indeed, I have long been seeking one out of so many heresiarchs—from them all, I say, from the Capharnaites themselves down to the newest disciples of the Vorstians—who was not exceedingly hostile to the Pontiff and his power. What wonder is it? Between the chair of truth and the benches of errors there can never be concord. No contumacious defendant has loved his judge. It is therefore no new thing that our Pontiffs endure the hatred of all sects, since all their predecessors, the martyrs and confessors, were assailed by the calumnies, snares, and weapons of the heretics of their time.
§ 2. The end of pontifical power is that the whole Church may be governed under one visible head, the vicar of Christ, and the occasion of schism may be removed. For that reason schism in the election of a Pontiff is altogether abominable. For the head upon which the mind and sense of the Church converge is not divided without great destruction. Hence provision has been made by so many laws lest two heads appear to be elected and it be doubtful which must be obeyed. All schisms are hateful to God and destructive to mortals. The gaping earth swallowed Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16). It was not lawful for the high priest to rend his garment (Leviticus 10). Not even the soldier divided the Lord’s seamless tunic. The first schism occurred when three Bishops secretly elected and ordained Novatian as Roman Pontiff. Thus in Epistles 48 and 52 of Cyprian, and that of Cornelius to Fabius or Flavian of Antioch; afterward one schism followed another. That schism was vast and long-lasting in which different men were elected through the faction of nations: when in the year 1376 the Italians, as Blondus records in Decade 2, book 10, elected Urban VI, a Neapolitan of their own nation, as Pontiff, while the French elected Clement VII. That schism was removed after thirty-nine years at the Council of Constance. But if there is no single head and no teacher of religion, all things are confounded by dissensions; for all heresies have waged wars in their cradles, as I taught in the book On the Synod of the Evangelicals and the Peace of Germany, and also in the Jubilee of Jubilees.
§ 3. The election of the Supreme Pontiff, upon whom the safety of the Church depends, has always been a matter of great care to prelates, and indeed also to princes. The people do not possess by divine right the power of electing Pontiffs and Bishops. For Christ himself chose the Apostles; he himself appointed the seventy disciples; the Apostles appointed Bishops and presbyters throughout different places. The office of the people is to hear and to be fed, not to ordain rulers. The Council of Nicaea likewise established that it should not be permitted to crowds to make the election of those who are to be advanced to the priesthood. Thus canon 13 of Nicaea. But concerning this matter there are the propositions of Bellarmine, book 1, chapter 7 and the following chapters, On Clerics, approved by Catholics and taken from the ancient Councils.
Fifth Proposition. The right of electing the Supreme Pontiff and the other pastors and ministers of the Church does not belong to the people by divine right; but if at any time the people have possessed some power in this matter, they possessed all of it from the sufferance or concession of the Pontiffs.
Sixth Proposition. The election of Bishops does not belong by divine right to the Clergy, but to the Supreme Pontiff, so that he may either elect them himself or prescribe the manner of electing.
Seventh Proposition. The manner of electing the Supreme Pontiff by the Cardinals alone is the best of all and is deservedly to be preserved, although absolutely speaking the Pontiff could change it if he wished.
Eighth Proposition. If no pontifical constitution concerning the election of the Supreme Pontiff existed, or if by some accident all the electors designated by law—that is, all the Cardinals—perished together, the right of election would belong to the neighboring Bishops and the Roman Clergy, yet with some dependence upon a general Council of Bishops.
But concerning this matter the disputations of many authors exist, and it is not now my purpose to treat the law, but to explain that which conduces to the peace of the Church.
§ 4. Hence it is evident that electors can be constituted by the Church, and for that reason the practice in election has often been varied. Concerning this Gregory of Toulouse writes most learnedly (Syntagma of Law, book 15, chapter 3, from §19): “By whom the Supreme Pontiff is elected admits of a distinction according to times. The sacrosanct Roman and Apostolic Church obtained the primacy, not first from the Apostles, but from our Lord and Savior himself; for he said to the blessed Apostle Peter, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ and so forth.
