Chapter 11: Of the Jurisdiction of the Church, and the Abuse Thereof, Such as Is Seen in the Papacy

Now remains the third part of the power of the Church, indeed the chief part in a well-ordered state, which we have said to consist in jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction of the Church pertains to the discipline of manners, of which we shall treat presently. Forasmuch as no city or town can stand without magistrate and policy, so the Church of God (as I have already taught, but now I am compelled to repeat it again) needs her certain spiritual policy — but such as is utterly severed from the civil policy, and so does nothing hinder or diminish it, but rather does much help and further it. Therefore this power of jurisdiction shall in sum be nothing else but an order framed for the preservation of spiritual policy. To this end, from the beginning, judicial orders were ordained in churches, which might use examination of manners, correct vices, and exercise the office of the keys. This order Paul speaks of in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he names governments. Again, to the Romans, when he says: let him that rules, rule in carefulness. For he speaks not to the magistrates (for at that time there were no Christian magistrates), but to them that were joined with the pastors for the spiritual government of the Church. Also in the Epistle to Timothy, he makes two sorts of elders: some that labor in the word, and others that do not use the preaching of the word, and yet do rule well. By this latter sort it is no doubt that he means them that were appointed to look to manners, and to the whole use of the keys. For this power, of which we now speak, hangs wholly upon the keys which Christ gave to the Church, in the 18th chapter of Matthew, where he commands that they should be sharply admonished in the name of the whole Church who have despised private admonitions — but if they go forward in their obstinacy, he teaches that they should be put out of the fellowship of the faithful. But these admonitions and corrections cannot be without knowledge of the cause; therefore there is need of both some judgment and order. Therefore, unless we will make void the promise of the keys, and take utterly away excommunication, solemn admonitions, and all such things whatever they be, we must needs give to the Church some jurisdiction. Let the readers note that that passage treats not of the general authority of doctrine, as in the 16th chapter of Matthew, and the 21st of John — but that the power of the Synagogue is for the time to come transferred to the flock of Christ. Until that day the Jews had their order of governing, which Christ establishes in his Church, and it with great penalty, so much as concerns the pure institution of it. For so it behooved, forasmuch as otherwise the judgment of an ignoble and disregarded congregation might be despised by rash and proud men. And that it should not encumber the readers, that Christ does in the same words express things somewhat differing one from the other, it shall be profitable to dissolve this doubt. There are therefore two places that speak of binding and loosing. The one is in the 16th chapter of Matthew, where Christ, after he had promised that he would give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, immediately adds that whatever he shall bind or loose on earth shall be confirmed in heaven. In which words he means no other thing than he does by other words in John, when sending his disciples to preach — after he had breathed upon them he said: whose sins you forgive, they shall be forgiven, and whose you retain, they shall be retained in heaven. I will bring an exposition not subtle, not forced, not wrested, but natural, flowing, and offering itself. This commandment of forgiving and retaining sins, and that promise of binding and loosing made to Peter, ought to be referred to no other thing but to the ministry of the word — which when the Lord committed to the Apostles, he did therewith also arm them with this office of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the Gospel, but that we all, being the bondservants of sin and of death, are loosed and made free by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus — and that they which do not receive nor acknowledge Christ their deliverer and redeemer, are damned and adjudged to everlasting bonds? When the Lord delivered this message to his Apostles, to be carried into all nations, to confirm that it was his own and proceeding from himself, he honored it with this noble testimony — and that to the singular strengthening both of the Apostles themselves, and of all those to whom it should come. It behooved that the Apostles should have a steadfast and sound certainty of their preaching, which they should not only execute with infinite labors, cares, troubles, and dangers, but also at last seal it with their blood. That they might know the same to be not vain nor void, but full of power and force — it behooved that in such great carefulness, in such great hardness of things, and in such great dangers, they should be persuaded that they did the business of God: that when all the world withstood them and fought against them, they should know that God stood on their side: that having not Christ the author of their doctrine present by sight on earth, they should understand him to be in heaven, to confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had delivered them. It behooved again that it should also be most certainly proved by testimony to the hearers, that that doctrine of the Gospel was not the word of the Apostles, but of God himself — not a voice bred on earth, but come down from heaven. For these things — the forgiveness of sins, the promise of everlasting life, the message of salvation — cannot be in the power of man. Therefore Christ has testified that in the preaching of the Gospel there is nothing of the Apostles but the only ministry — that it was he himself who spoke and promised all things by their mouths as by instruments, and therefore that the forgiveness of sins which they preached was the true promise of God, and the damnation which they pronounced was the certain judgment of God. But this testifying is given to all ages, and remains in force to certify and assure all men that the word of the Gospel, by whatever man it be preached, is the very sentence of God, published at the sovereign judgment seat, written in the book of life, ratified, firm, and fixed in heaven. Thus we see that in those places the power of the keys is nothing but the preaching of the Gospel, and that it is not so much a power as a ministry, if we have respect to men. For Christ has not given this power properly to men, but to his own word, of which he has made men ministers.

The other place which we have said to be, concerning the power of binding and loosing, is in the 18th chapter of Matthew, where Christ says: If any brother hear not the Church, let him be to you as a heathen man or a publican. Truly I say to you: whatever you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: whatever you loose shall be loosed. This place is not altogether like the first, but is a little otherwise to be understood. But I do not so make them diverse, that they have not great affinity together. This first point is like in both, that either of them is a general sentence: that in both there is always all one power of binding and loosing, namely by the word of God, all one commandment, all one promise. But herein they differ, that the first place peculiarly belongs to preaching, which the ministers of the word do execute: this later place to the discipline of Excommunication, which is committed to the Church. The Church binds, whom she excommunicates: not that she throws him into perpetual ruin and despair, but because she condemns his life and manners, and unless he repent, does already warn him of his damnation. She looses whom she receives into communion: because she does make him as it were partaker of the unity which she has in Christ Jesus. Therefore that no man should obstinately despise the judgment of the Church, or little regard that he is condemned by the consenting voices of the faithful: the Lord testifies that such judgment of the faithful is nothing else but a publishing of his own sentence: and that whatever they do in earth, is confirmed in heaven. For they have the word of God, whereby they may condemn the perverse: they have the word, whereby they may receive the repentant into grace. And they cannot err, nor dissent from the judgment of God: because they judge not but after the law of God, which is not an uncertain or earthly opinion, but the holy will of God, and a heavenly Oracle. Out of these two places, which I think I have both briefly and familiarly and truly expounded, those furious men without difference as they are carried with their own giddiness, go about to establish sometimes confession, sometimes excommunication, sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the power to make laws, sometimes pardons. But the first place they allege to establish the supremacy of the See of Rome: they can so well skill to fit their keys to all locks and doors, that a man may say they have practiced smith's craft all their life.

