THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS ABUSE UNDER THE PAPACY.
We come now to the third branch of the power of the Church, and that
which is the principal one in a well regulated state, which we have said
consists in jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction of the Church relates
to the discipline of manners, of which we are about to treat. For as no
city or town can exist without a magistracy and civil polity, so the
Church of God, as I have already stated, but am now obliged to repeat,
stands in need of a certain spiritual polity; which, however, is
entirely distinct from civil polity, and is so far from obstructing or
weakening it, that, on the contrary, it highly conduces to its
assistance and advancement. This power of jurisdiction, therefore, will,
in short, be no other than an order instituted for the preservation of
the spiritual polity. For this end, there were from the beginning
judiciaries appointed in the Churches, to take cognizance of manners, to
pass censures on vices, and to preside over the use of the keys in
excommunication. This order Paul designates in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, when he mentions “governments;”[1028] and to the Romans,
when he says, “He that ruleth,” let him do it “with diligence.”[1029] He
is not speaking of magistrates or civil governors, for there were at
this time no Christian magistrates, but of those who were associated
with the pastor in the spiritual government of the Church. In the First
Epistle to Timothy, also, he mentions two kinds of presbyters or elders,
some “who labour in the word and doctrine,” others who have nothing to
do with preaching the word, and yet “rule well.”[1030] By the latter
class, there can be no doubt that he intends those who were appointed to
the cognizance of manners, and to the whole exercise of the keys. For
this power, of which we now speak, entirely depends on the keys, which
Christ has conferred upon the Church in the eighteenth chapter of
Matthew, where he commands that those who shall have despised private
admonitions shall be severely admonished in the name of the whole
Church; and that if they persist in their obstinacy, they are to be
excluded from the society of believers.[1031] Now, these admonitions and
corrections cannot take place without an examination of the cause; hence
the necessity of some judicature and order. Wherefore, unless we would
nullify the promise of the keys, and entirely abolish excommunication,
solemn admonitions, and every thing of a similar kind, it is necessary
to allow the Church some jurisdiction. Let it be observed, that the
passage to which we have referred, relates not to the general authority
of the doctrine to be preached by the apostles, as in the sixteenth
chapter of Mathew and the twentieth chapter of John; but that the power
of the sanhedrim is for the future transferred to the Church of Christ.
Till that time, the Jews had their own method of government, which, as
far as regards the pure institution, Jesus Christ established in his
Church, and that with a severe sanction. For this was absolutely
necessary, because the judgment of an ignoble and despised Church might
otherwise be treated with contempt by presumptuous and proud men. And
that the readers may not be embarrassed by the circumstance of Christ
having used the same words to express different things, it will be
useful to solve this difficulty. There are two places which speak of
_binding_ and _loosing_. One is in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew,
where Christ, after having promised Peter that he would “give” him “the
keys of the kingdom of heaven,”[1032] immediately adds, “Whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” In these words he means
precisely the same as he intends in other language recorded by John,
when, being about to send forth his disciples to preach, after having
“breathed on them,” he said, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained.”[1033] I shall offer an interpretation of this passage,
without any subtlety, violence, or perversion, but natural, suitable,
and obvious. This command respecting the remission and retention of
sins, and the promise made to Peter respecting binding and loosing,
ought to be wholly referred to the ministry of the word, which when our
Lord committed to the apostles, he at the same time invested them with
the power of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the gospel, but
that, being all slaves of sin and death, we are loosed and delivered by
the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and that those who never
receive or acknowledge Christ as their Deliverer and Redeemer, are
condemned and sentenced to eternal chains? When the Lord delivered this
embassy to his apostles, to be conveyed to all nations, in order to
evince it to be his, and to have proceeded from him, he honoured it with
this remarkable testimony, and that for the particular confirmation both
of the apostles themselves, and of all those to whom it was to be
announced. It was of importance, that the apostles should have a strong
and constant assurance of their preaching; which they were not only to
undertake and execute amidst immense labours, cares, troubles, and
dangers, but were at length to seal with their blood. That they might
know this ministry not to be vain or ineffectual, but full of power and
energy, it was of importance for them, in circumstances of such great
anxiety, difficulty, and danger, to be persuaded that they were employed
in the work of God; amidst all the hostility and opposition of the whole
world, to know that God was on their side; and though Christ, the Author
of their doctrine, was not present to their view on earth, to be certain
that he was in heaven to confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had
delivered to them. On the other hand, also, it was necessary that the
most unequivocal testimony should be given to their hearers, that the
doctrine of the gospel was not the word of the apostles, but of God
himself; not a voice issuing from the earth, but descended from heaven.
