On ConsiderationBook III

1. The end of the previous book suggests the beginning of this. And so, according to my promise, we must consider the things that are under you. You cannot think it necessary to ask me what they are, Eugenius, best of priests; it were better perhaps to ask what they are not. If a man wishes to discover what does belong to your charge, he must go out of the world. Your progenitors were destined to vanquish the whole world, not certain portions of it. ' Go ye into all the world '! was the command given to them. They indeed sold their garments and bought swords, fiery eloquence, and an ardent spirit, weapons powerful in the sight of God. Whither did not those illustrious conquerors come, those sons of the mighty? Whither did they not send their sharp arrows with hot scorching coals? Indeed their sound went forth into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world. Those words of flaming fire which the Lord sent into the earth made men's hearts glow in their inmost depths. Those indefatigable warriors fell on the field of battle, but they fell unconquered: even in death they triumphed. Their sovereignty was established beyond measure: l they were made princes in all lands. You have succeeded to their inheritance. So you are their heir, and the world is your inheritance. But the exact nature of your interest and theirs in this heritage is a matter for sober and careful consideration. For I do not think you have inherited the world absolutely, but with certain limitations; as it seems to me you have been entrusted with a stewardship over it, not put in possession of it. If you go on to usurp possession, He withstands you who says 'Mine is the world and the fulness thereof'. You are not the King of whom the prophet speaks—' And all the earth shall be His possession '. He means Christ, who claims possession both by right of creation, and by the merits of redemption, and by the gift of the Father. For to whom else has it been said, ' Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance, and the utmost bounds of the earth for thy possession'? Surrender possession and dominion to Him; keep for yourself the care thereof. This is your share: put not forth your hand beyond it.

2. 'What?' you say, 'You grant me precedence: do you prohibit sovereignty?' Most certainly. You speak as if pre-eminence in watchful care were not good pre-eminence. Is not the farm in the care of the steward, and the child, though he be master, subject to the tutor? Nevertheless, the steward does not own the farm, nor is the tutor master of his master. I would have you also so take precedence that you may provide, counsel, administer, serve. Let your precedence be Booh 111) Chapter i profitable to others; ' take precedence like a faithful and wise servant * whom his Lord hath set over his household \3 For what purpose? That you may ' give them food in due season '; in other words, may manage, not command. Do this; and inasmuch as you too are a man, do not aim at lording it over other men, lest all unrighteousness gain dominion over you. But I have already pressed this upon you more than enough in discussing who you are. Yet I add this much; for I dread no poison for you, no sword more than the lust of dominion. If you are not greatly deceived, you surely think you have received no more from the great apostle than I have said; to claim this is to take much upon yourself. Recall the words of him who said I am a debtor both to the wise and to the foolish '. And if your judgement tells you that the admonition is superfluous, please remember also that the offensive name of debtor' suits a servant better than a master. The servant in the Gospel was asked ' How much owest thou unto my Lord?' So then, if you acknowledge that you are not lord over the wise and the foolish, but a debtor to them, you must be exceedingly careful, and must with unceasing vigilance consider how those who lack wisdom may become wise, how the wise may be prevented from turning to folly, how those who have turned to folly may recover their senses. But no sort of folly, so to speak, is more foolish than unbelief. So then you are a debtor also to the unbelieving, both Jews and Gentiles.

3. We perceive then that you must strive to the utmost that they who have not faith may be turned to faith, that they who have turned may not turn aside, that they who have thus turned may turn back; moreover, you must see that the perverse ones be set in the paths of uprightness, and the subverted recalled to truth; that the subverters of men's souls may be convinced by invincible reason, so that they themselves, if possible, may either be cured of their errors, or, if that may not be, they may lose their authority, and the power of subverting other men. You must certainly not allow yourself to be imposed upon by the worst sort of foolish men, I mean heretics and schismatics; for these are they who are subverted, and subvert; they are dogs to tear, foxes to deceive. Men, I say, of this sort must be corrected with special care lest they perish, or must be restrained that they may not do damage. As regards the Jews, I grant time may be your excuse; they have their fixed limit, which cannot be anticipated. The fullness of the Gentiles must first come in. But as regards the Gentiles themselves, what answer do you make? Nay rather, what is the verdict of your consideration on this long delay? Why did the fathers resolve to set bounds to the Gospel, and to check the word of faith, while men's hearts are hardening in unbelief? Why, do we suppose, the word running very swiftly suddenly stopped?] Who was the first to forbid its life-giving progress? Some unknown cause perhaps hindered them; perhaps necessity compelled them.

