Que de tal manera deben los principes seglares favorecer las cosas de la religion, que no se hagan jueces dellas.

The Prince as Guardian, Not Judge

The Christian prince must defend the Church without overstepping his authority to judge ecclesiastical matters.

But before we go further, we must note here that secular kings and princes should favor and defend our holy religion in such a way that when some doubt or grave difficulty arises in the affairs of that same religion, they do not make themselves judges, nor try to decide what is not their office.¹ They are guardians of God's law, but not its interpreters; they are ministers of the Church, but not its judges; they stand armed to punish the heretic, the rebel, the sacrilegious, and anyone who persecutes or disturbs the Church, but they aren't lawmakers or declarers of the divine will in ecclesiastical matters.² Let's continue explaining and supporting this truth, which even some pagan princes understood and kept; for it is written of the emperor Alexander Severus that he held the augurs and pontiffs in such high respect that he left them free to govern matters of religion, and when they judged differently than the emperor himself had already judged and decided, he deferred to them and wanted them to be obeyed.³ But let's see what the Holy Spirit teaches us about this in Sacred Scripture.

Divine Order and the Authority of Priests

Scripture and historical tradition confirm that spiritual authority and the interpretation of divine law belong to the priesthood, not the secular ruler.

In Deuteronomy, God commands that if a major difficulty arises, people should go to the priest and follow his decision, and that anyone who refuses to obey him should die. The prophet Haggai says: "This is what the Lord of hosts commands: Ask the priests about the law." And the prophet Malachi said: "The priest's lips will keep knowledge, and from his mouth one should seek the interpretation of the law, because he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts."⁴ That command, as Josephus says, meant nothing other than that the king was to value God's laws more than his own knowledge and prudence, and to govern himself by the judgment of the high priest and the elders. For this reason, Christ our Redeemer told the Jewish people that the scribes and Pharisees had sat on the chair of Moses. Christ our Redeemer entrusted all his sheep to Saint Peter as his only vicar and chief shepherd, so that he might feed them with the wholesome pasture of true and Catholic doctrine. It belongs primarily to Peter's successors, and to the other bishops and prelates, to teach as pastors, and to secular princes, as sheep, to be taught—because the Lord told that same Saint Peter that He had prayed to the eternal Father for him, so that his faith would not fail.⁵ Beyond Sacred Scripture, this truth is taught to us by the universal custom and practice of the holy Church, by the decrees of the supreme pontiffs, by the authority of the holy doctors, by the examples of good kings, and by reason itself. Ever since the holy Church began to have Christian kings, in the ecclesiastical difficulties and controversies that have arisen, people never once turned to an emperor, a king, or a secular prince to settle them, but to the supreme Pontiff and to the councils and assemblies of bishops, as to judges appointed for that by God. This can be seen in the Church's history through every age, from the first down to the present. I won't list them all here, so as not to tire the reader needlessly; whoever wishes may see it in Father Robert Bellarmine, of our Society, in the first volume of his most learned Controversies.⁶ And it would be great madness and boldness, as Saint Augustine says, to say or write that what the universal Church has always practiced and still practices is not well done. I don't want to list here the decrees of the supreme pontiffs who have established and confirmed this truth—such as Pope Saint Damasus writing to Stephen, and Innocent I writing to the councils of Carthage and Milevis; Saint Leo the Great, in Epistle LXXXIV to Anastasius, and in LXXXIX, which he wrote to the bishops of the province of Vienne; and Gelasius to the bishops of Dardania; and the great Gregory in one he wrote to the bishops of France, which is Epistle LII of Book IV. In all of them, they teach that the gravest and most important causes, especially those that belong to the faith, are reserved to that judgment. In the time of the emperor Aurelian, a dispute arose between the Catholics and the heretic Paul of Samosata over a certain house that each side wanted to take for a church, and they went to the Emperor for him to judge it. He, though a pagan, ordered that the house and church be given to whichever side the Bishop of Rome and the priests of Italy judged it ought to be given, because, as Eusebius says, he understood that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme judge of the Christians, and the one to whom that judgment of the Church belonged. The emperor Constantine knew this truth so clearly that when the schismatic Donatists appealed from the sentence that Pope Melchiades had given in an assembly of nineteen bishops, in favor of the Catholic Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, against the heretic Donatus, Constantine was scandalized and wrote to the bishops these words: "They seek my judgment, while I myself await the judgment of Christ; but I tell the truth."⁷⁸

The Error of Secular Interference

The author critiques those who seek secular judgment in spiritual matters, highlighting the humility of emperors like Constantine who deferred to bishops.