“Thereafter, although Clement did not immediately succeed Saint Peter in the see, and although Linus and Cletus, or Anacletus I, held it before him while Peter himself so willed, this was because, while Saint Peter was still living, Linus and Cletus were taken as assistants in the administration of external goods, an office such as the deacons then possessed and the Pope’s chamberlains now possess. Thus Clement was second according to election, but fourth in administration, as Supreme Pontiff. Thereafter, because it appeared to be a pernicious precedent for anyone to choose a Bishop as his own successor, and for the things of God to be given by men, another form of electing the Supreme Pontiff was approved, and he was chosen by ecclesiastics alone.
“After the Church obtained peace, the people participated, and the approval or authorization of the Emperors followed. The Emperor’s approval was omitted in the election of Pelagius and Gregory I. Benedict II, Supreme Pontiff, established that thereafter the Supreme Pontiffs should be elected by the Clergy and the Roman people without the consent of the Emperor. Thereafter laymen were prohibited, both by Adrian, Supreme Pontiff, and in the Eighth Synod, from involving themselves in the election of Pontiffs; provision was also made that the Emperor’s consent should not be employed and that an election made by Emperors should not be valid, although at one time it was pleasing that the people should also be present at the election. Under Agatho, the Sicilian Supreme Pontiff, a definite sum of money was given to the Emperor for the ordination of a Pontiff, and therefore his authority was required, about the year of the Lord 680. A decree of Pope Stephen also exists that the Supreme Pontiff should be ordained in the presence of the Emperor’s legates, evidently so that they might restrain the scandals which customarily intervene in an election.
“Adrian I, who obtained the Apostolic See in the year of the Lord 772, after Charlemagne had come at his request to defend the affairs of the Church, held a Synod with 153 Fathers and granted to Charles the election of the Supreme Pontiff, Archbishops, and Bishops, together with all investitures and the dignity of the patriciate. Louis I, son of Charlemagne, ceded this right of election in perpetuity to Paschal I, Supreme Pontiff, who occupied the see in the year 817 and who himself had previously been elected by the Roman people without the Emperor’s consent. For this reason the legates of Emperor Louis II were not employed in the election of Adrian II, although they were then in the city, in the year of the Lord 869, even if a certain usurped custom had previously prevailed. Emperor Henry V dared to contend with Paschal II concerning the primacy and the investitures of Bishops; he was excommunicated and finally compelled to beg pardon for his fault, as Godfrey of Viterbo, an author of that time, committed to writing in book 17 of the history entitled Pantheon, under Henry V. Adrian III, who occupied the pontificate in the year of the Lord 886, was the first to refer the matter to the people, so that the Emperor’s consent should not be awaited in creating a Pontiff.
“Nevertheless Leo VIII, Supreme Pontiff, who occupied the see about the year of the Lord 968, renewed and confirmed for Emperor Otto II the power of electing the Pontiff, issuing definite letters for this purpose, so that he could oppose the enemies of the Empire more securely. Otto, however, had previously sworn fidelity to John XII, his predecessor, and that by his counsel, consent, or exhortation he would destroy nothing, and that without his counsel he would hold no assembly concerning those matters which belonged to him or to the land of Saint Peter.
“From these various concessions, remissions, and decrees the Church finally received nothing except frequent seditions and schisms, until Nicholas II, the Savoyard, who occupied the see about the year 1065, established by a decree of the Council held at Mantua that the Supreme Pontiff was to be elected by the Cardinals alone, after previous deliberation. Alexander III of Siena, again, about the year 1165, added the provision that, if the Cardinals disagreed among themselves in the election, the election of the one whom two parts out of three of the Cardinals elected should be valid—except in a case of necessity, in which two parts of the Cardinals are not awaited, and indeed sometimes the electors can renounce even this solemnity.”