4. Our pretences will not bear examination. Can we with confidence and a good conscience refrain from even offering Christ to those who have Him not? Do we hold back the truth of God in unrighteousness? The fullness of the Gentiles must certainly come some day. Are we waiting for the faith to fall from heaven upon them? Who ever believed by accident? How shall they believe without a preacher? 1 Ps. cxlvii. 15. 2 Rom. x. 14.

Peter was sent to Cornelius, Philip to the Eunuch; 2 and if we seek a more modern instance, Augustine was appointed by Gregory of blessed memory to deliver the mould of faith to the English. Look at things from this point of view. A word more about the obstinacy of the Greeks who are with us, and yet are not with us; united by the bond of faith, and yet not on terms of peace. Though, to speak accurately, they have in the matter of faith itself halted and wandered from the right paths. So also respecting heresy, which is quietly creeping in almost everywhere; in some cases is openly raging. For on all sides, and in public too, it is eager to swallow the Church's little ones/' Do you ask where? Your 1 Acts x. 20. 2 Acts viii. 26. 3 Bright, Early Eng. Ch. Hist., ch. ii.

4 St. Bernard probably refers particularly to the dispute respecting the Procession of the Holy Ghost, which ' for nearly a thousand years seemed to the contending parties to be of such importance as to justify the rent between East and West'. 'The Council of Constantinople (A. D. 381) had inserted in the Creed of the Council of Nice (A.D. 325) the words, "proceeding from the Father"; and the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) had decreed that no addition should be made to that Creed henceforth. Accordingly, the Greek fathers uniformly declared their belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The Latin fathers, on the other hand, having regard to those passages of Scripture which speak of the Spirit of Christ, and of the Spirit as sent by the Son, continually spoke of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father and the Son.' In spite of the decree of the Council of Ephesus the Churches of France and Spain did add to the Creed of Constantinople the words ' and the Son'. The contest was renewed at intervals with mutual excommunications, and thus in the eleventh century arose the schism which has never since been healed. The reconciliation attempted at the Council of Florence (A.D. 1442) was only superficial, and was repudiated by the Greeks. Stanley, Eastern Church; Robertson, Ck. Hut.; Harold Browne, Thirty-Nine Articles; Mosheim, Cent. XV, &c.

6 The heresy which St. Bernard has in mind is apparently that of the Henricians, so called after their founder, Henry, an Italian monk, hermit, a:id ardent reformer. St. Bernard’s influence proved too great for him own officials who often visit the South know where these heretics are, and can tell you. They go to and fro in their midst, or right through them, but what good they have so far done we have yet to learn. We might perhaps have heard of some good if the salvation of the people of Spain had not been as nought in comparison with gold. It is your duty to provide a remedy for this scourge also.

5. But there is a species of folly which has already nearly stultified the wisdom of faith itself. It is incredible to what an extent this venom has infected almost the whole Catholic Church. For while we are all of us seeking our own therein, it happens that envying one another, provoking one another, we are harassed till we hate one another, and are moved to do wrong; we arm ourselves for legal strife, quibble and sophisticate, rush into slanderous accusations, burst into maledictions, are oppressed by those who are stronger than ourselves, and in our turn oppress those who are weaker. How worthy and laudable an occupation for the meditation of your heart to discover some antidote for this deadly sort of folly, which you contemplate in possession of the very body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people! O ambition! the cross of the ambitious, how is it that though you torture all, you please all? Nothing causes more excruciating torment, or more vexing disquietude; and yet nothing creates more bustle and stir among mortal men than its affairs. Is it not true that the thresholds of the apostles are worn more by the footsteps of ambition than by those of devotion? Does not your palace all day long re-echo the tones of its voice? Is not the enriching of ambition the object of the whole toiling practice of the laws and canons? Is not all Italy a yawning gulf of insatiable avarice and rapacity for the spoils it offers? What is it, or rather what else is it, that, I will not even say cuts into, but cuts off your own spiritual pursuits? How often has this restless and disquieting mischief caused your holy and faithful leisure to miscarry! It is one thing for the oppressed to appeal to you; it is quite another for ecclesiastical ambition to make a tool of you by seating itself on the throne. You should not fail the former, nor in the least give way to the latter. Yet how iniquitously ambition is fostered, while the oppressed are scorned! Nevertheless you are a debtor to both, to the oppressed that you may lift them up, to the ambitious that you may put them down.