In the same way, the judgment of priests should be regarded as if Christ himself were judging, because they cannot hold or judge anything beyond what they have learned from Christ.⁹ So what are these wicked men, these ministers of Satan, after? Are they seeking secular judgments and abandoning those of heaven? And Cesare Baronius, the very learned and diligent ecclesiastical historian, reports this letter. And Optatus of Milevis, speaking of this same appeal, says: «O furious and rabid boldness!¹⁰ They appealed as people usually do in cases involving pagans. And Saint Augustine says that the Emperor was more modest than the Donatists, referring that case to the bishops—for it was a case of fact, not of faith—and if he did judge it, he was overcome by the importunities of those same Donatists, and afterward asked the bishops' pardon, as Saint Augustine himself writes in a letter, in these words: «For the Christian Emperor did not dare to sit in judgment on the judgment of the bishops who had assembled in Rome, but he appointed other bishops to judge it; and they again appealed to the Emperor from what those bishops had judged, in which the Emperor yielded to their importunity, and after the bishops he judged that case, intending to ask the holy bishops' pardon for what he had done.»¹¹

The Devout Prince's Proper Role

A true Christian prince supports the Church by enforcing its decrees and providing the secular power necessary for its peace, while respecting its internal autonomy.

Constantine was such a devout and religious prince that he ordered not only that bishops be obeyed regarding church ordinances, but also in secular matters, and that those orders could not be retracted. In fact, ecclesiastical histories and the examples of holy bishops show that this was the practice; besides excommunicating and cutting off from the Communion of the Church those who deserved it, they also commanded and punished secular judges themselves. Cesare Baronius proves this in the fifth volume of his Annals with the example of Saint Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, and Saint Augustine. It is drawn from a letter Augustine wrote to Marcellinus the Tribune, in which he says: "If you will not listen to the friend who begs you, listen to the bishop who gives you counsel."¹² Since I am speaking with a Christian on such a matter, I can say without arrogance that you must obey the bishop who commands you."¹³ Returning to Constantine: it was this same piety that led him, once the Council of Nicaea had concluded, to write a letter to all the churches, as Eusebius records. At the end of it, he says: "This being so, embrace with a joyful spirit, as a gift of God sent from heaven, the decree of this council, because we must understand that everything determined in the holy councils and assemblies of the bishops comes to us by the divine will."¹⁴ Eusebius also notes that Constantine signed the council's decrees to prevent provincial governors from having any excuse to commit wrongs, as he well knew that the Lord's priests held a firm and reliable judgment.¹⁵ In keeping with this, Saint Ambrose said: "Constantine made no laws at all concerning the Church; rather, he left the priests free to judge ecclesiastical matters." Furthermore, in a letter Constantine wrote to the church of Alexandria in support of Athanasius, he says: "I have gladly received your bishop Athanasius and spoken with him as with a man of God; but it falls to you to judge this, not to me." And although he was glad when he learned that Arius had conformed to what the council had decreed—though he did so falsely—he did not want him admitted to communion with the Catholics until the bishops approved him, as Sozomen writes; and Constantine himself used to say, as Eusebius reports in his Life: "You bishops are within the Church; I am appointed bishop of God outside the Church"—making it clear that although the king is not a bishop, cannot be called a bishop, and cannot ordain or consecrate, or determine and dispose as judge and legitimate superior over the Church's affairs, still he ought in his own way to be like a bishop, so as to favor and encourage the bishops, command that what they holy determine be carried out, and give them the arm and power by which they may be obeyed, the obstinate and rebellious punished, and the holy Church have peace and quiet.¹⁶¹⁷