§ 5. In the year 1059, in the Roman Council of 113 Bishops under Nicholas II, it was established as follows:
“First, with God as witness, it was established that the election of the Roman Pontiff should be in the power of the Cardinal Bishops, so that if anyone is enthroned in the Apostolic See without their preceding concordant and canonical election, and thereafter without the consent of the following orders of religious, Clerics, and laymen, he shall be regarded not as Pope or Apostolic, but as apostate.
“When the Roman Pontiff, or the Bishop of any city, dies, let no one presume to invade his goods, but let them be preserved intact for his successors.”
The robberies of many men have erased this law: they plundered the wealth of the dying, although it belongs to the Church and to the poor. Therefore even the canonical electors cannot now divert it to their own uses.
The entire order of election and of conclaves is described in the Synod of Lyons under Gregory X; for by adding those provisions to the constitutions of the First Lateran Council and of Alexander III, the procedure was perfected. Moreover, in Session 23 of the Council of Basel many most useful provisions concerning election were established, and the consent and profession of the Pontiff-elect are required. There are also further provisions in the same Council, Session 37, and likewise Session 38, concerning the electors and the confirmation of the Pope. The Council acknowledges that there have been various modes of election according as the necessity and utility of the Church required; now, however, he is customarily elected from the Cardinals.
§ 6. The morals of the Pontiff ought to be of the best kind, so that all those qualities which have been spoken of concerning Bishops and priests may be more excellent in the Pontiff by as much as he is greater than all Bishops. Thus, while true and solid virtues are required in the others, the summit of all the virtues is demanded in the Pontiff.
The Cardinals bind themselves by a great crime when they raise to the supreme dignity a man not sufficiently approved. When this has happened, the Church has been shaken by a great commotion and the morals of the Clergy have been turned toward the worse.
His power is the same as that of the other Bishops, but it is greater inasmuch as it extends over the Bishops themselves, and no ecumenical Synod can be convoked without him. His care is universal, and his obligation is for all souls, but it is greatest for his household and his court. All Pontiffs are bound to constitute it in such a manner that modesty, chastity, and justice befitting the household of a priest may exist in it. For if he does not take care of his household, judges, and officials, he denies the faith by his deeds, and the shepherd of all the faithful is worse than an infidel. For since his jurisdiction on earth is supreme, from which no appeal is granted; since his judgment can be retracted by no one; since all men from every place appeal to him; since the cases of Bishops, princes, and kings are referred to him; since he judges concerning all judgments and is himself judged by no one—in order that he may judge justly, it is necessary that he have just and diligent assessors, examiners, and subordinate judges.
But since Emperors venerate the Pontiff for the sake of piety and religion, as is stated in the epistle of Nicholas to the Emperor of Constantinople, the Pontiff must be guilty of an exceedingly grave crime when he begins to fail in his office and to disappoint the Christian world. Indeed, unless he exhibits greater zeal for the honor of God than the other Christians, he is a prevaricator.
How great, indeed, ought to be the innocence of the man who purges himself of charges not from necessity but of his own will?
§ 7. To this great power the Christian Church has added honor. For he is encircled with a diadem and is honored by the services of kings, humility proceeding even to kisses of his feet. The sectaries blame this; and if it were done from pride and not on account of office, it would deserve blame. Saint Thomas, II-II, question 102, shows that this honor is not inordinate. For the observance with which we attend those who excel in dignity, if they discharge a public office, pertains not to their honor but to that of God and the state. The honor offered to the Pontiff is exhibited not to him but to Christ, whose vicar he is; for this reason he also bears the cross, so that he may testify that the honor is given to the Crucified, not to himself. And since he is also the head of the whole Christian State, honor is deservedly offered to the Church herself in her head. Henry Kalteisen formerly defended that ceremony at the Council of Basel, and now it offends no one except a heretic. He is called Most Holy because his office is most holy. He himself is sometimes impious and is condemned eternally.