6. And as we have come upon the question of appeals, it will not be irrelevant to pursue the subject somewhat farther. For the conduct of them a deeply religious insight is required, so that what was intended to meet a great need may not be rendered useless through abuse. It seems to me that they may even be productive of much mischief if they are not employed with the utmost moderation. Men appeal to you from all over the world. It is a proof of your singular primacy. But if you are wise you will rejoice not in your primacy, but in its fruitfulness. The apostles were told not to rejoice in the spirits being subject to them. Men appeal 1 St. Luke x. 20.

to you, as I have said, and I would the resulting benefit were equal to the necessity. Would that when the oppressed cries the oppressor might have reason to know it! Would that the wicked in his pride did not consume the poor! What so fitting as for the oppressed to call upon your name and find a refuge, but that the crafty should not escape? What on the other hand is so perverse, so unfair, as that the wrongdoer should rejoice, and he who has suffered wrong should be harassed for nothing? You sadly lack humanity if you are not drawn towards a man whose heart is full of grief through the wrong which has been done him, the toilsome journey, and the expenses which he has incurred. But there is a no less sad lack of spirit if you are not roused against him who is partly the direct, partly the indirect, cause of so many calamities. Rouse thee, man of God, when these things happen; let both your pity and your indignation be stirred. The one you owe to the injured, the other to him who inflicts the injury. Let the former be consoled for his losses, by satisfaction for his wrongs, by putting a stop to the malicious charges; let the latter be so handled that he may be sorry for having done what he was not afraid to do, and may not laugh at the punishment of the innocent.

7. I think he ought no less to suffer who has appealed without cause. You have the rule of justice based on the fixed principles of divine equity, and, unless I am mistaken, also enjoined by the very law regulating appeals. This provides that an unlawful appeal must not benefit the appellant, nor prejudice the defendant. Why should a man be harassed for nothing? It is perfectly just that he who wished to injure his neighbour should instead injure himself. To unjustly appeal is to do injustice; to unjustly appeal and escape scot-free only lights the fire of unjust appeals. Now every appeal is unjust which is not necessitated by the failure of justice. An appeal is lawful only when you are wronged; it is not a means of wronging some one else. The appeal must be from a judicial sentence. To anticipate the sentence by an appeal unless some wrong was clearly going to be done, admits of no justification. He therefore who appeals when no such wrong threatens, obviously purposes wrong to another man, or to gain time. An appeal is not a subterfuge, but a refuge. How many have we known to appeal after defeat only that while the appeal was pending they might without let of law indulge in what is never lawful! The permission to appeal has in some cases, we know, left men unmolested for the whole of their lives in the commission of execrable crimes, incest, for example, or adultery. How comes this about, that what ought to be the terror of villains is found protecting villainy? How long will you pretend not to notice, or will really notherd, the murmurs of the whole earth? How long do you mean to sleep? How long will it be before your consideration awakes to this gigantic confusing and abusing of appeals? They are contrary to laws human and divine, contrary to custom and established order. There is no distinction of place, degree, time, cause, or person. These frivolous, and, in most cases, useless anticipatory appeals come from all sides. Was not the Court of Appeal wont to be the special terror of malicious offenders? At the present time with its assistance they are themselves a terror, and that to good men. The antidote is turned to poison. The change is not the work of the right hand of the Most High.