Read the original Latin

Pero ántes que pasemos adelante, aquí se ha do advertir que de tal mancra dcben los reyes y príncipes seglares favorecer y defender nuestra santa religion, que cuando se ofreciere alguna duda ó grave dificultad en los negocios de la misma religion, no se hagan jueces, ni quieran determinar lo que no es de su oficio. Guardas son de la ley de Dios, mas no intérpretes; ministros son do la Iglesia, mas no jueces; armados están para castigar al hereje, al rebelde, al sacrilego y al que persigue ó inquieta la Iglesia, mas no son legisladores y declaradores en las cosas eclesiásticas de la divina voluntad. Vamos declarando y apoyando esta verdad, la cual úun algunos priucipes gentiles entendieron y guardaron; pues se escribe de Alejandro Severo, emperador, que tuvo tan grande respeto á los augurcs y pontifices, que los dejaba gobernar las cosas tocantes á la religion, libremente, y las que el mismo emperador habia juzgado y determinado, si ellos las juzgaban diferent me te, pasaba por ello y queria que fuesen obedecidos. Pero veamos lo que acerca desto nos enseña el Espíritu Santo en las sagradas letras.

En el Deuteronomio manda Dios que si hubiere alguna dificultad grande, se acuda al sacerdote y se siga lo que él determináre, y que muera el que no le obedeciere. El profeta Aggeo dice: «Esto manda el Señor de los ejércitos: pregunta á los sacerdotes la ley.» Y Malaquías, profeta, dijo: «Los labios del sacerdote guardarán la ciencia, y de la boca dél se debe buscar la interpretacion de la ley, porque es ángel del Señor de los ejércitos.» El cual mandato, como dice Josefo, no queria decir sino que el Rey habia de hacer más caso de las leyes de Dios que de su saber y prudencia, y gobernarse por el parecer del pontifice y de los viejos. Por esto dijo Cristo nuestro redentor al pueblo de los judios que los escribas y fariseos se habian sentado sobre la cátedra de Moi— — a — K— ——K— — a A —— e e a e Todas sus ovejas encomendó Cristo nuestro redentor á san Pedro, como á su único vicario y sumo pastor, para que las apacentase con el saludable pasto de la verdadera y católica dotrina, y á los sucesores de Pedro principalmente, y á los demas obispos y perlados pertenece enscñarla, como á pastores, y á los principes seglares, como á ovejas, ser enseñados; porque al mismo san Pedro dijo el Señor que El habia rogado al Padre eterno por él, para que no desfalleciese su fe. Demas de las sagradas letras, nos enseñan esta verdad la costumbre y uso universal de la santa Iglesia, y los decretos de los sumos pontifices, y la autoridad de los santos doctores, y los ejemplos de los buenos reyes, y la misma razon; porque desde que comenzó la santa Iglesia á tener reyes cristianos, en las dificultades y controversias eclesiásticas que en ella so han ofrecido, nunca jamas se acudió á emperador, á rey ó principe seglar para que las decidiese y determinase, sino al sumo Pontífice y á los concilios y juntas de los obispos, corno á jueces puestos para ello de Dios, como se puede ver en el discurso de la Iglesia por todos los siglos, desde el primero hasta el presente; lo cual yo no hago aquí por no cansar al lector sin necesidad; véalo quien quisiere en el padre Roberto Belarmino, de nuestra Compañía, en el primero tomo de sus eruditisimas Controversias. Y sería gran locura y atrevimiento, como dice san Agustin, decir ó escribir que no es bien hecho lo que la Iglesia universal siempre ha usado y usa. Ni tampoco quiero traer aquí los decretos de los sumos pontifices que han establecido y confirmado esta verdad, como san Dámaso, papa, escribiendo á Estéfano, y Inocencio 1, escribiendo á los concilios Cartaginenses y Milevitano; san Leon Magno, en la epístola Lxxx1v, á Artastasio, y en la LXXxIX, que escribió á los obispos de la provincia de Viena, y Gelasio á los obispos de Dardania, y el gran (Gregorio en una que escribió á los obispos de Francia, y es la L11 del libro tv, y en todas enseñan que las causas más graves é importantes, especialmente las que pertenecen á la fe, están reservadas al juicio En tiempo del eniperador Aureliano se ofreció un pleito entre los católicos y Paulo Samosateno, hereje, sobre cierta casa que queria la una parte y la otra tomar para una iglesia, y acudieron al Emperador para que la juzgase, y él, con ser gentil, mandó que se diese la casa y iglesia á la parte que el Obispo de Roma y los sacerdotes de Italia juzgasen se debia dar; porque, como dice Eusebio, entendió que el Obispo de Roma era el supremo juez de los cristianos, y á quien tocaba aquel juicio de la Iglesia, Constantino, emperador, conoció esta verdad tan claramente, que habiendo los donatistas, cismáticos, apelado de la sentencia que habia dado Melquiades, papa, en una junta de diez y nueve obispos, en favor de Ceciliano, obispo de Cartago, católico, contra Donato, hereje, Constantino se escandalizó y escribió á los obispos estas palabras: «Piden mi juicio, aguardando yo el juicio de Cristo; mas yo digo la verdad.