For whereas many think that those things endured but for a time, when the Magistrates were yet strangers from the profession of our religion: they are deceived in this, that they consider not, how great difference and what manner of unlikeness there is of the Ecclesiastical and civil power. For the Church has not the power of the sword to punish or restrain, no empire to command, no prison, no other pains which the Magistrate is wont to lay upon men. Again, it tends not to this end, that he that has sinned should be punished against his will, but should with willing chastisement profess his repentance. Therefore there is a far diverse order: because neither does the Church take to itself anything which properly belongs to the Magistrate, nor the magistrate can execute that which the Church does. This shall be made plainer by an example. Is any man drunk? In a well ordered city prison shall be his punishment. Has he committed fornication? He shall have like, or rather greater punishment. So shall both the laws, and the magistrate, and the outward judgment be satisfied. But it may be that he shall give no signification of repentance, but rather murmur and grudge against it. Shall the Church in this case do nothing? But such cannot be received to the Supper, without doing wrong both to Christ and his holy institution. And reason requires this, that he which offends the Church with an evil example, should with solemn declaration of repentance take away the offence which he has raised. The reason which they bring that are of contrary opinion, is too cold. Christ, say they, committed these doings to the Church, when there was no magistrate to execute them. But it happens oftentimes that the magistrate is more negligent, indeed sometimes perhaps that himself is to be chastised, which happened to the Emperor Theodosius. There may beside this as much be said of the ministry of the word. Now therefore after their sentence, let pastors cease to blame manifest wicked doings, let them cease to chide, to reprove, to rebuke: for there are Christian magistrates, which ought to correct these things with the laws and with the sword. But as the Magistrate ought by punishing, and by restraining with force, to purge the Church of offenses: so likewise the minister of the word for his part ought to help the magistrate that there may not so many offend. So ought their workings to be conjoined, that the one may be a help, not a hindrance to the other.

And truly if a man more nearly weighs the words of Christ, he shall easily perceive that in these places is described a settled state, and a perpetual order of the Church, not such as endures but for a time. For it is not meet that we should accuse them to the magistrate, that will not obey our admonitions: which yet should be necessary if the magistrate succeeded into the office of the Church. What is this promise? Shall we say that it is a promise of one or a few years? Verily verily I say to you, whatever you bind in earth? Moreover Christ did here institute no new thing, but followed the custom always observed in the ancient Church of his own nation: whereby he signified that the Church cannot want the spiritual jurisdiction, which had been from the beginning. And this has been confirmed by the consent of all times. For when Emperors and magistrates began to profess Christ, the spiritual jurisdiction was not by and by abolished: but only so ordered, that it should diminish nothing of the civil jurisdiction, or be confounded with it. And rightfully. For the magistrate, if he be godly, will not exempt himself from the common subjection of the children of God, whereof it is not the last part to submit himself to the Church, judging by the word of God: so far is it off, that he ought to take away the order of judgment. For what is more honorable (says Ambrose) for the Emperor than to be called the son of the Church? For a good Emperor is within the Church, not above the Church. Therefore they, which to honor the magistrate do spoil the Church of this power, do not only with false exposition corrupt the sentence of Christ, but also do not slenderly condemn so many holy bishops which have been from the time of the Apostles, that they have by false pretense usurped the honor and office of the magistrate.

But on the other side it is good to see this, what was in old time the true use of the jurisdiction of the Church, and how great abuse has crept in, that we may know what is to be abrogated, and what is to be restored of antiquity, if we will overthrow the kingdom of Antichrist, and set up the true kingdom of Christ again. First this is the mark to be shot at, that offenses be prevented, and if any offense has risen up, that it may be abolished. In the use two things are to be considered: first, that this spiritual power be altogether severed from the power of the sword: then, that it be not executed by the will of one man, but by a lawful assembly. Both these things were observed in the purer Church. For the holy bishops did not exercise their power with fines, or imprisonments, or other civil punishments: but they used the only word of the Lord, as they ought to do. For the severest revenge, and as it were the uttermost thunderbolt of the Church is Excommunication, which is not used but in necessity. But this requires neither force nor strong hand, but is content with the power of the word of God. Finally the jurisdiction of the old Church was nothing else but a declaration in practice (as I may so call it) of that which Paul teaches concerning the spiritual power of pastors. There is (says he) power given to us, whereby we may throw down strongholds, whereby we may make low all height that lifts up itself against the knowledge of God, whereby we may subdue all thought, and may lead it captive into the obedience of Christ, and we have in readiness a revenge against all disobedience. As this is done by the preaching of the doctrine of Christ: so, lest the doctrine should be scorned, according to that which is taught ought they to be judged which profess themselves of the household of faith. But that cannot be done, unless there be joined with the ministry a power to call them that are to be privately admonished, or to be more sharply corrected, and also a power to exclude them from the Communion of the Supper, which cannot be received without profaning of so great a mystery. Therefore when in another place he says that it belongs not to us to judge strangers, he makes the children subject to the censures of the Church, which may chastise their faults: and he secretly signifies that there were then judicial orders in force from which none of the faithful was free.

But such authority (as we have declared) was not in the power of one man, to do every thing according to his own will: but in the power of the assembly of the Elders, which was the same thing in the Church that a Senate is in a City. Cyprian, when he makes mention by whom it was exercised in his time, uses to join the whole Clergy with the Bishop. But in another place also he shows, that the very clergy so governed, that in the mean time the people was not excluded from the hearing of matters. For thus he writes: Since the beginning of my bishopric I have determined to do nothing without the counsel of the clergy and consent of the people. But this was the common and usual manner, that the jurisdiction of the Church should be exercised by a Senate of Elders: of whom (as I have said) there were two sorts: For some were ordained to teaching, and other some were only judges of manners. By little and little this institution grew out of kind from the first beginning of it: so that even in the time of Ambrose only clerks were judges in ecclesiastical judgements. Which thing he himself complains of in these words: The old Synagogue (says he) and since that time the Church has had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done. Which by what negligence it is grown out of use, I know not, unless perhaps by the slothfulness or rather the pride of the teachers, while they alone would be thought to be somewhat. We see how much the holy man is displeased, that any thing of the better state is decayed, when notwithstanding they had yet continuing an order that was at the least tolerable. What then would he do if he saw these deformed ruins that show almost no sign of the old building? What bewailing would he use? First against law and right, the Bishop has claimed to himself alone, that which was given to the whole Church. For it is like as if the Consul, driving out the Senate, should take the empire upon himself alone. But as he is above the rest in honor, so in the whole assembly is more authority than in one man. Therefore it was too wicked a deed, that one man, removing the common power to himself, has both opened an entry to tyrannous lust, and has taken from the Church that which belonged to her, and has suppressed and put away the assembly ordained by the Spirit of Christ.

But (as of one evil always grows another) Bishops disdaining it as a thing unworthy of their care, have committed it over to others. Hereupon are created Officials to serve that room: I do not yet speak what kind of men they be, but only this I say, that they nothing differ from profane Judges. And yet they still call it a spiritual jurisdiction, where men contend about nothing but earthly matters. Although there were no more evil, with what face dare they call a brawling court the judgment of the Church? But there are monitions, there is excommunication. So verily they mock with God. Does a poor man owe a little money? He is cited: if he appear, he is condemned. When he is condemned, if he does not satisfy it, he is admonished: after the second monition they proceed one step toward excommunication: if he appear not, he is admonished to come and yield himself to judgment: if he then make delay, he is admonished, and by and by excommunicated. I beseech you, what is there any thing like either to the institution of Christ, or to the ancient manner, or to an Ecclesiastical order? But there is also correction of vices. But how? Verily they not only suffer but with secret allowance do after a certain manner cherish and confirm adulteries, wantonness, drunkenness and such kind of mischievous doings: and that not only in the common people, but also in the clergy themselves. Of many they call a few before them, either that they should not seem slothful in winking at them, or that they may milk out some money. I speak not of the pillages, robberies, briberies, and sacrileges that are gathered thereby, I speak not what manner of men are for the most part chosen to this office. This is enough and too much, that when the Romanists do boast that their jurisdiction is spiritual, it is easy to show that there is nothing more contrary to the order instituted by Christ, and that it has no more likeness to the ancient custom than darkness has to light.

