Calvin - Institutes Of The Christian Religion Book4 Chapter5

77

CHAPTER 5 THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT WAS COMPLETELY OVERTHROWN BY THE TYRANNY OF THE PAPACY (Appointment of unqualified persons without vote of the people, 1-3) 1. SCANDALOUS NEGLECT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EPISCOPATE Now it behooves us to turn our attention to the order of church government adhered to today by the Roman see and all its satellites, and the whole picture of that hierarchy which they are always talking about; also, to compare with it our description of the first and ancient church. From such a comparison will appear the nature of that church which these men have who are raging to oppress—or rather to destroy—us by its mere title. It is best to begin with the call, that we may see who and what type are called to this ministry and in what manner. Then we shall consider how faithfully they discharge their office. We shall give first place to bishops. Would that it were an honor to give them first place in this discussion! But the reality does not allow me to touch even lightly upon this matter, without great shame to them. Still, I shall remember in what sort of writing I am presently engaged, and not allow my discourse, which ought to be framed to simple teaching, to exceed its limits. But let any one of them who has not utterly lost shame answer me what sort of bishops are commonly elected today! The practice of having an examination of learning has, to be sure, become too old-fashioned. But if learning is held in any regard, they choose a lawyer who knows how to plead in a court rather than how to preach in a

78

church. This is certain, that for a hundred years scarcely one man in a hundred has been elected who has comprehended anything of sacred learning. I spare the previous centuries not because they were much better, but because our question concerns only the present church. If their morals are appraised, we shall find few or almost none whom the ancient canons would not have judged unworthy. He who was not a drunkard was a fornicator; he who was also free of this crime was a dice player or hunter, or dissolute in some part of life. For there are less serious faults which, according to the ancient canons, exclude a man from the episcopate. But this is by far the most absurd thing—that boys scarcely ten years old, by the pope’s dispensation, are made bishops. And they have reached such lengths of shamelessness and stupidity that they do not bristle with horror even at this extreme and monstrous transgression which is repulsive to the very feeling of nature. From this it is evident how scrupulous were the elections where there was such heedless negligence.F121 2. THE COMMUNITY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO ELECT ITS BISHOP Now all the people’s right in electing a bishop has been taken away. Votes, assent, subscriptions, and all their like have vanished; the whole power has been transferred to the canons alone. They confer the episcopate on whom they please; they introduce him directly before the people, but to be adored, not to be examined. Yet Leo cries out that no reason allows this, and declares it a violent imposition. F122 Cyprian, in testifying that only election by the people’s consent flows from divine right, shows that the contrary custom conflicts with God’s Word.F123 Very many decrees of synods stringently forbid its being done otherwise, and, if it be done otherwise, declare it void.F124 If these things are true, no canonical election remains today in the entire papacy either by divine or by ecclesiastical right. But even if this be the only evil, who could excuse the fact that they have thus despoiled the church of its right? But, they say, the corruption of the times required that, since among people and magistrates hatred and party spirit prevailed more in selecting bishops than did right and sound judgment, the decision of this matter should be delegated to a few.F125

79

Obviously, this was an extreme remedy for evil in deplorable circumstances! But when the medicine has seemed more deadly than the disease itself, why is this new evil not also remedied? But, they say, the canons have exactly prescribed the procedure that ought to be followed in elections.F126 But ado we doubt that the people of old, when they met to choose a bishop, understood that they were bound by most holy laws, since they saw the rule laid down for them by God’s Word? Indeed, that single utterance of God, with which he describes the true likeness of a bishop, justly ought to be of more weight than countless tens of thousands of canons. Nonetheless, corrupted by a most ignoble passion, they had no regard for law or equity. Thus today, even if the best laws are written, they remain buried in documents. Sometimes, the promotion of drunkards, fornicators, and most frequently gamblers to this office qs for the most part condoned, and even approved (as if it were done by design)! I am not exaggerating: bishoprics are the rewards for adulteries and panderings. For when they are given to hunters and falconers, we are to suppose that things have turned out admirably! To excuse such indecency in any way is a very shameful thing. The people once had an excellent canon, I say, to whom the Word of God prescribed that a bishop ought to be above reproach, a teacher, not contentious, etc. [<540301> 1 Timothy 3:1-7; cf. <560107> Titus 1:7-9]. Why, then, has the responsibility of choosing been removed from the people to such fellows? Obviously, because the Word of God was not being heeded among tumults and factions of the people. And why is it not today transferred back from such fellows, who not only violate all laws, but, casting away shame, wantonly, selfishly, and ambitiouslymingle and confuse human things with divine? 3. NEGLECT HAS LED TO THE INTERVENTION OF PRINCES But when they say that this was devised as a remedy they are lying. We read that in old times cities were often in tumult over the choice of bishops; yet no one ever dared think of taking away the right from the citizens. For they had other ways of avoiding these faults or, once they had occurred, of correcting them. The truth shall be told.