He is called Blessed and Most Blessed from the same excellence of power. The same Henry Kalteisen, On the Liberty of Evangelical Preaching, in volume 4 of the Councils, page 339, explains it thus: “The venerable Thomas of Walden, book 2, chapter 36, says that general Councils also are called holy
and most holy, not because of the holiness of the persons existing there, but because of the fullness of the office of sanctifying and the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Catholic Church also is called holy, not because of the holiness of all those existing in her, since there are many sinners, but because of her most holy offices and because of the holiness of the sacraments existing in her; for such things are not called holy from the work of the one working, but from the work wrought. Therefore Saint Cyril, in the synodical epistle directed to Nestorius which begins, ‘To the religious and God-loving,’ calls the Pope most holy and most venerable, and likewise the sacred general Council. Similarly Saint Jerome calls the Pope most holy, magnifying the glory of His Holiness in the book entitled On the Deeds of the Roman Pontiffs, writing at its beginning to Pope Damasus.
“Third, the Pope by reason of his office is often most suitably called Blessed or Most Blessed, not as if, outside the state of the wayfarer, he had been established eternally blessed, but because of the admirable excellence of his power, which reaches near to Christ. For whatever power, whatever sacramental grace, whatever heavenly dispensation has been entrusted by Christ, the head of the Church, the Church herself dispenses; and, provided that the Pope does not err in faith, the whole has been entrusted to his dispensation. Hence blessed Hilary also, on account of imperial authority, called Emperor Constantius most blessed in his epistle to him concerning the faith. And blessed Ambrose, writing to certain evil Bishops and priests whom he reproves for simony and many transgressions, calls them most blessed and most holy fathers in his pastoral book which he entitles On Their Observances.
“Fourth, therefore, I say that if the Pope commands something to be done which is not expressly contrary to the law of God or to any statutes of the holy Fathers, even if it is not truly founded according to the letter in the law of God, he must be obeyed.”
§ 8. Since the care of all rests upon the Pontiff, nevertheless there is one way of caring for all things: if he frees his court from vices; if he has around him men experienced in affairs, justice, and government, truly pious, and haters of avarice and gifts. Otherwise he will neither understand a case nor judge rightly. Therefore he will strive to preserve his court, and to reform it if there is need. Nor can he offer any excuse. For if he admonishes, corrects, and punishes Bishops, princes, and kings, will he be unable either to dismiss his own ministers or to compel them to honorable conduct? This matter was treated at the Lateran Council, and the bulls of Leo X exist. It befits not only his own court but also the courts of the pontifical Legates—who possess episcopal and sometimes cardinal dignity—not merely to have upright morals, but also to have a modest household; otherwise the disgraces rebound upon them and upon the Apostolic See.
§ 9. Beza, on Matthew 18:17, commands the government of the Church to be either aristocratic or democratic. Meisner follows him in On the Government of the Church, as does Parker in On Ecclesiastical Polity, book 3, chapter 13. They constitute kings members of the Church, though noble ones. Hugo Grotius assigns judgment concerning the Church to the political magistrate in The Piety of the States of Holland. Thus Pareus in the preface on Hosea to the Landgrave of Hesse. But Chemnitz in the Commonplaces, chapter 4, On the Church, says that the magistrate is guilty of sacrilege when, after excluding the ministers and the rest of the Church, he claims for himself alone the power of constituting the Church. Leyser, in his disputation On Concord, and Herbrand, On Adiaphora, say nearly the same. Besold says that such a magistrate would be the Political Antichrist. See what he disputes in chapter 3, On the Ecclesiastical Right of Majesty, against Rittershausen, Richard Hooker, Grotius, and James, King of England. His argument in §4 is weighty: if religion depended upon the judgment and power of the king, it would be mutable. Indeed, he says that controversies have arisen from the fact that they wish to preserve the state. He denies that Christ wished his spiritual kingdom to be strengthened by the aid of kings.