For these things, the remission of sins, the promise of eternal life,
and the message of salvation, cannot be in the power of man. Therefore
Christ has testified that, in the preaching of the gospel, nothing
belonged to the apostles, except the ministration of it; that it was he
himself who spoke and promised every thing by the instrumentality of
their mouths; and, consequently, that the remission of sins which they
preached was the true promise of God, and that the condemnation which
they denounced was the certain judgment of God. Now, this testification
has been given to all ages, and remains unaltered, to certify and assure
us all, that the word of the gospel, by whomsoever it may happen to be
preached, is the very sentence of God himself, promulgated from his
heavenly tribunal, recorded in the book of life, ratified, confirmed,
and fixed in heaven. Thus we see, that the power of the keys, in these
passages, is no other than the preaching of the gospel, and that,
considered with regard to men, it is not so much authoritative as
ministerial; for, strictly speaking, Christ has not given this power to
men, but to his word, of which he has appointed men to be the ministers.
II. The other passage, which we have mentioned, relative to the power of
binding and loosing, is in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where
Christ says, “If any brother neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto
thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye
shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”[1034] This passage is
not altogether similar to the first, but is to be understood in a manner
somewhat different; though I do not conceive the difference to be so
great, but that there is a considerable affinity between them. In the
first place, they are both alike in this respect, that each contains a
general declaration, the same power of always binding and loosing,—that
is, by the word of God,—the same command, the same promise. But they
differ in this, that the former passage peculiarly relates to the
preaching of the gospel, which is performed by the ministers of the
word; the latter relates to the discipline, which is committed to the
Church. The Church binds him whom it excommunicates; not that it
consigns him to perpetual ruin and despair, but because it condemns his
life and manners, and already warns him of his final condemnation,
unless he repent. The Church looses him whom it receives into its
communion; because it makes him, as it were, a partaker of the unity
which it has in Christ Jesus. That no man, therefore, may contemn the
judgment of the Church, or consider it as of little consequence that he
is condemned by the voice of believers, the Lord testifies that such
judgment of believers is no other than the promulgation of his sentence,
and that what they do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they
have the word of God, by which they condemn the perverse; they have the
same word, by which they receive penitents into favour; and they cannot
err or dissent from the judgment of God, because they judge only by the
Divine law, which is not an uncertain or earthly opinion, but the holy
will and heavenly oracle of God. From these two passages, which I think
I have familiarly and correctly, as well as concisely, explained, these
unreasonable men, without any judgment, under the influence of misguided
zeal, endeavour to establish, sometimes auricular confession, sometimes
excommunication, sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the right of
legislation, and sometimes indulgences. The former passage they allege
to support the primacy of the Roman see. They are so expert in fitting
their keys to any locks and doors they please, that it should seem as if
they had followed the business of locksmiths all their lifetime.
III. The opinion entertained by some persons, that these things were
only temporary, while all civil magistrates were strangers to the
profession of Christianity, is a mistake for want of considering the
great distinction, and the nature of the difference, between the
ecclesiastical and civil power. For the Church has no power of the sword
to punish or to coerce, no authority to compel, no prisons, fines, or
other punishments, like those inflicted by the civil magistrate.
Besides, the object of this power is, not that he who has transgressed
may be punished against his will but that he may profess his repentance
by a voluntary submission to chastisement. The difference therefore is
very great; because the Church does not assume to itself what belongs to
the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by
the Church. This will be better understood by an example. Is any man
intoxicated? In a well regulated city he will be punished by
imprisonment. Has he committed fornication? He will receive the same or
a severer punishment. With this, the laws, the magistrate, and the civil
judgment, will all be satisfied; though it may happen that he will give
no sign of repentance, but will rather murmur and repine against his
punishment. Will the Church stop here? Such persons cannot be admitted
to the sacred supper without doing an injury to Christ and to his holy
institution. And reason requires, that he who has offended the Church
with an evil example, should remove, by a solemn declaration of
repentance, the offence which he has excited. The argument adduced by
those who espouse a contrary opinion, is of no force. They say, that
Christ assigned this office to the Church, when there was no magistrate
to execute it. But it frequently happens that the magistrate is too
negligent, and sometimes that he even deserves to be chastised himself;
which was the case with the emperor Theodosius. Besides, the same
argument might be extended to the whole ministry of the word. Now, then,
according to them, pastors must no longer censure notorious crimes; they
must cease to chide, to reprove, to rebuke; for there are Christian
magistrates, whose duty it is to correct such offences by the civil
sword. But as it is the duty of the magistrate, by punishment and
corporeal coercion, to purge the Church from offences, so it behoves the
minister of the word, on his part, to relieve the magistrate by
preventing the multiplication of offenders. Their respective operations
ought to be so connected as to be an assistance, and not an obstruction
to each other.