Although we have not spoken all things that might be alleged for this purpose, and those things that we have spoken of are knit up in few words: yet I trust that we have so fought it out, that there is now no more cause why any man should doubt, that the spiritual power of which the Pope with all his kingdom proudly glories, is wicked against God, and an unjust tyranny over his people. Under the name of spiritual power I comprehend both boldness in framing new doctrines, wherewith they have turned away the simple people from the natural purity of the word of God, and the wicked traditions wherewith they have snared them, and also the false ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they execute by Suffragans and Officials. For if we grant to Christ a kingdom among us, it is not possible but that all this kind of dominion must immediately be overthrown and fall down. As for the power of the sword which they also give to themselves, because it is not exercised upon consciences, it pertains not to our present purpose to speak of it. In which regard yet it is also to note, that they are always like themselves, truly nothing less than that which they would be taken for, that is to say, Pastors of the Church. Neither do I blame the peculiar faults of men, but the common wickedness of the whole order, indeed the very pestilence of the order: since it is thought that the same should be maimed, unless it be gloriously set forth with wealth and proud titles. If we require the authority of Christ concerning this matter, it is no doubt but that his mind was to debar the ministers of his word from civil dominion and earthly government, when he said, The kings of the Gentiles bear rule over them: but you shall not so. For he signifies not only that the office of Pastor is distinct from the office of a Prince, but that they are things so severed, that they cannot meet together in one man. For whereas Moses did bear both the offices together: first, that was done by a rare miracle: again, it was but for a time till things were better set in order. But when a certain form was once prescribed by God, the civil government was left to him, and he was commanded to resign the priesthood to his brother. And worthily. For it is above nature, that one man should suffice to bear both burdens. And this has in all ages been diligently observed in the Church. And there was never any of the Bishops, so long as the true form of the Church endured, that once thought of usurping the power of the sword: so that this was a common proverb in the time of Ambrose, that Emperors rather coveted the priesthood, than priests the empire. For this which he afterward says, was imprinted in the minds of all men: that palaces pertained to the Emperor, and Churches to the priest.

But since a way has been devised, whereby Bishops might hold the title, honor, and riches of their office without burden or care: lest they should be left altogether idle, the power of the sword was given them, or rather they did by usurpation take it upon themselves. By what color will they defend this shamelessness? Was this the duty of Bishops to wrap themselves with judicial hearing of causes, with the governments of cities and provinces, and through large circuits to meddle in businesses so unpertaining to them: who have so much work and business in their own office, that if they were wholly and continually occupied in it, and were drawn away with no callings from it, yet they were scarcely able to satisfy it? But (such is their waywardness) they stick not to boast, that by this means the Church does flourish according to her worthiness, and that they themselves in the meantime are not too much drawn away from the duties of their vocation. As touching the first point: if this be a fitting ornament of the holy office, that they be advanced to such height, that the highest monarchs may stand in fear of them: then they have cause to quarrel with Christ, who has in such sort grievously pinched their honor. For, at least in their opinion, what could have been spoken more dishonorably than these words: The kings of the Gentiles and princes bear rule over them, but you shall not so? And yet he laid no harder law upon his servants than he first laid and received upon himself. Who (says he) has made me a judge or divider among you? We see that he plainly puts away from himself the office of judging, which he would not do if it were a thing agreeing with his office: will not the servants suffer themselves to be brought into that order, to which the Lord has yielded himself subject? As for the other point, I would to God they could so prove it in experience as it is easy to speak it. But since the Apostles thought it not good, to leave the word of God and minister at tables: thereby, because they will not be taught, they are convinced, that it is not all one man's work to be both a good Bishop and a good Prince. For if they (who according to the largeness of the gifts wherewith they were endued, were able to satisfy more and greater cares than any men that have been born since them) have yet confessed that they cannot at once apply the ministry both of the word and of tables, but that they should faint under the burden: how could these that are men of no valor in comparison of the Apostles a hundredfold excel the industry of the Apostles? Truly, to attempt it was a point of most shameless and too presumptuous boldness: yet we see that it has been attempted: but with what success, it is evident. For it could not otherwise come to pass, but that forsaking their own office they should move into other men's charge.

And it is no doubt but that of small beginning they have by little and little grown to so great increases. For it was not possible that they should at the first step climb up so high. But sometime with subtlety and crooked crafty means they privily advanced themselves, so as no man could foresee that it would come to pass till it was done: sometime when occasion served they did by terror and threatenings wring from princes some augmentation of their power: sometime when they saw princes not hard inclined to give, they abused their fond and unadvised gentleness. In old time if any controversy happened, the godly, to escape the necessity of going to law, committed the arbitration to the Bishop, because they doubted not his uprightness. With such arbitrations the old Bishops were oftentimes encumbered, which indeed greatly displeased them (as Augustine in one place testifies) but lest the parties should run to contentious lawing, they did though against their wills take that encumbrance upon them. These men have of voluntary arbitrations, which were altogether differing from the noise of judicial courts, made an ordinary jurisdiction. In a little while after when cities and countries were troubled with diverse hard distresses, they resorted to the protection of Bishops, to be safeguarded by their faithful succor: the Bishops by marvelous subtlety, of protectors made themselves lords. Indeed it cannot be denied that they have gotten the possession of a great part by violent seditious partakings. As for the princes, that willingly gave jurisdiction to Bishops, they were by diverse affections moved to do so. But, admitting that their gentleness had some show of godliness: yet with this their wrongful liberality they did not very well provide for the profit of the Church, whose ancient and true discipline they have so corrupted, indeed (to say truth) have utterly abolished. But, those Bishops that have abused such goodness of princes to their own commodity, have by showing of this one example enough and too much testified that they are not Bishops. For if they had had any sparkle of an Apostolic spirit, they would without doubt have answered out of the mouth of Paul: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. But they being ravished with blind greediness, have destroyed both themselves, their successors, and the Church.

At length the Bishop of Rome not contented with modest lordships, first laid hand upon kingdoms, and afterward upon the very empire. And that he may with some color whatever it be retain the possession gotten by mere robbery, he sometime boasts that he has it by the law of God, he sometime pretends the gift of Constantine, sometime some other title. First I answer with Bernard: Admit that he do by any other reason whatever, claim this to him, yet he has it not by Apostolic right. For Peter could not give that which he had not: but he gave to his successors that which he had, the care of Churches. But when the Lord and master says, that he is not appointed judge between two, a servant and scholar ought not to think scorn if he be not judge of all men. But Bernard speaks of civil judgments: For he adds: Therefore your power is in crimes, not in possessions: because for those and not for these you have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For which seems to you the greater dignity, to forgive sins, or to divide lands? There is no comparison. These base and earthly things have kings and princes of the earth their judges. Why do you invade the bounds of others? Again. You are made a superior: (he speaks to Pope Eugenius) but to what end? Not to bear lordship, I think. Therefore however much we think of ourselves, let us remember that there is a ministry laid upon us, not a lordship given us. Learn that you have need of a weeding hook, not of a scepter, that you may do the work of a Prophet. Again, it is plain: Lordship is forbidden to the Apostles. Go therefore, and presume to usurp to yourself either being a lord, an Apostleship: or being an Apostle, a lordship. And by and by after: the form of an Apostleship is this, Lordship is forbidden them, ministry is bidden them. Whereas these things are so spoken of a man, that it is evident to all men, that the very truth speaks them, indeed whereas the very thing itself is manifest without all words: yet the bishop of Rome was not ashamed in the Council at Orleans to decree, that the supreme power of both the swords belongs to him by the law of God.