De la misma nianera se debe estimar el juicio de los sacerdotes como si el mismo Cristo juzgase, porque ellos no pueden sentir ni juzgar más de lo que aprendieron de Cristo. Pues ¿qué pretenden estos hombres malvados, ministros de Satanas? ¿Buscan los juicios seglares, y dejan los del cielo? y Trae esta epístola el muy docto y diligente historiador eclesiástico César Baronio. Y Optato Milevitano, hablando de esta misma apelacion, dice: «¡Oh furiosa y rabiosa osadia! Así apelaron como se suele hacer en las causas de los gentiles. n Y san Agustín dice que el Emperador fué más modesto que los donatistas, remitiendo aquella causa á los obispos, que era causa del hecho, y no de la fe, y si la juzgó, fué vencido de las importunidades de los mismos donatistas, y pidiendo despues perdon á los obispos, como lo escribe el mismo san Agustin en una epístola, por estas palabras: « Porque no se atrevió el cristiano Emperador juzgar del juicio de los obispos, que se habian juntado en Roma, pero señialó otros obispos que lo juzgasen, y ellos tornaron Otra vez á apelar al Emperador de lo que los tales obispos habian juzgado, en lo cual el Emperador condescendió con su importunidad, y despues de los obispos juzgó de aquella causa, con intencion de pedir perdon á los santos obispos de lo que habia hecho.»

El mismo Constantino fué tan piadoso y religioso príncipe, que no solamente mandó que fuesen obedecidos los obispos en las cosas que ordenasen concernientes á las iglesias, pero tambien en las seglares, y que no se pudiesen retractar. Y en efecto, se ve por las historias eclesiásticas y ejemplos de los santos obispos, que asi se guardaba, y que demas de excomulgar y apartar de la comunion de la Iglesia á los quelo merecian, mandaban y castigaban á los mismos jueces seglares, como lo prueba el mismo César Baronio, en el quinto tomo de sus Ánales, con el ejemplo de san Sinesio, obispo de Ptolemaida, y de san Agustin, y se saca de una epístola suya que escribió á Marcelino Tribuno, en que le dice: «Si no oyes al amigo que te ruega, oye al obispo que te da consejo. Aunque, pues, hablo con cristiano, y en tal causa, bien puedo decir sin arrogancia que debes obedecer al obispo que te manda.

Y por volver á Constantino, deesta misma pledad nació que, acabado el concilio Niceno, como dice Eusebio, escribió una epístola á todas las iglesias, en la cual al cabo dice estas palabras: «Siendo todo esto así, abrazad con ánimo alegre, como un don de Dios que os envia del cielo, el decreto deste concilio, porque todo lo que se determina en los santos concilios y juntas de los obispos, debemos entender que nos viene por la divina voluntad.» Y el mismo Eusebio dice que Constantino firmaba los decretos del concilio, para quitar á los gobernadores de las provincias ocasion de hacer algunos agravios, porque muy bicn sabía que los sacerdotes del Señor tenian muy firme y cierto juicio. Y conforme á esto, dijo san Ambrosio: «Constantino no hizo leyes algunas tocantes á la Iglesia, ántes dejó á los sacerdotes que juzgasen libremente de las cosas eclesiásticas.» Y asi, en una epístola que el mismo Constantino escribió á la iglesia de Alejandría en favor de Atanasio, dice estas palabras: «Yo he recibido á vuestro obispo Atanasio de buena gana, y habládole como á varon de Dios; pero á vosotros toca juzgar esto, y no á mí.» Y aunque se holgó cuando entendió que Arrio se habia conformado con lo que el concilio habia decretado, aunque lo hizo fingidamente, no quiso que se admitiese á la comunion con los católicos hasta que los obispos le aprobasen, como escribe Sozomeno, y el mismo Constantino solia decir, como lo refiere Eusebio en su Vida: «Vosotros, obispos dentro de la Iglesia, yo fuera de la Iglesia soy constituido obispo de Dios»; dando á entender que aunque el Rey no es obispo, ni se puede llamar obispo, ni ordenar ni consagrar, y determinar y disponer como juez y superior legítimo las cosas de la Iglesia; pero que debe ser en su manera como obispo, para favorecer y animar á los obispos, y mandar ejecutar lo que ellos santamente determinan, y darles brazo y poder para que sean obedecidos, y castigados los contumaces y rebeldes, y la santa Iglesia tenga paz y quietud.