IV. And, indeed, whoever will closely examine the words of Christ, will
easily perceive that they describe the stated and perpetual order, and
not any temporary regulation, of the Church. For it is unreasonable for
us to bring an accusation before a magistrate, against those who refuse
to submit to our admonitions; yet this would be necessary if the
magistrate succeeded to this office of the Church. What shall we say of
this promise, “Verily I say unto thee, whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven?” Was it only for one, or for a few
years? Besides, Christ here instituted nothing new, but followed the
custom always observed in the ancient Church of his own nation; thereby
signifying, that the spiritual jurisdiction, which had been exercised
from the beginning, was indispensable to the Church. And this has been
confirmed by the consent of all ages. For when emperors and magistrates
began to assume the profession of Christianity, the spiritual
jurisdiction was not in consequence abolished, but only regulated in
such a manner as neither to derogate from the civil power, nor to be
confounded with it. And that justly; for a pious magistrate will not
wish to exempt himself from the common subjection of the children of
God, which in no small degree consists in submitting to the Church, when
it judges by the word of God: so very far is it from being his duty to
abolish such a judicature. “For what is more honourable,” says Ambrose,
“than for the emperor to be called the son of the Church? For a good
emperor is within the Church, not above the Church.” Wherefore those
who, to exalt the magistrate, despoil the Church of this power, not only
pervert the language of Christ by a false interpretation, but pass a
most severe censure on all the holy bishops who have lived since the
time of the apostles, for having usurped to themselves, under a false
pretext, the honour and dignity which belonged to the magistrate.
V. But, on the other hand, it is also worth while to examine what was
the true and ancient use of the jurisdiction of the Church, and what a
great abuse of it has been introduced; that we may know what ought to be
abrogated, and what ought to be restored from antiquity, if we would
overturn the reign of Antichrist, and reëstablish the true kingdom of
Christ. In the first place, the object to be secured is the prevention
of offences, or the abolition of any that may have arisen. In the use of
it, two things require to be considered; first, that this spiritual
power be entirely separated from the power of the sword; secondly, that
it be administered, not at the pleasure of one man, but by a legitimate
assembly. Both these things were observed in the purer ages of the
Church. For the holy bishops never exercised their authority by fines,
imprisonments, or other civil punishments; but, as became them, employed
nothing but the word of the Lord. For the severest vengeance, the
ultimate punishment of the Church, is excommunication, which is never
resorted to without absolute necessity. Now, excommunication requires no
external force, but is content with the power of the word of God. In
short, the jurisdiction of the primitive Church was no other than a
practical exposition of the description which Paul gives of the
spiritual authority of pastors. This power he represents as conferred
for the purpose of “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into
captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in
readiness to revenge all disobedience.”[1035] As this is accomplished by
the preaching of the doctrine of Christ, so to preserve that doctrine
from falling into contempt, they who profess themselves of the household
of faith ought to be judged by what that doctrine contains. That cannot
be done, except the ministry be accompanied with the power to take
cognizance of those who are to be privately admonished, or more severely
censured, and also to exclude from the communion of the Supper those who
cannot be admitted without a profanation of such a solemn sacrament.
Wherefore when he denies, in another place, that we have any right “to
judge them that are without,”[1036] he makes the children of the church
subject to the censures by which their faults are chastised, and implies
the existence at that time of judicatures from which none of the
believers were exempt.