80

When the people began to be more negligent in holding elections, and cast that responsibility upon the presbyters as not applying to themselves, the latter abused this opportunity to usurp a tryanny for themselves which they afterward confirmed by issuing new canons. Ordination, moreover, is nothing but pure mockery. For the kind of examination which they display there is so empty and thin that it even lacks every outward trapping. Therefore, what the princes in some places have obtained by agreement with the Roman pontiffs—the right to nominate bishops—has caused no new loss to the church, F127 because the election was taken away only from the canons, who had seized it without right or had actually stolen it. Here—forsooth!—is a very foul example: bishops are sent from the court to occupy churches, while it should be the part of godly princes to abstain from such corruption! For it is a wicked spoliation of the church to force upon any people a bishop whom they have not desired or have not at least approved with free voice! But that disorderly practice which had long been in the churches gave the princes occasion to appropriate to themselves the presentation of bishops. For they preferred it to be their own gift, rather than to belong to persons who had no more right to it than they, and who abused it just as wickedly. (A buses associated with collation to clerical benefices, 4-7) 4. ABUSES IN THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PRESBYTER (“PRIEST”) AND DEACON Here is a noble calling, by reason of which bishops boast that they are the apostles’ successors. But they say that the right to create presbyters belongs to them alone.F128 In this they very wickedly corrupt the ancient institution, because they create by their ordination not presbyters to lead and feed the people, but priests to perform sacrifices. Similarly, when they consecrate deacons, they do nothing about their true and proper office, but ordain them only for certain rites concerned with chalice and paten. But in the Council of Chalcedon, on the contrary, it was enacted that there should be no ordinations free of pastoral obligations, that is, that a place

81

be assigned to the person ordained where he is to exercise his office.F129 This decree is very valuable for two reasons. First, that the church may not be burdened with needless expense, and spend upon idle men what ought to be distributed to the poor. Secondly, that those ordained are not to think themselves promoted to an honor but charged with an office which they are with solemn attestation obligated to discharge. But the Roman masters (who think that nothing ought to be taken care of in religion except the belly) first interpret title as meaning an income sufficient for their support, whether it be from their own patrimony or from their priestly office. Therefore, when they ordain a deacon or presbyter, unconcerned as to where they ought to minister, they confer holy orders upon them, if only they be rich enough to support themselves. But what man can accept this, that the title which the decree of the council requires as the annual income for support? The more recent canons,F130 to check indiscriminate ordinations, condemned the bishops to support those clergy whom they had ordained without proper title. To circumvent this regulation a new subterfuge has been devised: the one ordained promises, whatever title is named, that he will be content with it. By this agreement he is deprived of suing for support. I do not speak of the thousand frauds that take place here, as when some lie about empty titles to benefices, from which they cannot earn five assesF131 a year; others under a secret agreement borrow benefices, which they promise to return immediately, but they sometimes do not return them. And there are other mysteries of this sort. 5. ORDINATION IS TRAVESTIED But even if these crasser abuses were removed, is it not always absurd to appoint a presbyter to whom you assign no place?F132 For they ordain no one, except to perform sacrifice. But the proper ordination of a presbyter is a call to govern the church; of a deacon, to gather alms. They disguise their action, indeed, with much pomp so that by the very show it may hold the veneration of simple folk. But among the same, what value can these masks have when nothing solid or true underlies them? For they employ ceremonies either from Judaism or devised from among themselves, which it were better to eschew.