Notes

1 ↩Normalized reading treats OCR noise as se ha de advertir, de tal manera deben (source: se ha do / mancra / dcben).
2 ↩Normalized reading treats ministros son do la Iglesia as de la Iglesia.
3 ↩Normalized reading treats úun as aún, priucipes as príncipes, augurcs as augures, and broken diferent me te as diferentemente.
4 ↩Spanish ángel del Señor renders the biblical "messenger of the Lord"; kept as messenger for clarity in contemporary English.
5 ↩Source text is corrupt after 'cátedra de Moi—': OCR garble intervenes before 'Todas sus ovejas…'. The Matthew chair-of-Moses opening is translated from the recoverable Spanish; the following Petrine commission is translated from the clear remainder. Possible lost intervening matter from Mt 23:2–3 is not invented.
6 ↩Source 'so han ofrecido' read as 'se han ofrecido'; 'corno' as 'como'.
7 ↩After 'reservadas al juicio' the source runs straight into 'En tiempo del emperador Aureliano' with no stated object of the reserved judgment and no sentence break; the sense is completed only by the surrounding papal-jurisdiction argument. OCR/name fixes applied where clear: Artastasio→Anastasius, Lxxx1v→LXXXIV, LXXxIX→LXXXIX, L11 del libro tv→LII of Book IV, eniperador→emperor.
8 ↩Constantine's quoted letter is cut off mid-sentence at the section boundary ('mas yo digo la verdad.'); the continuation begins in the next section.
9 ↩Source reads «nianera»; translated as «manera» (manner), the only plausible reading.
10 ↩The quoted cry is left open in the source sentence boundary; the continuation is the following sentence.
11 ↩Leading stray «n» treated as OCR debris; «señialó» rendered as «señaló» (appointed).
12 ↩Source has fused 'quelo merecian' (OCR); rendered as 'que lo merecían' = 'those who deserved it'.
13 ↩'Aunque, pues' rendered as 'Since, then' to capture the inferential force of the quoted appeal rather than a concessive 'although'.
14 ↩Source reading 'deesta misma pledad' treated as 'de esta misma piedad' (this same piety).
15 ↩Source reading 'muy bicn sabía' treated as 'muy bien sabía' (he well knew).
16 ↩'comunion con los católicos' rendered as ecclesial communion (full fellowship with Catholics), not as the Eucharistic Sacrament specifically.
17 ↩Constantine's saying 'obispo de Dios' follows the traditional Eusebian report of the emperor as 'bishop of those outside'; the Spanish gloss then explains the king is not a bishop in the sacramental sense, but must act like one by supporting episcopal judgment with secular power.

Tratado de la Religión y Virtudes que debe tener el Príncipe Cristiano (The Religion and Virtues of the Christian Prince) companion

Rule yourself daily, not just on retreat

Chosen Portion turns the mirror into a daily practice — a short reading and examining question each morning before you lead anyone.

Chosen Portion makes the mirror daily: the ruler-formation questions this collection preserves become a two-minute morning examination in the app.

A daily formation reading drawn from centuries of counsel to those in authority
One pointed examination question a day — two minutes, before the meetings start
Track your practice over weeks and watch the examined life become a habit

Chosen Portion — Daily Prayer (free iOS app) →