VI. This power, as we have stated, was not in the hands of one man, for
him to act according to his own pleasure, but resided in the assembly of
the elders, which was in the Church what a senate is in a city. Cyprian,
when he mentions by whom it was exercised in his time, generally unites
all the clergy with the bishop; but in other passages he also shows,
that the clergy presided in such a manner, that the people were not
excluded from this cognizance. For he expresses himself in these words:
“From the commencement of my episcopate, I have determined to do nothing
without the counsel of the clergy and the consent of the people.” But
the common and usual custom was for the jurisdiction of the Church to be
exercised by the council of the presbyters; of whom, as I have observed,
there were two classes; for some were ordained to the office of
teaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution
gradually degenerated from its original establishment; so that, in the
time of Ambrose, the judicial administration of the Church was wholly in
the hands of the clergy; of which he complains in the following
language: “The ancient synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had elders,
without whose advice nothing was done. I know not by what negligence
this practice has been discontinued, except from the indolence of the
doctors, or rather from their pride, while they wish none but
themselves, to be seen.” We perceive how indignant was that holy man,
that there had been some declension from a better state of things,
though they still retained an order that was at least tolerable. What
would he say now, if he were to see the present deformed ruins, which
exhibit scarcely a vestige of the ancient edifice! What a complaint
would he make! First, in opposition to law and justice, that which had
been given to the Church, the bishop usurped entirely to himself. This
resembles the conduct of a consul or president, expelling the senate,
and seizing the sole administration of a government. But as the bishop
is superior to other persons in honour, so the assembly or congregation
possesses more authority than one individual. It was a gross outrage,
therefore, for one man to transfer to himself all the power of the
community, and thereby to open a door to licentious tyranny, to deprive
the Church of its rights, and to suppress and abolish an assembly
appointed by the Spirit of Christ.
VII. But as one evil always produces another, bishops, disdaining this
charge as unworthy of their attention, have delegated it to others.
Hence the creation of officials, to discharge that duty. I say nothing,
at present, of the characters of the persons; I only assert, that they
differ in no respect from civil judges; yet they still call it a
spiritual jurisdiction, where all the contention is about secular
affairs. Though there were no other evil, what effrontery must they
have, to call a court full of litigation the judicature of the Church!
But, it is alleged, it employs admonitions, and pronounces
excommunication. Is it thus that they trifle with God? Does a poor man
owe a sum of money? He is cited. If he appear, he is condemned; after
the condemnation, if he do not pay, he is admonished: after the second
admonition, they proceed to excommunication. If he do not appear to the
citation, he is admonished to be forthcoming: if he delay, he is
admonished a second time, and soon after is excommunicated. I ask, What
is there in this that bears any resemblance to the institution of
Christ, the ancient usage, or the order of the Church? It is further
alleged, that this court also corrects vices. I reply, that acts of
fornication, lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and similar enormities,
they not only tolerate, but sanction and encourage, by a kind of tacit
approbation, and that not only in the people, but even in the clergy
themselves. Among multitudes of offenders, they only summon a few,
either to avoid too flagrant an appearance of connivance, or for the
purpose of extorting money. I say nothing of the robbery, the rapine,
the peculation, the sacrilege, connected with this office. I say nothing
of the characters of most of the persons selected to discharge it. It is
more than sufficient for us, that while the Romanists boast of their
spiritual jurisdiction, it is easy to show that nothing is more contrary
to the order appointed by Christ, and that it has no more resemblance to
the ancient practice, than darkness has to light.
VIII. Though we have not said all that might be adduced for this
purpose, and what we have said has been condensed within a small
compass, yet I trust we have so refuted our adversaries, as to leave no
room for any one to doubt that the spiritual power arrogated by the pope
and all his hierarchy, is a tyrannical usurpation, chargeable with
impious opposition to the word of God, and injustice to his people.
Under the term _spiritual power_, I include their audacity in
fabricating new doctrines, by which they have seduced the unhappy people
from the native purity of the word of God, the iniquitous traditions by
which they have insnared them, and the pretended ecclesiastical
jurisdiction which they exercise by their suffragans, vicars,
penitentiaries, and officials. For if we allow Christ any kingdom among
us, all this kind of domination must immediately fall to the ground. The
power of the sword, which they also claim, as that is not exercised over
consciences, but operates on property, is irrelevant to our present
subject; though in this also it is worth while to remark, that they are
always consistent with themselves, and are at the greatest possible
distance from the character they would be thought to sustain, as pastors
of the Church. Here I am not censuring the particular vices of
individuals, but the general wickedness and common pest of the whole
order, which they would consider as degraded, if it were not
distinguished by wealth and lofty titles. If we consult the authority of
Christ on this subject, there is no doubt that he intended to exclude
the ministers of his word from civil dominion and secular sovereignty,
when he said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them;
but it shall not be so among you.”[1037] For by these words he
signifies, not only that the office of a pastor is distinct from the
office of a prince, but that they are so different, that they can never
be properly united in one man. For though Moses held both these offices
at once, it may be observed, first, that this was the result of a
special miracle; secondly, that it was only a temporary arrangement,
till things should be better regulated. But, as soon as God prescribed a
certain form of government, Moses was left in possession of the civil
administration, and was commanded to resign the priesthood to his
brother; and that for a very sufficient reason; for it is beyond the
ability of nature for one man to be capable of sustaining the burden of
both. And this has been carefully observed in the Church in all ages.