8. Good men have appeals brought against them by the bad to prevent their doing good, and in terror at the voice of your thunder they forbear. Kven bishops are appealed against that they may not dare to dissolve unlawful marriages, or prohibit them. They are appealed against that they may not presume to punish in the least degree, or check rapine, theft, sacrilege, and crime of that description. They are appealed against that they may be powerless to close the sacred offices against unworthy or infamous persons, or deprive them when admitted. What remedy are you seeking to discover for this disease, so that what was devised as a remedy be not found unto death? The Lord was zealous for the house of prayer when it was made a den of robbers l; do you, his minister, disguise the fact that the refuge of the wretched has been made an arsenal of iniquity? On all sides you may see the oppressed forestalled, and those who are eager to appeal are not the wronged, but those who wish to do wrong. Here is a mystery. What is the explanation? It is for you to consider, not for me to study the matter. And do you ask why the victims of these appeals do not come to prove their innocence, and show the malice of their opponents? I will tell you what the usual answer is—' We don't care to be troubled for nothing. In the court there are men too ready to favour the appellants and foster appeals. If we are to give way at Rome, it is better to give way at home.' 9. I confess that I partly believe this. In this vast number of appeals, which are of daily occurrence, can you show mean appellant who has even repaid the travelling expenses of the defendant? It would be passing strange if all the appellants were, as this implies, after your investigation, found to be in the right, and those appealed against in the wrong. ' Love righteousness', saith the Scripture, * ye that be judges of the earth.' It is a small thing to keep righteousness, unless you love it as well. They who keep it do no more; they who love it are zealous for it. A lover of righteousness inquires for righteousness, and follows after it; he, moreover, follows up all unrighteousness. You have nothing in common with those men who think appeals good sport. I am ashamed to quote the saying which among the heathen has become a proverb—' We have roused two fat stags.' To speak more gently, there is more wit than justice in this. Do you, if you love righteousness, not encourage appeals, but tolerate them. Still, it is but little that the Churches of God gain through the righteousness of a single individual when the prevalent views are those of men differently disposed. That, however, will be discussed elsewhere, when we begin to deal with the things around you.

10. Now do not think it a waste of time to find leisure for considering how you may restore appeals, if possible, to their lawful use. If you hereupon inquire, or rather care to know, what I think, I say that as appeals are not to be despised, so neither are they to be at all unlawfully used. And I should find it hard to say which of these, in my opinion, indicates the greater insolence, were it not that it seems as though the unlawful use must of necessity induce some measure of contempt, and for this reason, because it is more injurious, it ought perhaps to be more vigorously followed up. Is it not really more injurious, bad in itself, bad in its offspring? Is it not this unlawful use which either weakens the authority of the very law of nature, or nullifies it altogether? Can a man receive anything better than the sacraments? If, however, they are wrongfully used by the unworthy, or are unworthily handled, they are by no means received. They bring the greater damnation, because they are not duly reverenced. I allow that appeals are a great blessing to the world at large, as necessary as the sun itself to mortal men. In fact they are as it were a sun of righteousness, bringing to light and convicting the works of darkness. They are by all means to be cherished and upheld, but only those which are demanded of necessity, not those devised by craft and cunning. All unlawful appeals are of this description; they do not help in time of need, they only minister to iniquity. They could not fail to become contemptible. How many defendants have in answer to such appeals even abandoned their rights that they might not be worn out by a long and fruitless journey? Yet there have been more who, unable to endure the loss of their own, have shown but scant respect for these unsuitable appeals and for personages bearing great names.

ii. Let me tell of a case in point. A certain man had publicly betrothed his future wife. The solemn day of marriage had arrived. All things were ready; many guests were invited; when lo! a man who coveted his neighbour's wife all at once announced his intention of appealing, on the ground that the lady had been first given to him and ought to belong to him. The bridegroom was thunderstruck; there was a dead-lock; the priest did not dare to proceed; all the preparations were thrown away; everybody went off to eat his supper at home; the bride was barred from bed and board until after the return journey from Rome. This befell a resident in Paris, a noble city of Gaul and the home of royalty. On another occasion, in the same city, a certain man became engaged and fixed the day for the wedding. Mean while a false report got abroad that the parties ought not to be united. The case was referred to the judgement of the Church, but without the least expectation of a decision on the appeal. There was no case, no allegation. The only object in view was to delay and frustrate the marriage. But the bridegroom, whether it was that he did not choose to make his preparations for nothing, or that he would not brook the disappointment and be so long kept from the woman he loved, either treated the appeal with contempt, or feigned ignorance of it, and went through with what he had purposed. To take a recent case, what are we to say of the extraordinary presumption of a certain young man belonging to the church at Auxerre? The holy bishop having died, the clergy, according to custom, wished to elect another; but the young man in question intervened with an appeal, and forbade anything to be done until after his return from Rome; and yet to that very appeal he laid no information. For when he saw that he was treated with contempt for appealing unreasonably, he called together such friends as he could three days after the others had made their choice, and got himself elected.