82

But of the true examination (not to tarry over that shadow which they retain) of the people’s consent, of other necessary things, there is no mention. I call “a shadow” those ridiculous gesticulations, composed in inept and lifeless imitation of antiquity. The bishops have their vicars who inquire concerning the candidates’ learning before ordination. But what do they ask? Whether they can read their masses, whether they can decline some common noun that occurs in the lesson, whether they can conjugate a verb, whether they know the meaning of one word; for it is not necessary that they even know how to render the meaning of a single verse. Still, those who are deficient even in these childish elements are not barred from the priesthood, provided they bear some commendation of money or favor. It is the same sort of concoction when they are led to the altar for ordination, and someone asks three times, in a language they cannot understand, whether they are worthy of that honor. Someone answers (who has never seen them, but that nothing should be lacking to the form, has his part in the play), “They are worthy.”F133 What do you blame in such reverend fathers, except that, in the mockery of such open sacrileges, they shamelessly laugh at God and men? But because they have been in possession of this for a long time, they think it now legally belongs to them. For whoever dares open his mouth against those manifest and hideous misdeeds is seized by them to be adjudged to death, like one who in ancient times disclosed the sacred rites of Ceres.F134 Would they do this if they thought there were a god? 6. THE NATURE OF BENEFICES Now how much better do they conduct themselves in collation of benefices, a matter formerly joined with ordination but now quite separate from it? Among them, however, things are variously done. Bishops are not the only ones who confer priesthoods, and even over those offices of which they are called “collators,”F135 they do not always have full jurisdiction; but others have the right of presentation, while the bishops retain the honorary title of collation. There are also nominations made by schools, resignations—either simple or done for the sake of exchange— rescripts, preventions, and the like. But all so conduct themselves that no one of them could reproach another for anything. I contend that nowadays in the papacy scarcely one benefice in a hundred is conferred without

83

simony—as the ancients defined simony.F136 I do not say that all buy them at a price, but show me one out of twenty who comes to a benefice without some indirect commendation. Some are advanced by kinship or affinity; others, by parental influence; still others obsequiously curry favor for themselves. In short, priestly livings are conferred for this purpose: not to benefit the churches but those men who receive them. These are accordingly called “benefices,” for by this name they sufficiently declare that they regard them as nothing but the largessF137 of princes, who thus either court the knights’ favor, or reward their labors. I pass over the fact that these prizes are conferred upon barbers, cooks, muleteers, and such dregs of humanity. Today the courts resound with more lawsuits over priestly offices than almost anything else, so that you may say that they are little more than prey cast to dogs to hunt. Is it tolerable even to hear the name “pastor” applied to those who have rushed into possession of a church as upon enemy booty, who have obtained it by lawsuits, who have bought it for a price, who have earned it by sordid currying of favor, who as children scarcely able to babbleF138 have received it as an inheritance from their uncles and relatives, and even sometimes illegitimate sons from their fathers? 7. MONSTROUS ABUSES Would the licentiousness of the lay folk—corrupt and lawless as they were—ever have gone so far as this? But here is something even more monstrous—that one man (I do not say what kind, but surely one who cannot rule himself) is appointed to govern five or six churches! In the courts of princes one may see today youths having three abbacies, two bishoprics, one archbishopric.F139 Indeed, it is common to find canons laden with five, six, or seven benefices, for which they have absolutely no care except to receive their revenues. I shall not urge as an objection that God’s Word everywhere cries out against this practice, for the Word has long ceased to be of slightest significance to them. I shall not object that many severe decrees have been passed in numerous councils against this disorder; these also they vigorously reject whenever they please. But I say that these are both monstrous abuses, which are utterly contrary to God, nature, and church government—that one robber occupy several churches at once, and that a man be named pastor who, even though he wish to, is