For as long as any real appearance of a Church remained, not one of the
bishops ever thought of usurping the power of the sword; so that it was
a common proverb in the time of Ambrose, “That emperors rather coveted
the priesthood, than priests the empire;” for as he afterwards observes,
it was the firm and universal opinion, “That palaces belonged to
emperors, and churches to priests.”
IX. But since a method has been contrived for bishops to retain the
title, honour, and emoluments of their office without any burden or
solicitude, that they might not be left entirely without occupation, the
power of the sword has been given to them, or rather they have usurped
it to themselves. With what plea will they defend such impudence? Was it
for bishops to perplex themselves with judicial proceedings, to assume
the government of cities and provinces, and to undertake various other
occupations so incompatible with their office, which alone would furnish
them so much labour and employment, that even if they were entirely and
assiduously devoted to it, without the least distraction of other
avocations, they would scarcely be able to discharge its functions? But
they have the hardihood to boast, that this causes the Church of Christ
to flourish with a glory suitable to its dignity, and at the same time
that they are not too much distracted from the duties of their vocation.
With respect to the first point, if it be a becoming ornament of the
sacred office, for those who sustain it to be elevated to a degree of
power formidable to the greatest monarchs, they have reason to
expostulate with Christ, by whom their honour has been so grievously
wounded. For in their opinion, at least, what could have been said more
disgraceful than the following language? “The kings of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you.”[1038]
Nor has he prescribed a severer law to his servants than he first
imposed upon himself. “Man,” says he, “who made me a judge or a divider
over you?”[1039] We see he plainly refuses to act the part of a judge,
which he would not have done, had it been a thing consistent with his
office. Will not his servants allow themselves to be reduced to that
rank, to which their Lord voluntarily submitted himself? With respect to
the second point, I wish they could as easily prove it by experience as
make the assertion. But since the apostles thought it not right for them
“to leave the word of God, and serve tables,”[1040] this must confound
those who are reluctant to admit, that it is not in the power of the
same man to be at the same time a good bishop and a good prince. For if
they, who by the extent of the gifts with which they were endued, were
enabled to sustain far more numerous and weighty cares than any men who
have lived since their time, after all confessed themselves incapable of
attending to the word of God and the service of tables without fainting
under the burden, how should it be possible for these men, who are by no
means to be compared to the apostles, so vastly to surpass them in
industry? The very attempt has betrayed the most consummate effrontery
and presumptuous confidence. Yet we see it has been done; with what
success, is obvious; the unavoidable consequence has been the desertion
of their own functions, and intrusion into those which belonged to
others.
X. It has, without doubt, been from small beginnings, that they have
gradually risen to such eminence. For it was not possible for them to
make so great an advance at one step. But sometimes by fraudulent and
secret artifices, they exalted themselves in a clandestine manner, so
that no one perceived the encroachment till it had been effected:
sometimes, when opportunity offered, by terrifying and menacing princes,
they extorted from them some augmentation of their power; sometimes,
when they saw princes inclined to favour them, they abused their foolish
and inconsiderate pliability. In early times, if any controversy arose,
the believers, in order to avoid the necessity of litigation, used to
refer it to the decision of their bishop, of whose integrity they were
fully satisfied. The ancient bishops were frequently embarrassed with
such arbitrations, which exceedingly displeased them, as Augustine
somewhere declares; but to save the parties from lawsuits, they
reluctantly undertook this troublesome business. From voluntary
arbitrations, which were entirely different from the processes of civil
courts, their successors have erected an ordinary jurisdiction. In a
subsequent period, when cities and countries were oppressed with various
distresses, they had recourse to the patronage of their bishops, that
they might be protected by their influence; succeeding bishops, by
wonderful artifice, of protectors have made themselves lords. Nor can it
be denied, that the principal acquisitions they have made, have been
effected by faction and violence. The princes, who voluntarily invested
the bishops with jurisdiction, were actuated to this by various motives.