12. It is clear from these and countless other instances that the unlawful use of appeals does not arise from the contempt for them, but that the contempt of them springs from the unlawful use. See, therefore, why it is that your zeal and energy almost constantly vindicate the contempt, and throw a veil over the unlawful use. Do you wish to more completely bridle contempt? Take care that the infant growth is strangled in the very womb of its abandoned mother. And this will be done if the unlawful use meets with suitable punishment. Stop the unlawful use, and there will be no excuse for contempt. Further, when there is no excuse, audacity will be hissed off the stage. Let there be, then, no usurer of the privilege, and there will be no despiser, or very seldom. You do well in refusing to sanction such appeals, or countenance the trickery, and in leaving much of the business to those who are familiar with the details, or can quickly become so. For the easier investigation is made, and the more certain its results, the sooner will the decision be given, and the sounder will it be. What gracious condescension it is in you to thus spare so many men enormous trouble and expense! But you must take particular care in selecting those whom you trust so much. I might add many useful hints on the same subject; but I am mindful of my purpose, and, content with giving you an opportunity of making the addition, I pass to other things.

13. And I suppose I must certainly not pass over the first thing that occurs to me. You are at the head of affairs, without a rival. Why are you thus placed? The question, I tell you, requires consideration. Is it that you may become great through those beneath you? By no means, but that you may make them great. They have chosen you chief, but for their own sake, not for yours. If it is not so, can you reckon yourself above the very persons for whose favours you are a candidate? Listen to the Lord's words, ' They who have authority over them are called benefactors.'* That, however, relates to them that are without. What has it to do with us? You are falsely so called if you aim not so much at being a benefactor as at ruling your benefactor. A man shows a poor spirit when he seeks not the welfare of those beneath him, but to make his own profit out of them. Such conduct is specially discreditable in a commander-in-chief. How beautifully did the Master of the Gentiles express his opinion that parents ought to lay up for the children, not children for the parents. He several times says, and it is a glorious saying, ' Not that I seek a gift, but fruit.' But now let us pass on, lest some one find my lingering here an indication of avarice in you; though how far you are removed from that vice I testified in a former book. For I know what tempting offers you have refused, and how deep your poverty was when you refused them If, then, I write such things to you, it is not that you require the admonition. Surely what is written for your profit ought not to profit you only. I am here censuring avarice, a vice from which your character is safe enough; whether the censure is necessary is for you to decide. I will say, however, not to mention the offerings of the poor, which you cannot bear to touch, that we have seen the German money-bags dwindling down; the bags were not smaller, but the price paid was less. Silver was counted as hay. The Sagmarii reluctantly went home with their bundles as heavy as when they came. A new thing! Was Rome ever known to refuse gold? Even now we do not believe such practice commends itself to the Romans. Two men came to Rome, both wealthy, both culprits. One belonged to Mayence, the other to Cologne. Favour was freely shown to one; the other, unworthy, I suppose, of any favour, was told, * The same robe you wore when you came in you will wear when you go out.' What a glorious saying! The very words of apostolic freedom. Was it one whit inferior to Peter's, ' Thy money perish with thee?' The only difference is that the latter has more zeal, the former more modesty. What did the man get by coming from over sea, almost from the ends of the earth, crossing sea and land to purchase a bishopric twice over, once with his own money, once with other men's? For he had already bought it once. He brought much with him, but he took it back; not all, however. The poor wretch fell into other hands than yours, 1 Acts viii. jo. F 2 more mighty to receive than to give. You did well to keep your hands clean both ways; you would not lay them on the head of an ambitious man, nor lay them under the unrighteous mammon. You did not thus hold aloof from a poor bishop, whom I could name, but you gave him something to give, so that he mighty not be called stingy; he secretly received from you what he openly gave. You thus with your own purse shielded the man from exposure; and at the same time by humouring the court, he (thanks to your kindness) escaped the dislike of those who love gifts. You cannot hide the deed; we know both the facts and the person. Does the story displease you? The more averse you are to hearing it, the greater pleasure I have in telling it. If it is good for you one way, it is good for me another. Where the glory of Christ is concerned I am under no such obligation to silence, as you are to refrain from seeking your own glory. And if you go on complaining, I will answer you out of the Gospel, 'The more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it, saying, he hath done all things well.'}