84 F140

unable to be present with his flock. And yet (such is their shamelessness) they cloak such abominable foulness with the name of church in order that they may escape from all rebuke! But also, if it please God, in this villainy is contained that most holy “succession,” whose merit—they boast—ensures that the church does not perish! (Negligence and idleness of monks, canons, and others holding clerical office, 8-10) 8. MONKS AS “PRESBYTERS” Now let us see how faithfully they exercise their office, the second mark in judging a lawful pastor. Of the priests created in the Roman Church, some are monks, others what they call “seculars.” The first-mentioned of these two flocks was unknown to the ancient church, and it is so out of harmony with the monastic profession to have such a place in the church that originally when men were admitted from monasteries into the clergy, they ceased to be monks. And even Gregory, whose time was very corrupt, did not allow this confusion to be made. For he wishes those who have been made abbots to leave clerical office, on the ground that no one can properly be both a monk and a cleric, since the one would be a hindrance to the other.F141 Now if I should ask how one declared unsuitable by the canons fulfills his office, well, what, I pray, will they reply? They will, of course, cite to me those abortive decrees of Innocent and Boniface, whereby monks are received into the honor and power of the priesthood though they remain in their monasteries.F142 But what sort of reason is this—that every ignorant ass, as soon as he has occupied the see of Rome, may overthrow all antiquity with one little word? But of this matter later. Let this now be enough: in the purer church it was considered a great absurdity for a monk to function in the priesthood. For Jerome denies that he is carrying out the priestly office while living among monks; and he considers himself one of the people who are governed by priests. F143 But—to grant them this—still what part of the office are they fulfilling? Some of the mendicants preach; all the rest of the monks either chant or mutter masses in their dens. As if either Christ willed or the nature of the office allowed presbyters to be created for this

85

purpose! Since Scripture openly testifies that the presbyter’s duty is to rule his own church [<442028> Acts 20:28], is it not an impious profanation to transfer it to another, indeed, utterly to change God’s sacred institution? For when they are ordained they are expressly forbidden to do the things that God has enjoined upon all presbyters. For this song is sung to them: let the monk, content with his cloister, not presume either to administer the sacraments or to carry out anything pertaining to public office.F144 Let them deny, if they can, that it is an open mockery of God when anyone is made a presbyter with the purpose of abstaining from his true and genuine office, and when he who has the name cannot have the reality. 9. BENEFICED AND HIRED PRIESTS I come now to the seculars, some of whom are beneficed (as they say), that is, have priestly livings that support them;F145 while some hire out their daily labor in celebrating masses or chanting, and earn a living, so to speak, by the fees they collect for this. Benefices either have cure of souls, such as bishoprics and parishes, or are the salaries of elegant men who earn their keep by singing, such as prebends, canonries, parsonages, dignities,F146 chaplaincies, and the like. Notwithstanding, having already turned things upside down, they confer abbacies and priories not only upon secular priests but also upon boys. This they do “by privilege,” that is, by common and ordinary custom. As regards mercenary priests who seek their living by the day, what else could they do than they are now doing? What else than to prostitute themselves to gain in a selfish and shameful manner, especially amid such a great multitude as now overruns the world? Therefore, since they dare not beg openly, or suppose they will be little benefited in this way, they go about like hungry dogs, and by their importunity, like barking, extort from unwilling men something to thrust into an empty stomach. Here if I try to express in words what great shame it is to the church that the honor and office of presbyter have come to this pass, there will be no end. There is therefore no reason for my readers to expect a discourse from me that corresponds to such nefarious infamy. I say briefly: if it be the presbyter’s office (as God’s Word prescribes [<460401> 1 Corinthians 4:1;