As for the gift of Constantine, they that are but moderately practiced in the histories of those times need not to be taught how much this is not only fabulous, but also to be laughed at. But to pass over histories, Gregory himself is both a sufficient and most full witness thereof. For so often as he speaks of the emperor, he calls him most noble Lord, and himself his unworthy servant. Again in another place: But let not our Lord by the earthly power be the sooner angry with the priests: but with excellent consideration, for his sake whose servants they be, let him so rule over them, that he also give them due reverence. We see how in common subjection he would be accounted as one of the people. For he there pleads not any other man's cause, but his own. In another place, I trust in the Almighty God, that he will give a long life to our godly lords, and will dispose us under your hand according to his mercy. Neither have I therefore alleged these things, for that it is my purpose thoroughly to discuss this question concerning the gift of Constantine: but only that the readers should see by the way how childishly the Romanists do lie, when they go about to challenge an earthly empire to their Bishop. And so much the more foul is the shamelessness of Augustine Steuchus, which in such a desperate cause has been so bold to sell his labor and tongue to the Bishop of Rome. Valla (as it was not hard for a man learned and of a sharp wit) had strongly confuted that fable. And yet (as a man little exercised in ecclesiastical matters) he had not said all that might have made for that purpose. Steuchus burst in, and scattered stinking trifles to oppress the clear light. And truly he does no less coldly handle the cause of his master, than if some merry conceited fellow feigning himself to do the same, would indeed take Valla's part. But truly it is a worthy cause, for which the Pope should hire such patrons for money: and no less worthy are those hired losels to be deceived of their hope of gain, as it happened to Eugubinus.

But if any man require to know the time, since this feigned empire began to rise up, there are not yet passed five hundred years, since the Bishops yet remained in subjection of the princes, neither was the Pope created without the authority of the Emperor. The Emperor Henry the fourth of that name, a light and rash man, and of no foresight, of great boldness and dissolute life, gave first occasion to Gregory the 7th to alter this order. For when he had in his court the Bishoprics of all Germany partly to be sold, and partly laid open for spoil: Hildebrand, which had received displeasure at his hand, caught hold of a goodly color to revenge himself. But because he seemed to pursue an honest and a godly cause, he was furthered with the favor of many. And Henry was otherwise, by reason of his insolent manner of governing, hated of the most part of princes. At the length Hildebrand, which called himself Gregory the 7th, as he was a filthy and naughty man, revealed the malice of his heart: which was the cause that he was forsaken of many that had conspired with him. But he thus much prevailed, that his successors might freely without punishment not only shake off the yoke, but also bring Emperors in subjection to them. Hereunto was added that from then on there were many Emperors liker to Henry than to Julius Caesar: whom it was no hard thing to subdue, while they sat at home careless of all things and slothful, when they had most need with virtue and lawful means to repress the greediness of the Bishops. Thus we see with what color that same goodly gift of Constantine is shadowed, whereby the Pope feigns that the Empire of the West was delivered to him.

In the mean time the Popes ceased not, sometimes with fraud, sometimes with treason, and sometimes with force, to invade other men's dominions: and the very city itself, which before was free, within a hundred and thirty years, or thereabout they brought into their subjection: till they grew to the same power which they have at this day: and for the obtaining or increasing of which, they have so troubled Christendom by the space of two hundred years (for they began before that they took to them the dominion of the city) that they have almost destroyed it. In the old time when under Gregory the keepers of the goods of the Church, did take possession of the lands which they reckoned to belong to the Church, and after the manner of seizing to the use of the Prince did set titles upon them for token of claim. Gregory assembling a Council of Bishops, inveighing sorely against that profane manner, asked whether they did not judge the Clerk accursed which did of his own will by writing of any title attempt to enter upon any possession. They all pronounced, accursed. If to claim a piece of ground by writing of a title be in a Clerk an offense worthy of accursing: when whole two hundred years together Popes do practice nothing else but battles, shedding of blood, destructions of armies, sackings of some cities, razing of others, overthrows of nations, wastings of kingdoms, only that they might catch hold of other men's possessions: what cursings can be enough to punish such examples. Truly it is very plain that they seek nothing less than the glory of Christ. For if they of their own will do wholly resign all the secular power that they have, therein is no danger to the glory of God, no danger to sound doctrine, no danger to the safety of the Church: but they are carried blind and headlong with only greediness of dominion: because they think nothing safe, unless they may bear rule with rigorousness (as the Prophet says) and with power.

To jurisdiction is annexed immunity, which the Romish Clergy took to themselves. For they think it against their dignity, if they answer in personal causes before a temporal judge: and therein they think both the liberty and dignity of the Church to consist, if they be exempt from common judgments and laws. But the old Bishops, which otherwise were most rigorous in defending the right of the Church, judged themselves and their order to be nothing hurt, if they were subject to them. And the godly Emperors, without gainsaying of any man, did always call Clerks to their judgment seats as often as need required. For thus says Constantine in his Epistle to the Nicomedians: If any of the Bishops shall undiscretly disorder himself, his boldness shall be restrained by the execution of the minister of God, that is by my execution. And Valentinian says: good Bishops do not speak against the power of the Emperor, but do sincerely both keep the commandments of God the great king, and also obey our laws. At that time all men were persuaded of this without controversy. But ecclesiastical causes were referred to the judgment of the Bishop. As if any Clerk had offended nothing against the laws: but only was accused by the Canons: he was not cited to the common judgment seat, but in that cause had the Bishop for his judge. Likewise if there were a question of Faith in controversy, or such a matter as properly pertained to the Church, the judgment thereof was committed to the Church. So is that to be understood, which Ambrose writes to Valentinian: Your father of honorable memory, not only answered in word, but also decreed by laws, that in a cause of Faith he ought to be judge that is neither unfit in office nor unlike in right. Again: If we have regard to the Scriptures or old examples, who is there that can deny that in a cause of Faith, in a cause (I say) of Faith, Bishops are accustomed to judge of Christian Emperors, and not Emperors of Bishops? Again: I would have come, O Emperor, to your consistory, if either the Bishops or the people would have suffered me to go: saying, that the cause of Faith ought to be debated in the Church before the people. He affirms truly that a spiritual cause, that is to say the cause of religion, ought not to be drawn into the temporal court where profane causes are pleaded. Worthily do all men praise his constancy in this behalf. And yet in a good cause he proceeds but thus far, that if it come to violence and strong hand, he says that he will give place. Willingly (says he) I will not forsake the place committed to me: but when I am enforced, I know not how to resist: for our armor are prayers and tears. Let us note the singular modesty and wisdom of the holy man, joined with stoutness of courage and boldness. Justina the Emperor's mother, because she could not draw him to the Arians' side, practiced to drive him from the government of the Church. And so should it have come to pass, if he had come when he was called to the palace to plead his cause. Therefore he denies the Emperor to be a competent judge of so great a controversy. Which manner of doing both the necessity of that time, and the continual nature of the matter required. For he judged that he ought rather to die, than that such an example should by his consent be given to posterity: and yet if violence be offered, he thinks not of resistance. For he denies it to be Bishop-like, to defend the Faith and right of the Church with arms. But in other causes he shows himself ready to do whatever the Emperor shall command him. If he demand tribute, (says he) we deny it not: the lands of the Church do pay tribute. If he asks lands, he has power to claim them, none of us resists. After the same manner also speaks Gregory. I am not ignorant (says he) of the mind of our most noble sovereign Lord, that he is not accustomed to intermeddle in causes pertaining to priests, lest he should in anything be burdened with our sins. He does not generally exclude the Emperor from judging of Priests: but he says that there be certain causes, which he ought to leave to the judgment of the Church.

