(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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
unable to be present with his flock.F140 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
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;