86

cf. John 10:f ff.] and the ancient canons require) to feed the church, and administer the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, all such sacrificers who have work or wages only in the hawking of masses not only fail in their office, but have no lawful office to exercise. For no place is given them for teaching; they have no people to govern. In short, nothing is left to them but the altar on which they sacrifice Christ, which is to make an offering not to God but to demons [cf. <461020> 1 Corinthians 10:20], as we shall elsewhere see.F147 10. PRETENSES OF THE CLERICAL ORDERS I am not touching upon the outward abuses here, but only upon inward evil which is rooted in their institution. I shall add a statement which will sound ill in their ears; but because it is true, I must make it: canons, deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who are fed by idle benefices must be considered to be of the same class. For what ministry to the church can they perform? They have cast off as burdens too troublesome the preaching of the Word, the care of discipline, and the administering of the sacraments. For what do they have left by which to boast that they are true presbyters? Well, they have singing and ceremonial pomp. But what has this to do with the matter? If they claim custom, use, or long-standing authorization, I confront them with Christ’s definition, in which he has expressed to us what true presbyters are, and what they who wish to be considered such ought to have. But if they cannot bear this hard requirement to submit to Christ’s rule, let them at least allow this question to be settled by the authority of the primitive church. Their condition will be no better if their status be judged according to the ancient canons. Those who have degenerated into canons ought to have been presbyters, as they were of old, to rule the church in common with the bishop, and to serve as his colleagues in the pastoral office.F148 What they call “chapter” dignities have utterly nothing to do with the true church government, much less the chaplaincies, and the other trash of such titles. At what rank, then, shall we account all these? Assuredly, Christ’s word and the observance of the ancient church exclude them from the office of presbyter. Nevertheless, they contend that they are presbyters, but this mask must be torn away. Thus we shall find their whole profession to be utterly alien and remote from that office of presbyters which is both described to us by

87

the apostles, and was required in the primitive church. All such orders, by whatever titles they are designated, are innovations, surely not of God’s institution, nor supported by ancient church observance. Consequently, they ought to have no place in the description of spiritual government, which, when it was consecrated by the Lord’s own words, the church received. Or (if they prefer me to speak more simply and baldly), inasmuch as chaplains, canons, deans, provosts, and idle bellies of this sort do not touch even with their little finger any particle of this office, which is a prime requirement in presbyters, we cannot bear to have them falsely usurp honor for themselves and thus violate Christ’s holy institution. (Corruption and covetousness prevail in the ranks of bishops, pastors, and deacons, 11-19) 11. BISHOPS AND PARISH PRIESTS There remain bishops and parish rectors. Would that they strove to preserve their office! For I willingly grant them that they have a godly and excellent office, if only they would fulfill it. But when, forsaking the churches committed to them and casting the care of them upon others, they still wish to be counted pastors, they act just as if the pastor’s function were to do nothing. If a usurer who never set foot out of a city were to claim to be a plowman or vinedresser; if a soldier who has been continually in battle and in camp, and has never seen a law court or books, were to claim to be a lawyer—who could abide such disgusting absurdities? Yet somewhat more ridiculous are those who wish to seem and be called lawful pastors of the church, and yet do not wish to be such. For how many cases are there of one who even in show exercises government over his church? Many throughout life devour the revenues of the churches without ever coming to the point of even taking a look at them. Others either come once a year or send a steward, so that nothing in their revenues should be lost. When this corruption first crept in, those who wished to enjoy this sort of idleness exempted themselves by privileges. Now it is a rare exception for anyone to reside in his own church. For they deem them farms which they have put in charge of their vicars as stewards or tenant farmers. But natural sense itself also repudiates the notion that he who has never seen a sheep of his flock is the shepherd of it.F149