But though their indulgence may have exhibited some appearance of piety,
yet their preposterous liberality was by no means adapted to promote the
benefit of the Church, the ancient and genuine discipline of which they
thereby corrupted, or rather, to say the truth, utterly annihilated. But
those bishops who have abused such kindness of princes to their own
profit, have sufficiently evinced, by this one specimen, that they were
in reality no bishops at all. For if they had possessed a particle of
the apostolic spirit, they would unquestionably have answered, in the
language of Paul, that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,
but”[1041] spiritual. Instead of this, hurried away with a blind
cupidity, they have ruined themselves, and their successors, and the
Church.
XI. At length the Roman pontiff, not content with small provinces, first
laid his hand upon kingdoms, and then seized upon the empire. And to
assign some plausible pretext for retaining a possession acquired by
mere robbery, he sometimes boasts that he holds it by Divine right,
sometimes pretends the donation from Constantine, and sometimes pleads
some other title. In the first place, I answer with Bernard, that
supposing he could vindicate his claim by any other reason, yet he
cannot establish it by any apostolic right. “For Peter could not give
what he never possessed; but he left his successors, what he did
possess, the care of the churches. But as the Lord and Master said of
himself, that he was not constituted a judge between two persons, the
servant and disciple ought not to think it any disgrace not to be judge
of all men.” Bernard is speaking here of civil judgments, for he adds,
addressing the pope, “Therefore your power is over sins, and not over
possessions, since it is for the former, and not for the latter, that
you have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For which appears
to you the superior dignity, to remit sins, or to divide lands? There is
no comparison. These low and earthly things are subject to the judgment
of kings and princes of the earth. Why do you invade the province of
others?” Again; “You are made a superior. For what purpose? Not to
exercise dominion, I apprehend. However highly we think of ourselves,
therefore, let us remember that we are appointed to a ministry not
invested with a sovereignty. Learn that you want no sceptre, but a
pruning-knife, to cultivate the Lord’s vineyard.” Again: “It is plain
that sovereignty is forbidden to the apostles. Go then, if you dare, and
sustaining the office of a temporal sovereign, usurp the name of an
apostle, or filling an apostolical office, usurp a temporal
sovereignty.” And immediately after: “This is the apostolic form: they
are forbidden to exercise any dominion; they are commanded to minister
and serve.” Though all these observations of Bernard are evidently
consistent with the truth, and even though the true state of the case
must be obvious to all without any thing being said, yet the Roman
pontiff was not ashamed, at the Council of Arles, to decree, that the
supreme power of both swords belonged to him by Divine right.
XII. With respect to the donation of Constantine, persons who have only
a moderate acquaintance with the histories of those times, need no
information how fabulous, and even ridiculous, this is. But to leave the
histories, Gregory, who lived above four hundred years after, is alone a
competent and very sufficient witness of this fact. For, wherever he
speaks of the emperor, he gives him the title of Most Serene Lord, and
calls himself his unworthy servant. In one place he says, “Let not our
lord, from his earthly power, be too ready to treat priests with
disdain; but with excellent consideration, for the sake of him whose
servants they are, let him rule over them in such a manner, as at the
same time to pay them due reverence.” We see how, in the common
subjection, he wished to be considered as one of the people; for he is
there pleading, not another person’s cause, but his own. In another
place he says, “I trust in Almighty God, that he will grant a long life
to our pious lords, and will govern us under your hand according to his
mercy.” I have not quoted these passages with any design to discuss at
large this question of the donation of Constantine, but merely to show
my readers, by the way, what a puerile falsehood it is of the Romanists,
to attempt to claim a temporal sovereignty for their pontiff. And so
much the more contemptible is the impudence of Augustine Steuchus, the
pope’s librarian, who has had the effrontery to prostitute his labours
to serve his master in such a desperate cause. Laurentius Valla had
amply refuted that fable, which was no difficulty to a man of learning
and an acute reasoner; yet, like a man little conversant in
ecclesiastical affairs, he had not said all that would have corroborated
the argument. Steuchus sallies forth, and scatters the most disgusting
trash to obscure the clear light. But, in fact, he pleads the cause of
his master with no more force than if some facetious wit, ironically
professing the same object, were in reality supporting the opposite side
of the question. But this cause is well worthy of such advocates as the
pope hires to defend it; and equally worthy are those mercenary
scribblers of being disappointed in their hopes of gain, as was the case
with Eugubinus.