And by this very exception the holy men sought nothing else, but that Princes less zealous of religion should not with tyrannous violence and willfulness interrupt the Church in doing her office. For neither did they disallow if Princes sometimes did use their authority in ecclesiastical matters, so that it were done to preserve the order of the Church, not to trouble it, to establish discipline, not to dissolve it. For since the Church has not the power of compelling, nor ought to require it (I speak of civil constraining:) it is the office of godly kings and Princes to maintain religion with laws, proclamations, and judicial proceedings. After this manner, when the Emperor Maurice had commanded certain Bishops that they should receive their fellow Bishops that were their neighbors and driven out by the barbarous nations: Gregory confirms that commandment, and exhorts them to obey it. And when he himself is admonished by the same Emperor to come to agreement with John the Bishop of Constantinople, he does indeed render a reason why he ought not to be blamed: yet he does not boast of immunity from the secular court, but rather promises that he will be obedient, so far as his conscience will give him leave: and therewithal he says this, that Maurice did as became a godly Prince, when he gave such commandments to the Priests.

We now come to the third part of church power — and in a well-ordered community, the most important part — which we said consists in jurisdiction. The church's entire jurisdiction concerns the discipline of conduct, which we will treat shortly. Just as no city or town can stand without a magistrate and government, the church of God also needs its own form of spiritual governance — yet one completely separate from civil government, so that it in no way hinders or diminishes civil government, but rather helps and supports it. This jurisdiction, in short, is nothing other than a system of order designed to maintain that spiritual governance. For this purpose, judicial structures were established in churches from the beginning — structures that could examine conduct, correct sins, and exercise the office of the keys. Paul refers to this order in his letter to the Corinthians when he mentions governing. Again, in his letter to the Romans, he says: let the one who leads, lead with diligence. He is not speaking to civil magistrates (since at that time there were no Christian magistrates), but to those who were joined with pastors in the spiritual governance of the church. In his letter to Timothy, he also distinguishes two kinds of elders: those who labor in the word, and those who do not preach but still govern well. By this second group he doubtless means those appointed to oversee conduct and to exercise the keys in practice. This power we are now describing rests entirely on the keys Christ gave to the church in Matthew 18, where He commands that those who refuse private admonitions be solemnly confronted in the name of the whole church — and if they remain obstinate, He instructs that they be put out of the fellowship of the faithful. These admonitions and corrections require an examination of the matter, and so some form of judgment and order is necessary. Therefore, unless we want to nullify the promise of the keys and do away entirely with excommunication, solemn admonitions, and all related practices, we must allow the church some form of jurisdiction. Readers should note that this passage does not concern the general authority of doctrine — as in Matthew 16 and John 21 — but that the governing power of the synagogue is now transferred to the flock of Christ. Until that point, the Jews had their own system of governance. Christ now establishes this in His church — and with serious consequences, as far as the pure institution of it is concerned. This was necessary, for otherwise the judgment of an ordinary and seemingly insignificant congregation might be despised by rash and arrogant men. To prevent confusion among readers regarding the fact that Christ uses similar language in two somewhat different contexts, it will be helpful to resolve this difficulty. There are two passages that speak of binding and loosing. The first is in Matthew 16, where Christ, after promising to give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, immediately adds that whatever he binds or looses on earth will be confirmed in heaven. By these words He means nothing other than what He says in different words in John, when sending His disciples to preach — after breathing on them, He said: whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you retain, they are retained in heaven. I will offer an interpretation that is not subtle, forced, or strained, but natural, straightforward, and evident. This command to forgive and retain sins, and the promise of binding and loosing made to Peter, must be understood as referring to the ministry of the word — which, when the Lord committed it to the apostles, He also equipped with this office of binding and loosing. For what is the heart of the Gospel, if not that we, all being slaves to sin and death, are released and set free through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus — and that those who do not receive or acknowledge Christ as their deliverer and redeemer are condemned and bound over to everlasting bondage? When the Lord gave this message to His apostles to carry into all nations, He honored it with this remarkable testimony — to confirm that it was His own and proceeded from Him — to powerfully strengthen both the apostles themselves and all who would receive it. The apostles needed firm and solid confidence in their preaching, which they would carry out with endless labor, care, hardship, and danger, and finally seal with their own blood. That they might know it was not empty or powerless, but full of strength and effect, they needed to be persuaded in such great difficulty, hardship, and danger that they were doing God's work; that when the whole world opposed and attacked them, God stood on their side; and that even without Christ the author of their doctrine visibly present on earth, they would know He was in heaven confirming the truth of the doctrine He had given them. It was also necessary that the hearers be fully assured that the Gospel message was not the word of the apostles but of God Himself — not a voice born on earth but come down from heaven. For these things — the forgiveness of sins, the promise of eternal life, the message of salvation — are not within human power to bestow. Therefore, Christ testified that in the preaching of the Gospel the apostles contribute nothing but their ministry — that it was He Himself who spoke and promised all things through their mouths as instruments. Consequently, the forgiveness of sins they proclaimed was the true promise of God, and the condemnation they announced was the certain judgment of God. This testimony is given to all ages and remains in force to assure all people that the Gospel word, by whatever man it is preached, is the very sentence of God — published from the supreme judgment seat, written in the book of life, ratified, firm, and fixed in heaven. We see, then, that in these passages the power of the keys is nothing but the preaching of the Gospel, and that it is not so much a power as a ministry, when we consider how it relates to people. For Christ has not given this power to people directly, but to His own word — of which He has made people ministers.

The other passage we mentioned concerning binding and loosing is in Matthew 18, where Christ says: 'If any brother will not listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose shall be loosed.' This passage is not exactly the same as the first; it is to be understood a little differently. Yet I do not separate them so completely that they have no close connection. The common ground is this: both passages contain a general statement; both always involve the same power of binding and loosing — by the word of God — the same commission, and the same promise. But they differ in this: the first passage specifically belongs to preaching, which the ministers of the word carry out; this second passage concerns the discipline of excommunication, which is committed to the church. The church binds the one she excommunicates — not to cast him into perpetual ruin and despair, but because she condemns his life and conduct, and, unless he repents, already warns him of his condemnation. She looses the one she receives back into fellowship, because she makes him a participant, as it were, in the unity she has in Christ Jesus. So that no one would stubbornly despise the church's judgment or think little of being condemned by the united voice of the faithful, the Lord testifies that such judgment of the faithful is nothing other than a declaration of His own sentence — and that whatever they do on earth is confirmed in heaven. For they have the word of God by which they may condemn the obstinate; they have the word by which they may receive the repentant back into grace. They cannot err or diverge from God's judgment, because they judge only according to the law of God — which is not an uncertain or earthly opinion, but the holy will of God and a heavenly word. From these two passages, which I believe I have explained briefly, clearly, and accurately, these reckless men indiscriminately — driven by their own confused thinking — attempt to establish sometimes confession, sometimes excommunication, sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the power to make laws, sometimes pardons. As for the first passage, they use it to establish the supremacy of the See of Rome. They are so skilled at fitting their keys to every lock and door that one might say they have spent their whole lives practicing the locksmith's trade.