88

12. EARLY STAGES OF THIS EVIL: GREGORY AND BERNARD As early as the age of Gregory there existed, evidently, some seeds of this evil, so that the rectors of the churches began to be more negligent in teaching, for in one place he strongly complains of it. “The world,” he says, “is full of priests, but in the harvest a worker is rarely found; for we indeed take upon us the priestly office but do not fulfill the work of that office.” Likewise: “Because they do not have the bowels of charity, they wish to seem lords; they do not recognize themselves as fathers at all. They change the place of humility into pride of lordship.” Likewise: “But we, O pastors, what do we do, who obtain pay and are not laborers?” “We have fallen into outward busyness, and we undertake one thing, but perform another. We forsake the ministry of preaching; and to add to our punishment, as I see, we are called ‘bishops,’ who have the name of an honorable office, not its power.”F150 Since Gregory uses such extremely harsh words against those who were only less constant or painstaking in office, what, I beg of you, would he say if he saw almost none of the bishops, or at least very few, and of the other clergy scarcely one man in a hundred who once in his whole life mounted any pulpit? For men have become so insane as to consider it beneath the bishop’s dignity to preach to the people. In the time of Bernard, matters got somewhat worse, but we see with what sharp rebukes he inveighs against the whole order, an order that likely was then considerably purer than it is now.F151 13. CLAIM AND ACTUALITY But if anyone should duly weigh and examine this outward form of church government which exists today under the papacy, he will not find a robbers’ den in which thieves riot more brazenly without law and restraint. Surely everything there is so unlike, indeed, so alien to, Christ’s institution, has so degenerated from the ancient ordinances and customs of the church, and so conflicts with nature and reason, that no greater injury can be done to Christ than when they put forward his name to defend such a disordered government. We, they say, are the pillars of the church, the leaders of religion, the vicars of Christ, the heads of the believers; for the apostolic power has come to us by succession. They are incessantly bragging of these follies as if they were speaking to stocks. But whenever they will boast of this, I shall ask them in turn what they have in common

89

with the apostles. For we are not concerned about some hereditary honor which can be given to men while they are sleeping, but about the office of preaching, from which they so strenuously flee. Likewise, when we declare that their rule is the despotism of Antichrist, they unfailingly mention that it is that venerable hierarchy often praised by great and holy men.F152 As if the holy fathers, when they commended the church hierarchy or spiritual government as it had been handed down to them from the apostles, dreamed of this formless chaos, full of desolation, where bishops are for the most part rude asses who do not grasp even the first and commonplace rudiments of faith, or sometimes big boys fresh from their nursemaid; and if any are more learned (of this, however, instances are rare), they deem the bishopric nothing but a title of splendor and magnificence; where the rectors of churches no more think of feeding the flock than a shoemaker of plowing; where everything is so confused with more than Babylonian dispersion [ <011111> Genesis 11:11] that no single trace of that ordination of the fathers is seen. 14. THE PRIESTS’ MORAL CONDUCT What if we proceed to their morals? Where will that “light of the world” be that Christ requires? Where that “salt of the earth” [<400514> Matthew 5:14, 13]? Where that holiness which is, so to speak, an abiding standard of life? Today there is no order of men more notorious in excess, effeminacy, voluptuousness, in short, in all sorts of lusts; in no order are there masters more adept or skillful in every deceit, fraud, treason, and treachery; nowhere is there as great cunning or boldness to do harm. I say nothing about their arrogance, pride, greed, and cruelty. I say nothing about the dissolute license of their entire life. The world is so wearied with bearing these abuses that there is no danger that I should seem to exaggerate unduly. I say one thing that even they cannot deny. There is scarcely a bishop, and not one in a hundred parish priests, who, if his conduct were to be judged according to the ancient canons, would not be subject either to excommunication or at least to deposition from office. I seem to be saying something unbelievable—so far has that former discipline fallen into disuse which enjoined a more exacting censure of the conduct of clergy; but this is entirely so. Let those who serve under the banners and protection of the Roman see go now and boast among