XIII. But if any one inquire the time when this fictitious empire began
to arise, there have not yet elapsed five hundred years since the
pontiffs were still in subjection to the emperors, and no pontiff was
created without the authority of the emperor. The first occasion of
innovation in this order was given to Gregory VII. by the emperor Henry,
the fourth of that name, a man of rash and unsteady disposition, of no
judgment, great audacity, and dissolute life. For when he had all the
bishoprics of Germany in his court, either exposed to sale, or to be
distributed as a booty, Hildebrand, who had been offended with him,
seized a plausible pretext to avenge himself. Because he appeared to
advocate a good and pious cause, he was assisted by the favour of many;
and Henry, on the other hand, had rendered himself odious to the
generality of princes, by the insolence of his government. At length
Hildebrand, who assumed the name of Gregory VII., being a man of no
piety or integrity, betrayed the wickedness of his heart; in consequence
of which many, who had concurred with him, afterwards deserted him. He
so far succeeded, however, as to enable his successors not only to cast
off the imperial yoke with impunity, but even to oblige the emperors to
submit to them. After that time there were many emperors, more like
Henry than like Julius Cæsar, whom there was no difficulty in overcoming
while they were sitting at home in indolence and unconcern, when there
was the greatest necessity for every vigorous and legitimate exertion to
repress the cupidity of the pontiffs. Thus we see with what plausibility
they have represented this admirable donation of Constantine, by which
the pope pretends himself to have been invested with the sovereignty of
the Western empire.
XIV. From that period the pontiffs have never ceased encroaching on the
jurisdictions, and seizing on the territories, of others, sometimes
employing fraud, sometimes treachery, and sometimes open war; even the
city of Rome itself, which till then was free, about a hundred and
thirty years ago was compelled to submit to their dominion; in short,
they proceeded to make continual advances, till they attained the power
which they at present possess, and for the retention or augmentation of
which, they have now, for the space of two hundred years, (for they had
begun before they usurped the government of the city,) so disturbed and
distracted the Christian world, that they have brought it to the brink
of ruin. In the time of Gregory the First, when the guardians of the
ecclesiastical property seized for themselves the lands which belonged
to the Church, and, according to the custom of princes, set up their
titles and armorial bearings on them in token of their claim, Gregory
assembled a provincial council of bishops, in which he severely
inveighed against that profane custom, and asked whether they would not
excommunicate any ecclesiastic who should attempt the seizure of
property by the inscription of a title, or even any bishop who should
direct such a thing to be done, or if done without his direction, should
not punish it. They all pronounced that every such offender should be
excommunicated. But if claiming a field by the inscription of a title,
be a crime deserving of excommunication in a priest,—when for two whole
centuries the pontiffs have been meditating nothing but wars, effusion
of blood, slaughter of armies, storming and pillaging cities, the
destruction of nations, the devastation of kingdoms, for the sole
purpose of seizing the dominions of others,—what excommunications can be
sufficient for the punishment of such examples? It is clear beyond all
doubt, that the glory of Christ is the object furthest from their
pursuit. For if they voluntarily resign all the secular power which they
possess, no danger will result to the glory of God, to sound doctrine,
or to the safety of the Church; but they are infatuated, and stimulated
by the mere lust of dominion; and consider nothing as safe, unless, as
the prophet says, “they rule with force and with cruelty.”[1042]
XV. With jurisdiction is connected the immunity which the Roman
ecclesiastics arrogate to themselves. For they consider it a degradation
for them to appear before a civil judge in personal causes, and they
imagine the liberty and dignity of the Church to consist in their
exemption from the common judicature and laws. But the ancient bishops,
who in other respects were the most rigid assertors of the rights of the
Church, esteemed it no injury to themselves, or to their order, to be
subject to lay judges in civil causes. The pious emperors also, without
any opposition, always summoned the clergy before their tribunals,
whenever necessity required it. For this is the language of Constantine,
in his epistle to the bishops of Nicomedia: “If any bishop excite any
disturbance by his indiscretion, his presumption shall be restrained by
the authority of the minister of God, that is, by mine.” And Valentinian
says, “Good bishops never traduce the power of the emperor, but
sincerely observe the commands of God, the sovereign King, and obey our
laws.” At that time this principle was universally admitted, without any