Many people think that church discipline was only temporary — relevant when civil rulers were still outside the Christian faith. But they are mistaken, because they fail to recognize the great difference between ecclesiastical and civil power. The church has no sword to punish or restrain, no governing authority to command, no prisons, and no penalties of the kind magistrates impose on people. Furthermore, church discipline does not aim to punish the offender against his will, but to lead him to willingly confess his repentance. There is therefore a very different order at work: the church takes nothing that properly belongs to the magistrate, and the magistrate cannot do what the church does. An example will make this clearer. Suppose someone is drunk. In a well-ordered city, imprisonment is the punishment. Has he committed fornication? He will receive a similar or even greater punishment. The laws, the magistrate, and the civil court will thus be satisfied. But the offender may show no sign of repentance — he may even grumble and resist. Should the church do nothing in this case? Such a person cannot be admitted to the Lord's Supper without doing wrong to both Christ and His holy institution. Reason also requires that the one who has offended the church by a bad example should make a public declaration of repentance to remove the offense he has caused. The argument made by those who hold the opposite view is too weak. Christ, they say, committed these matters to the church when there was no magistrate to carry them out. But it often happens that the magistrate is negligent — and sometimes even that the magistrate himself needs to be disciplined, as happened with Emperor Theodosius. The same point could be made about the ministry of the word. If their reasoning held, pastors should stop rebuking open wickedness, stop correcting, reproving, and denouncing — because Christian magistrates exist who ought to deal with these things through laws and force. But just as the magistrate ought to purge the church of offenses through punishment and forcible restraint, so the minister of the word must on his part assist the magistrate so that fewer offenses occur. Their work must work together — each being a help, not a hindrance, to the other.

Anyone who looks more carefully at Christ's words will easily see that these passages describe a permanent, enduring order for the church — not something temporary. For it would not be fitting to report offenders to the magistrate if they refuse to obey our admonitions — yet that is exactly what would be necessary if the magistrate were meant to take over the church's role. And consider the promise: is it a promise valid for only a year or two? 'Truly, truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth...' Moreover, Christ did not institute anything new here — He followed the practice always observed in the ancient church of His own people. By this He indicated that the church cannot be without spiritual jurisdiction, which has existed from the beginning. This has been confirmed by the agreement of every era. When emperors and magistrates began to profess Christ, the spiritual jurisdiction was not immediately abolished. It was simply arranged so that it would neither diminish civil jurisdiction nor be confused with it. And rightly so. A godly magistrate will not exempt himself from the common submission of God's children — and part of that submission is placing himself under the church's judgment by the word of God. He certainly should not abolish the order of judgment. For, as Ambrose says, what is more honorable for the emperor than to be called a son of the church? A good emperor is within the church, not above it. Therefore, those who strip the church of this power in order to honor the magistrate not only corrupt Christ's words with a false interpretation, but also pass no small condemnation on the many holy bishops from the apostles' time onward — charging them with having falsely usurped the honor and office of the magistrate.

On the other side, it is important to examine what the true use of church jurisdiction was in ancient times, and how great an abuse has crept in — so that we may know what must be abolished and what must be restored from antiquity, if we are to overthrow the kingdom of antichrist and restore the true kingdom of Christ. The goal to aim for is this: that offenses be prevented, and if any offense does arise, that it be corrected. In practice, two things must be observed: first, this spiritual power must be entirely separate from the power of the sword; second, it must not be exercised by the will of one man alone, but by a lawful assembly. Both of these were observed in the purer church. The holy bishops did not exercise their power through fines, imprisonments, or other civil punishments — they used only the word of the Lord, as was proper. For the most severe action the church can take — its ultimate measure, as it were — is excommunication, and this is used only when absolutely necessary. It requires no force or physical coercion; it is content with the power of the word of God. In short, the jurisdiction of the ancient church was nothing other than what we might call the practical application of what Paul teaches about the spiritual power of pastors. He says: 'We have been given power to demolish strongholds, to bring down every proud barrier that sets itself against the knowledge of God, to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, and to be ready to punish all disobedience.' As this is accomplished through the preaching of Christ's doctrine, so — that the doctrine may not be treated with contempt — those who claim membership in the household of faith must be judged according to what is taught. That cannot be done without granting the ministry the power to summon those who need private admonition or stronger correction, and also the power to exclude from the Lord's Supper those who cannot be admitted without profaning so great a mystery. Therefore, when Paul says elsewhere that it is not our place to judge outsiders, he makes believers subject to the church's discipline — which may correct their faults — and implicitly indicates that judicial structures were already in force from which none of the faithful was exempt.

But this authority, as we have said, was not in the hands of one man to do as he pleased — it belonged to a council of elders, which served the church as a senate serves a city. Cyprian, when speaking of those who exercised this authority in his day, regularly joins the entire clergy with the bishop. But he also shows elsewhere that even the clergy governed in such a way that the people were not excluded from hearing matters. He writes: 'From the beginning of my episcopate I have been determined to do nothing without the counsel of the clergy and the consent of the people.' The common and ordinary practice was that the church's jurisdiction was exercised by a council of elders — of which, as I have said, there were two kinds: some ordained for teaching, and others who served only as overseers of conduct. Little by little this institution declined from its original form, so that by the time of Ambrose, only clergy served as judges in ecclesiastical cases. Ambrose himself laments this in these words: 'The ancient synagogue, and after it the church, had elders, without whose counsel nothing was done. By what negligence this has fallen out of use I do not know — unless perhaps by the laziness or rather the pride of teachers, while they wanted to appear the only ones who mattered.' We see how greatly this holy man was grieved that anything of the better order had decayed — even though at that time they still maintained at least a tolerable arrangement. What would he say if he saw the ruined state of things today, which shows almost no trace of the original structure? What lamentation would he raise? First, against all right and justice, the bishop claimed for himself alone what had been given to the whole church. It is as if a consul, having driven out the senate, seized sole power for himself. However much the bishop stands above the rest in honor, a full assembly has more authority than any one man. It was therefore a deeply wicked act when one man removed this shared power and claimed it for himself — opening the door to tyrannical ambition, stripping the church of what rightfully belonged to her, and suppressing and discarding the assembly ordained by the Spirit of Christ.

But as one evil always breeds another, the bishops, disdaining this work as beneath their dignity, handed it off to others. This gave rise to officials appointed to fill that role. I will not yet speak of what kind of men they are — only that they are no different from secular judges. And yet they still call it spiritual jurisdiction, even though the disputes they handle involve nothing but earthly matters. Even if there were no other fault, how dare they call a quarrelsome courtroom the judgment of the church? They do use warnings and excommunication, it is true. But in doing so, they make a mockery of God. Does a poor man owe a small debt? He is summoned. If he appears, he is condemned. Once condemned, if he does not pay, he is warned. After the second warning, they move a step toward excommunication. If he fails to appear, he is warned again to come and submit to judgment. If he continues to delay, he is warned once more, and then immediately excommunicated. Tell me — does any of this resemble the institution of Christ, or the ancient practice, or any form of ecclesiastical order? They also claim to correct vices. But how? They not only tolerate but in a certain quiet way nurture and confirm adultery, indecency, drunkenness, and similar wickedness — and not only among the common people, but among the clergy themselves. Out of many offenders they summon a few — either to avoid appearing completely negligent in overlooking everything, or to squeeze some money out of them. I will not speak here of the plunder, robbery, bribery, and sacrilege that is gathered by these means, nor of what kind of men are for the most part chosen for this office. This much is enough and more than enough: when the Romanists boast that their jurisdiction is spiritual, it is easy to demonstrate that nothing is more contrary to the order Christ established, and that it bears no more resemblance to ancient practice than darkness does to light.