90

themselves of the priestly order! The order that they have, it is clear, is neither from Christ, nor from his apostles, nor from the fathers, nor from the ancient church. 15. THE DEACONS Now let the deacons come forth, with their most holy dispensing of church goods. But the Romanists today do not create their deacons for that purpose; for they charge them only with ministering at the altar, reading or chanting the gospel, and goodness knows what other trifles.F153 There is nothing of alms, nothing of the care of the poor, nothing of that whole function which they once performed. I am speaking of the institution itself. For if we look at what they are doing, it is not really an office for them but only a step toward the priesthood. In one respect those who occupy the place of deacon in the Mass present an empty semblance of antiquity—they receive the offerings before consecration. But the ancient custom was that the believers before taking communion would kiss one another and offer alms at the altar; thus they declared their love first symbolically, then by their beneficence. The deacon, who was the steward of the poor, received what was given in order to distribute it.F154 Today the poor get nothing more of those alms than if they were cast into the sea. Therefore, they mock the church with a false diaconate. Surely in it they have nothing like the apostolic institution or like ancient practice. Indeed, they have transferred the very distribution of goods elsewhere, and have so arranged it that nothing more disordered can be conceived. For, as thieves slit men’s throats and divide the spoils among themselves, so these men, after putting out the light of God’s Word, as if slitting the church’s throat, supposed that everything dedicated to holy uses was laid out for booty and spoils. Therefore, a division has been made, and each has snatched as much as he could for himself. 16. DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCH INCOME All these ancient customs which we have set forth hereF155 have been not only disturbed but completely erased and hidden. The city bishops and presbyters who, made rich by this booty, were turned into canons, seized the largest part for distribution among themselves. Nevertheless, the partition was disorderly, as is evident from the fact that even to this day

91

they have been quarreling about the limits. Whatever it be, this decision provided that not one penny of all the church’s goods should come to the poor, to whom at least one half belonged. For the canons expressly assign one fourth to them, but they earmark another fourth for the bishops to distribute in hospitality and other offices of generosity. I say nothing of what the clergy should do with their portion, and to what use they ought to apply it. For it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the remainder (assigned to churches, buildings, and other expenses) ought to be made available to the poor in time of need. If they had one spark of the fear of God in their hearts, I ask, would they bear the thought that all they eat and all they wear comes from theft—nay, from sacrilege? But little moved as they are by God’s judgment, they should at least realize that those whom they would persuade that they have as beautiful and duly arranged an order in the church as they are wont to boast are men, endowed with sense and reason. Let them answer me briefly whether the diaconate is license to steal and rob. If they deny this, they will be also compelled to admit that they have no diaconate left, inasmuch as the entire administration of church property has plainly turned into sacrilegious plundering. 17. FALSE AND TRUE SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH But here they use a most beautiful deception. They say that the dignity of the church is decently sustained by this magnificence. And they have certain ones of their sect so shameless as to dare openly to boast that only thus are those prophecies fulfilled with which the ancient prophets describe the splendor of Christ’s Kingdom, when that kingly magnificence is beheld in the priestly order. God has not, they say, promised these things in vain to his church. “The kings will come; they shall worship before thee; they shall bring thee gifts.” [<197210> Psalm 72:10-11 p., cf. Vg. and Comm.] “Arise, arise, put on your strength, O Zion, put on the garments of your glory, O Jerusalem.” [<235201> Isaiah 52:1, cf. Vg.] “They all shall come from Sheba, bringing gold and frankincense, and proclaiming praise to the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto you.” [ <236006> Isaiah 60:6-7, cf. Vg.] If I should tarry long over refuting this shamelessness, I fear I might seem foolish. Therefore, I prefer not to waste words pointlessly. Still, I ask: If any Jew were to misuse these testimonies, what answer would they give? Surely, they would rebuke his