i 4. There is something else—if it be something else, for it might perhaps be said to be part of the same subject—and let your consideration give good heed to it. He does not appear to be far from the truth who thought that what I am about to speak of should be classed as a variety of avarice. For my- Booh III, Chapter iv 85- self, I would not deny either that it is a kind of avarice, or that it looks like avarice. At all events if you aim at perfection you should shun not only things bad in themselves, but things that have the appearance of evil. In the one case you have regard to your conscience, in the other to your reputation. A particular line of conduct under different circumstances may be lawful; nevertheless, if it does not look well, deem it unlawful. In a word, ask your ancestors, and they will answer, ' Abstain from every appearance of evil.'l Let the Lord's servant by all means imitate his Lord, for He Himself says, ' If any man serve me, let him follow me/ 2 And concerning Him you know it is said, ' The Lord hath reigned, he hath put on beauteous apparel, he hath clothed himself with strength.' Be you also strong in faith, beauteous in glory, and you have shown yourself an imitator of God. Your strength is the confidence of a faithful conscience, your beauty is the splendour of a good character. So then, I beseech you. be clothed with strength, for your strength is the joy of the Lord. Moreover, He delights in your fair beauty no less, as it were, than in His own likeness. Put on your glorious vestments; be clothed with the two robes wherewith the virtuous woman was wont to clothe her household. Let there not be in your conscience a trace of a weak and feeble faith: let there not be in your reputation the blemish of a bad appearance. You will then wear the two robes, and the Bridegroom will rejoice over your soul which He has betrothed to Himself; your God will joy over you. Are you wondering what my drift is, and do you not yet perceive my meaning? I will not keep you in suspense any longer. I refer to the murmuring and complaining of the Churches. They cry aloud that they are being mutilated and dismembered. There are none, or very few, which are not either already smarting under the scourge, or dreading its approach. Do you ask how that is? Abbots are exempted from their bishops, bishops from archbishops, archbishops from patriarchs or primates. Does this look well? I should be surprised if any justification could be found for such doings. The constant practice shows that you have authority, but possibly not so keen a sense of justice. You do this because you have the power, but whether you have the right is open to question. You are where you are that you may uphold the gradations of honour and dignity, secure to every one his proper rank, and not grudge any one his due; as one of your predecessors says. ' Honour to whom honour.' 15. The spiritual man of whom we read, who judges all things that he may be judged by no man, will preface all his work with a sort of threefold consideration. First, he will ask whether the thing is lawful; then, is it becoming; lastly, whether it is also expedient. For although Christian philosophy undoubtedly inculcates that nothing is becoming unless it be lawful, and nothing expedient unless it be both becoming and lawful, it will not of necessity follow that everything lawful is either becoming or expedient. Well then, let us, if we can, apply these three tests to the business before us. Must it not be unbecoming in you to make your will the law? And, because there is no appeal against you, to resort to force while you ignore reason? Are you greater than your Lord, who says, ' came not to do mine own will'? Whatever may be argued to the contrary, I maintain that it is a mark of baseness, no less than of pride, for a man, as though he had not the gift of reason, to make his pleasure, and not reason, the rule of action; to be swayed not by judgement but by appetite. Is anything more characteristic of the beasts? And if it is unworthy of a reasonable being to live the life of cattle, who can endure that you, the supreme ruler, should so outrage nature and insult your rank? If you do so degenerate, which God forbid you will share in the general reproach, ' Man being in honour did not understand; he is compared to the foolish beasts of burden, and is made like unto them.'l How very unworthy it is of you, when you possess all, not to be content with all, but you must needs make a strange to-do over the minute and inappreciable trifles of the universal dominion entrusted to you, as if they were not yours already! And here I should like you to remember Nathan's parable of the man who, having a hundred sheep, coveted the one belonging to the poor man. Let us also recall the deed, or rather the crime, of Ahab, who was master of all, and yet was eager to get a single vineyard. God grant you may never have it said to you as it was to him, ' Thou hast slain and taken possession.' 16. And please do not make the profit from these exemptions a pretext for them. There is no profit, unless it be that the bishops are thereby more insolent, the monks even more dissolute. How is it that they are also poorer? If you examine the balance sheet of these freedmen with anything like care, and look into their lives, no matter where, you will find the monks shamefully poor, and the bishops disgracefully worldly. These are the twin offspring of a baneful freedom. What is there to prevent the loose and disorderly rabble from boldly sinning, when there is no one to rebuke it? What can we expect but the impudent plundering and pillaging of defenceless religion, when there is no one to defend it? For where can men find a refuge? Shall they go to the bishops complaining of injustice? The bishops must have a merry twinkle in their eyes whether they look at the wrongs done, or the wrongs suffered. What profit is there in that blood? The only gain, I fear, is that which God threatened in the prophet, ' He shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at your hand.'l For if a man is not only exempted but puffed up, and he from whose jurisdiction he is exempted is inflamed with anger, how can the exemptor be innocent? I have said too little; we are smothering the fire; let me speak more plainly. If he who complains is spiritually dead, how can he be alive who is the cause of his complaining? Must he not, therefore, be guilty of the death of both these persons, and give sentence of death against his own soul as well, for it was he who supplied the sword which caused the death of both? This is what I meant when I said, ' Thou hast slain and taken possession/3 And further, people who hear of these things are scandalized; they are indignant, disparage, and blaspheme, that is to say, they are wounded even unto death. The tree is not good that bears such fruit as acts of arrogance, the breaking up of houses, rivalries, the squandering of resources, so many scandals, so much hatred; and, what is more lamentable, bitter enmities and perpetuul discord between the churches. You see how true are the words, ' All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient.' But suppose the thing is not even lawful. Pardon me; 1 shall not readily allow that the source of so much lawlessness can be lawful.