Though we have not said everything that could be said on this subject, and what we have said has been stated briefly, I trust we have argued the case well enough that no one should have any remaining doubt that the spiritual power of which the pope and his entire kingdom so proudly boast is wicked before God and an unjust tyranny over His people. Under the term 'spiritual power' I include the boldness in fabricating new doctrines — by which they have led the simple people away from the plain meaning of God's word — the wicked traditions by which they have ensnared them, and also the false ecclesiastical jurisdiction they exercise through their subordinates and officials. For if we grant Christ a kingdom among us, all this kind of dominion must inevitably be overthrown at once. As for the power of the sword, which they also claim for themselves — since it is not exercised over consciences, it does not directly concern our present discussion. Yet in this regard it is also worth noting that they are always true to their character — they are nothing at all like what they would be taken for, that is, pastors of the church. I am not blaming the personal faults of individuals, but the common wickedness of the entire order — indeed the very disease of the order — since it is thought the order would be crippled unless it is adorned with wealth and prestigious titles. If we look to Christ's own authority on this matter, it is clear that His intention was to bar the ministers of His word from civil power and earthly government, when He said: 'The kings of the Gentiles rule over them, but you shall not be so.' He is saying not merely that the office of pastor is distinct from the office of a prince, but that they are things so separate they cannot meet in one person. When Moses held both offices together, that was first a rare miracle, and second only a temporary arrangement until things were more fully ordered. When God prescribed a definite form, civil government was left to Moses, and he was commanded to hand the priesthood over to his brother. And rightly so. For it is beyond human capacity that one person should bear both burdens adequately. This principle was carefully observed in the church throughout every age. No bishop, so long as the true form of the church lasted, ever thought of seizing the power of the sword — so much so that in Ambrose's day there was a common saying that emperors coveted the priesthood more than priests coveted imperial power. What Ambrose said afterward was embedded in everyone's mind: that palaces belong to the emperor, and churches to the priest.

But once a system was devised by which bishops could hold the title, honor, and wealth of their office without the work and responsibility — lest they be left completely idle — the power of the sword was given to them, or rather they seized it for themselves by usurpation. What pretense can they offer to defend this shamelessness? Was it the duty of bishops to entangle themselves with court hearings, the governance of cities and provinces, and to meddle across vast territories in matters entirely foreign to their calling? — men who have so much work within their own proper office that if they gave themselves to it wholly and without interruption, they could scarcely fulfill it? But such is their perverseness that they do not hesitate to boast that by this arrangement the church flourishes as it deserves, and that they themselves are not thereby drawn too far from their calling. On the first point: if being elevated to such heights that the greatest monarchs stand in fear of them is a fitting adornment for the sacred office, then they have reason to quarrel with Christ — who, in their view, severely diminished their honor. For what, at least in their opinion, could have been more demeaning than these words: 'The kings of the Gentiles and princes rule over them, but you shall not be so'? Yet He laid no harder law on His servants than He first received Himself. 'Who,' He said, 'made Me a judge or arbitrator over you?' He plainly refused the role of judge — which He would not have done if it were compatible with His office. Will His servants not allow themselves to be brought under the same order to which their Lord submitted? As for the second point, I wish they could prove it in practice as easily as they speak it. But since the apostles judged it unacceptable to leave the word of God and serve tables, those who refuse to be taught by this example stand convicted: being a good bishop and a good prince at the same time is not one person's work. For if the apostles — who, given the extraordinary gifts they had received, were capable of carrying more and greater responsibilities than any who have come since — confessed that they could not simultaneously devote themselves to the ministry of the word and the ministry of tables without being crushed by the burden: how could these men, who are infinitely inferior to the apostles, surpass the apostles a hundredfold in output? To attempt it was an act of the most shameless and reckless arrogance. Yet it has been attempted. And the result is plain to see. For it could not turn out otherwise: by abandoning their own calling, they were inevitably drawn into other people's business.

There is no doubt that their power grew from small beginnings through gradual increases. It was impossible for them to leap to such heights in a single step. Sometimes by cunning and devious means they quietly advanced themselves, so that no one could foresee what was happening until it was already done. Sometimes when the opportunity arose they used threats and intimidation to wring additional power from princes. And sometimes, when they saw princes were inclined toward generosity, they exploited that naive and unthinking goodwill. In earlier times, when disputes arose, godly people would submit the matter to the bishop's arbitration in order to avoid litigation — since they had no doubt of his integrity. The ancient bishops were often burdened with such arbitrations, and it greatly displeased them, as Augustine testifies in one place. But to keep the parties from running to contentious lawsuits, the bishops reluctantly took the burden on themselves. These men transformed those voluntary arbitrations — which were nothing like the noise of formal courts — into a regular judicial jurisdiction. Shortly afterward, when cities and territories were beset by various severe hardships, people turned to the bishops for protection and trusted them to provide faithful assistance. By remarkable cunning, the bishops turned themselves from protectors into lords. It cannot be denied that they also acquired a large portion of their power through violent and seditious scheming. As for the princes who willingly granted jurisdiction to bishops — they were moved to do so by various motives. But granting that their generosity had some appearance of godliness, their wrongful liberality did not serve the church well. By it they corrupted — or to tell the truth, utterly destroyed — the church's ancient and true discipline. And those bishops who exploited that princely goodwill for their own gain gave more than enough proof by that single act that they are not truly bishops. If they had had even a spark of the apostolic spirit, they would certainly have answered with Paul's words: 'The weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but spiritual.' But blinded by greed, they destroyed themselves, their successors, and the church.

At last the bishop of Rome, not content with modest lordships, first laid hold on kingdoms and then on the empire itself. To give some color to the possession he had seized by outright robbery, he sometimes boasts that he holds it by the law of God, sometimes claims the gift of Constantine, and sometimes invents some other title. My first answer is from Bernard: even if the pope were to claim this authority on whatever other grounds, he still does not hold it by apostolic right. For Peter could not give what he did not have — what he gave to his successors was what he had: the care of the churches. But when the Lord and Master says He was not appointed judge between two men, a servant and student ought not think it beneath him to be excluded from judging all people. Bernard is speaking of civil judgments, and he adds: 'Therefore your power is over crimes, not over possessions, because it was for crimes, not possessions, that you received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' 'Which seems to you the greater dignity — to forgive sins or to divide up land?' 'There is no comparison.' 'Kings and princes of the earth have their own judges for these base and earthly things. Why do you intrude on someone else's territory?' Again: 'You have been made a superior' — he is speaking to Pope Eugenius — 'but to what end? Not to dominate, I think. Therefore, however highly we think of ourselves, let us remember that a ministry has been laid upon us, not a lordship given to us. Learn that you need a pruning hook, not a scepter, so that you may do the work of a prophet.' Again, plainly: 'Lordship is forbidden to the apostles. Go, then, and presume to claim for yourself either — being a lord, an apostleship; or being an apostle, a lordship.' And shortly after: 'The pattern of the apostleship is this: lordship is forbidden them; service is commanded.' Though these things are said by a man, yet it is clear to everyone that the very truth speaks through him — and the thing itself is obvious without any words. And yet the bishop of Rome was not ashamed to decree at the Council in Orleans that supreme power over both swords belongs to him by the law of God.