92

stupidity, because he transferred to flesh and the world the things spiritually spoken of Christ’s spiritual Kingdom. For we know that the prophets sketched for us under the image of earthly things God’s heavenly glory, which ought to shine in the church. For the church never abounded less with these blessings which their words express than under the apostles; and yet all admit that the force of Christ’s Kingdom flourished most at that time. What, then, do those statements mean in themselves? Whatever anywhere is precious, lofty, or noble must be subjected to the Lord. But what is said expressly of kings—that they shall submit their scepters to Christ, shall cast their crowns at his feet, shall consecrate their resources to the church—will they say that this was more truly and fully realized at any other time than when Theodosius, having cast away his purple robe and laid down the insignia of rule, like any one of the common folk, submitted himself before God and the church to solemn penance?F156 Than when he and other godly princes like him dedicated their endeavors and their care to keep pure doctrine in the church and to foster and protect sound teachers? But how priests at that time did not abound in superfluous possessions is sufficiently declared by that one statement of the Synod of Aquileia, presided over by Ambrose: “Glorious is poverty in the priests of the Lord.”F157 Surely the bishops then had some riches, with which they could have rendered conspicuous honor to the church, if they had thought these the true ornaments of the church. But since they knew nothing to be more contrary to the pastoral office than to glow with pride in the delicacies of the table, splendor of apparel, a great retinue of servants and magnificent palaces, they followed and cultivated humility and modesty, indeed that very poverty which Christ consecrated among his ministers. 18. FRAUDULENT AND HONEST EXPENDITURE OF CHURCH FUNDS But, not to linger over this point, let us again briefly summarize how far this present dispensation—or rather dissipation—of church resources is from the true diaconate, commended to us by God’s Word and observed by the ancient church. What is bestowed upon the adornment of churches I say is wrongly applied if that moderation is not used which both the nature of sacred things prescribes and the apostles and other holy fathers

93

have prescribed both by teaching and by example. But what like this is seen in churches today? Whatever is made to conform—I do not say to that early frugality—to any honest moderation is rejected. Nothing at all pleases except what savors of excess and the corruption of the times. Meanwhile, so far are they from taking due care of living temples that they would rather let many thousands of the poor die of hunger than break the smallest cup or cruet to relieve their need. And in order that I may not on my part judge too harshly, I should like pious readers to consider this alone: if it now happened that Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse (whom I have mentioned), or Acacius, or Ambrose, or anyone like them were raised from the dead, what would they say?F158 Surely, in the very dire need of the poor, they would not allow wealth to be taken away from them, as though superfluous. Not to speak of the fact that the ends for which it is spent (even though there were no poor) are harmful in many ways but useful in no respect. But I pass over men. These goods are dedicated to Christ; therefore, they are to be distributed in accordance with his will. But they shall vainly account as Christ’s this part which they have squandered contrary to his command, although (to confess the truth) not much of the ordinary income of the church is cut away by these costs. For no bishoprics are so wealthy, no abbacies so rich, lastly no number of benefices so large and well endowed, as to be able to satisfy the voraciousness of the priests. But while they try to spare themselves, they induce the people by superstition to apply what should have been distributed to the poor, to constructing churches, erecting statues, buying vessels, and providing sacred vestments. Thus are daily alms consumed in this abyss. 19. CLERICAL POSSESSIONS AND POWER Concerning the revenue they receive from fields and properties, what else shall I say than what I have already said, and what is before the eyes of all? We see with what faithfulness the great part is administered by those who are called bishops and abbots. How foolish it is to seek church order here! Was it fitting that they whose life ought to have been a singular example of frugality, modesty, continence, and humility should rival the magnificence of princes in number of retainers, splendor of buildings, elegance of apparel, and banquets? And how much did this disagree with

94

the office of those whom God’s eternal and inviolable decree forbids to be seekers of filthy lucre, and bids be content with simple fare [<560107> Titus 1:7]—not only to lay hands on villages and castles, but to carry off vast provinces, finally to seize whole kingdoms! If they despise the Word of God, what will they reply to those ancient decrees of synods, which establish that the bishop should have a little house not far from his church, with inexpensive fare and furnishings?F159 What will they reply to that statement of the Synod of Aquileia, where poverty is proclaimed glorious in the priests of the Lord?F160 For perhaps they will repudiate as too rigorous the command laid upon Nepotianus by Jerome, that poor men and strangers, and with them Christ as guest, should frequent his little table. But they will be ashamed to disavow what Jerome adds immediately: that the glory of the bishop is to provide for the poor; the disgrace of all priests, to seek after their own riches.F161 Yet they cannot receive this without all condemning themselves to dishonor. Still it is not necessary to pursue them too harshly here, since my sole intention was to show that the lawful order of the diaconate has long since been removed from their midst, so that they may no longer boast of this title to the commendation of their church. This, I believe, I have fully accomplished.