controversy. Ecclesiastical causes were referred to the judgment of the
bishop. As for example, if any ecclesiastic had committed no crime
against the laws, but was only charged with offending against the
canons, he was not summoned to the common tribunal, but was judged by
the bishop. In like manner, if a question was agitated respecting an
article of faith, or any other subject properly belonging to the Church,
to the Church the cognizance of it was committed. In this sense is to be
understood what Ambrose writes to the emperor Valentinian: “Your father,
of august memory, not only answered verbally, but also ordained by
edicts, that, in a cause relating to faith, he ought to judge, who is
not disqualified by office or dignity.” Again: “If we regard the
Scriptures or ancient examples, who will deny that in a cause of
faith,—I say, in a cause of faith,—it is customary for bishops to judge
of Christian emperors, and not emperors of bishops?” Again: “I would
have come to your consistory, sire, if either the bishops or the people
would have suffered me to go; but they say, that a cause of faith ought
to be discussed in the Church, in the presence of the people.” He
contended that a spiritual cause—that is, a cause affecting
religion—ought not to be carried into a civil court, where secular
controversies are agitated; and his constancy in this respect has been
universally and justly applauded. Yet, notwithstanding the goodness of
his cause, he went no further than to declare, that if the emperor
proceeded to employ force, he would submit. He says, “I will not
voluntarily desert the station committed to me: in case of compulsion, I
know not how to resist, for our arms are prayers and tears.” Let us
observe the singular combination of moderation and prudence with
magnanimity and confidence in this holy man. Justina, the mother of the
emperor, because she could not induce him to join the Arians,
endeavoured to deprive him of his bishopric. And she would have
succeeded in her attempts, if, in compliance with the summons, he had
gone to the palace of the emperor to plead his cause. Therefore he
denied the emperor to be a competent judge of so important a
controversy; and this was necessary both from the circumstances of that
time, and from the invariable nature of the subject itself. For he was
of opinion, that it was his duty to suffer death rather than, by his
consent, to permit such an example to be transmitted to posterity; and
yet in case of violence being employed, he cherished not a thought of
resistance. For he denied it to be compatible with the character of a
bishop to defend the faith and privileges of the Church by arms; but in
other cases he showed himself ready to do whatever the emperor would
command. “If he demands tribute,” says he, “we do not refuse it; the
lands of the Church pay tribute. If he demands the lands, he has power
to take them; none of us will oppose him.” Gregory also speaks in a
similar manner. “I am not ignorant,” he says, “of the mind of our most
serene lord, that he is not in the habit of interfering in sacerdotal
causes, lest he should in any respect be burdened with our sins.” He
does not entirely exclude the emperor from judging priests, but observes
that there are certain causes which he ought to leave to the decision of
the Church.
XVI. And even in this exception, the sole object of these holy men was
to prevent the tyrannical violence and caprice of princes less
favourable to religion from obstructing the Church in the discharge of
its duty. For they did not disapprove of the occasional interposition of
princes in ecclesiastical affairs, provided they would exert their
authority for the preservation of the order of the Church, and not for
the disturbance of it; for the establishment of discipline, and not for
its relaxation. For as the Church neither possesses, nor ought to
desire, the power to constrain,—I speak of civil coercion,—it is the
part of pious kings and princes to support religion by laws, edicts, and
judicial sentences. For this reason, when the emperor Mauritius
commanded certain bishops to receive their neighbouring colleagues, who
had been expelled from their sees by the barbarians, Gregory confirmed
this command, and exhorted them to obey it. And when he himself was
admonished by the same emperor to be reconciled to John, the bishop of
Constantinople, he did, indeed, assign a reason why he ought not to be
blamed, yet he boasted no immunity exempting him from the imperial
authority, but on the contrary promised compliance as far as should be
consistent with a good conscience; and at the same time acknowledged
that Mauritius acted in a manner becoming a religious prince in giving
such commands to the bishops.
Footnote 1028:
1 Cor. xii. 28.
Footnote 1029:
Rom. xii. 8.
Footnote 1030:
1 Tim. v. 17.
Footnote 1031:
Matt. xviii. 15-18.
Footnote 1032:
Matt. xvi. 19.
Footnote 1033:
John xx. 22, 23.
Footnote 1034:
Matt. xviii. 17, 18.
Footnote 1035:
2 Cor. x. 5, 6.
Footnote 1036:
1 Cor. v. 12.
Footnote 1037:
Matt. xx. 25, 26. Luke xxii. 25, 26.
Footnote 1038:
Matt. xx. 25, 26. Luke xxii. 25, 26.
Footnote 1039:
Luke xii. 14.
Footnote 1040:
Acts vi. 2.
Footnote 1041:
2 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 1042:
Ezek. xxxiv. 4.