As for the gift of Constantine — anyone moderately acquainted with the history of that period needs no instruction in how not merely false but actually laughable that claim is. But setting aside the historical records, Gregory himself is a sufficient and full witness to the truth of the matter. Whenever he speaks of the emperor, he calls him his most noble Lord and describes himself as his unworthy servant. Again, in another place he writes: 'But let not our Lord, by earthly power, be the sooner moved to anger against the priests; but with excellent consideration, for the sake of Him whose servants they are, let him so govern them that he also show them due reverence.' We see how, in common subjection, he counts himself as one of the people — for he is pleading not anyone else's cause but his own. In another place: 'I trust in the Almighty God that He will give a long life to our godly lords and will order us under your hand according to His mercy.' I have not cited these things to thoroughly debate the question of the gift of Constantine, but only so that readers may notice in passing how childishly the Romanists lie when they attempt to claim an earthly empire for their bishop. All the more shameless, then, is the conduct of Augustine Steuchus, who in such a desperate cause dared to sell his labor and pen to the bishop of Rome. Valla — as was not difficult for a man both learned and sharp-minded — had powerfully demolished that fable. Yet, as someone not deeply versed in church affairs, he had not said everything that could have been said. Steuchus then charged in and scattered foul trivialities in an attempt to smother the clear light of Valla's argument. In truth, he handles his master's cause so feebly that it is as if some clever jester, pretending to argue the same side, were actually working for Valla all along. It is truly a cause worthy of the pope — that he should hire advocates for pay. And those hired scoundrels are no less worthy of being cheated of their expected reward, as happened to Eugubinus.

If anyone wants to know when this invented empire began to rise, it has not yet been five hundred years since bishops were still subject to princes and no pope was appointed without the emperor's authority. Emperor Henry IV — a reckless and impulsive man with no foresight, bold in action but dissolute in life — gave Gregory VII his first opportunity to overthrow this order. Henry had been selling or plundering the bishoprics of all Germany through his court, and Hildebrand, who had been personally offended by him, seized on this as a fine pretext for revenge. Because the cause he appeared to champion was honest and godly, many gave him their support. Henry, moreover, was widely hated among the princes because of his arrogant manner of governing. In the end, Hildebrand — who called himself Gregory VII — revealed the true malice of his heart, and this caused many of his allies to abandon him. But he succeeded in this much: his successors were able not only to throw off the imperial yoke with impunity, but actually to bring emperors under their dominion. Added to this was the fact that many of the emperors who followed were more like Henry than like Julius Caesar — men easily subdued, who sat at home idle and indifferent to everything when they most needed the courage and resolve to restrain the bishops' greed. This shows us clearly what kind of cover conceals the so-called generous gift of Constantine, by which the pope pretends that the Western Empire was handed over to him.

Meanwhile the popes never stopped invading the territories of others — sometimes by fraud, sometimes by treachery, and sometimes by force. The very city of Rome, which had previously been free, they brought under their control within about a hundred and thirty years. By these means they reached the power they hold today — a power for the gaining and expanding of which they have troubled Christendom for two hundred years (for they began before they seized dominion over the city), very nearly destroying it in the process. In earlier times under Gregory, the administrators of church property would seize lands they claimed belonged to the church and, after the manner of claiming them for the prince's use, place ownership titles on them as a sign of claim. Gregory convened a council of bishops and, sharply rebuking this profane practice, asked whether they judged any clergy member accursed who, on his own initiative, by writing a title deed, attempted to lay claim to any property. They all declared: accursed. If laying claim to a piece of land by drawing up a title is an offense worthy of a curse for a clergy member, then when popes for two full centuries practice nothing but warfare, bloodshed, the destruction of armies, the sacking and razing of cities, the overthrow of nations, and the ruin of kingdoms — all simply to seize other people's possessions — what curses could possibly be sufficient to punish such conduct? It is entirely plain that they seek the glory of Christ least of all. For if they were to willingly surrender all the secular power they hold, there would be no danger to God's glory, no danger to sound doctrine, no danger to the church's safety. But they are driven blindly and headlong by nothing but a lust for dominion, because they think nothing secure unless they can rule with harshness — as the prophet says — and with force.

Connected to jurisdiction is the immunity that the Roman clergy claimed for themselves. They consider it beneath their dignity to answer in personal legal matters before a civil judge, and they believe that both the liberty and dignity of the church consist in being exempt from ordinary courts and laws. But the ancient bishops — who were otherwise very firm in defending the rights of the church — judged that neither they nor their order were harmed by being subject to civil authority. Godly emperors, without anyone objecting, regularly summoned clergy before their courts whenever the need arose. Constantine writes in his letter to the Nicomedians: 'If any bishop should conduct himself recklessly, his boldness shall be restrained by the execution of God's minister — that is, by my execution.' And Valentinian says: 'Good bishops do not oppose the emperor's authority, but sincerely both keep the commandments of God the great King and obey our laws.' At that time, everyone agreed on this without dispute. But ecclesiastical causes were referred to the bishop's judgment. If a clergy member had not violated civil law but was charged only under the canons, he was not summoned to the ordinary court — in such a case the bishop served as his judge. Similarly, if a question of faith was in dispute, or some matter that properly belonged to the church, the judgment was committed to the church. This is the sense of what Ambrose writes to Valentinian: 'Your father of honored memory not only said in words but decreed by law that in a cause of faith, the judge should be one neither unfit in office nor unlike in standing.' Again: 'If we look to the Scriptures or ancient examples, who can deny that in a cause of faith — in a cause of faith, I say — bishops are accustomed to judge Christian emperors, and not emperors to judge bishops?' Again: 'I would have come, O Emperor, to your court, if the bishops or the people would have permitted me to go, saying that a cause of faith ought to be debated in the church before the people.' He rightly affirms that a spiritual cause — that is, a matter of religion — ought not to be dragged into a civil court where secular cases are pleaded. Everyone rightly praises his steadfastness in this. Yet even in a good cause he goes only so far — saying that if it comes to violence and force, he will yield. 'Willingly,' he says, 'I will not forsake the post committed to me, but when compelled I know not how to resist — for our weapons are prayers and tears.' Let us note the remarkable modesty and wisdom of this holy man, combined with courage and boldness. The empress Justina, unable to win him over to the Arian side, sought to drive him from the governance of the church — and this would have succeeded if he had gone to the palace to plead his case when summoned. He therefore denied that the emperor was a competent judge of so great a controversy. Both the necessity of the moment and the very nature of the matter required this approach. He judged it better to die than to allow such a precedent to be set with his consent. Yet if violence were offered, he did not contemplate resistance — he declared it unworthy of a bishop to defend the faith and the rights of the church by force of arms. In other matters, however, he showed himself ready to do whatever the emperor commanded. 'If he demands tribute,' he says, 'we do not deny it — the church's lands pay taxes. If he asks for lands, he has power to claim them, and none of us resists.' Gregory speaks in the same way: 'I am not unaware of the mind of our most noble sovereign Lord, that he is not accustomed to involve himself in matters belonging to priests, lest he should in any way share in our sins.' He does not generally exclude the emperor from judging priests — he is simply saying that there are certain causes the emperor ought to leave to the church's judgment.

By making this exception, the holy men sought nothing other than to prevent princes who were less zealous for religion from using tyrannical force and willfulness to interrupt the church in carrying out her work. For they did not object if princes sometimes exercised their authority in church matters — provided it was done to preserve the church's order, not to disrupt it; to establish discipline, not to dissolve it. Since the church does not have the power to compel — nor ought to claim it (I mean civil compulsion) — it is the duty of godly kings and princes to uphold religion through laws, proclamations, and judicial proceedings. In keeping with this, when Emperor Maurice commanded certain bishops to receive back neighboring bishops who had been driven out by barbarian invasions, Gregory confirmed that command and urged obedience. When the same emperor admonished Gregory to come to agreement with John, bishop of Constantinople, Gregory explains his reasons for not being blamed — but he does not claim immunity from the secular court. Instead he promises to be obedient as far as his conscience allows, and adds that Maurice acted as a godly prince should in giving such instructions to the priests.