17. Would you, in fact, deem it lawful to cut off the limbs of churches, turn order into confusion, and remove the land marks which your fathers placed? Well then, it is the work of justice to secure to everybody what belongs to him; how can it be consistent with justice to rob any man of what belongs to him? You err if you reckon that your apostolic power is not only supreme, but the only power ordained of God. If this is your opinion, you differ from the apostle. He says, " There is no power except from God.' * So then, if that which follows, ' He that resists the power withstandeth the ordinance of God,'a even if this mainly makes for you, it does not apply to you exclusively. In short, the same writer says, ' Let every soul be subject to the higher powers.' He does not say * to the higher power ', as if all power belonged to one man, but ' to the higher powers ', since it resides in many. Your power, therefore, is not the only power from the Lord; there are middle and lower powers. And as those whom God hath conjoined are not to be put asunder, so those whom God hath subjoined are not to be put on a footing of equality. If you cut off a finger, attach it to your head, and let it hang side by side with your arm, as a hand for the upper parts of the body, you create a monstrosity. Something like this happens if you place the members in the body of Christ otherwise than He Himself arranged them. Unless you suppose it was not He, but another, who ' set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly evangelists, then teachers and pastors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ And yet it is this body which Paul sets before you with his own true apostolic eloquence, most admirably uniting it to the Head, and representing it as from Him fitly framed and knit together through that which every joint supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each several part, making the increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love And do not despise the mould on which you are to fashion yourself because it is the Church on earth; the pattern is derived from heaven. For not even the Son can do anything except what He hath seen the Father do, as is obvious from what was said to Him under the name of Moses, ' See thou make everything after the pattern which was showed thee on the mount.' 18. He understood this who said, ' I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem descending from heaven, prepared by God.' I suppose a parallel was intended, viz. that as in heaven above Seraphim and Cherubim, and all other celestial beings, even to angels and archangels, are of varying rank under one Head, viz. God; so in the Church on earth, also, primates or patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, presbyters, or abbots, and all others, are similarly ranked under one supreme pontiff. That which has God for its author, and originates in heaven, must not be lightly esteemed. But if a bishop say ' I do not desire to be under an archbishop ', or an abbot ' I do not care to obey a bishop ', this is not from heaven. Unless, perhaps, you have heard one of the angels crying ' I do not desire to be under the archangels ', or one of the lower angelic orders declare that he could not bear to be subject to any one but God. What! you say, do you forbid me to exercise my stewardship? What I wish to prevent is the squandering of the estate. T am not so ignorant as not to know that you have been made stewards; but if so, it is for building up, not for casting down. In a word, it is required among stewards that a man be found faithful. When necessity requires you may be excused for exercising your dispensing power; if there is some manifest advantage, such exercise may deserve commendation. k Advantage', I say, of the community, not your own. For when no good is done either to the community or to yourself, we certainly have not a faithful stewardship, but a cruel waste. Still, as everybody knows, there are some monasteries in different dioceses, which from their very foundation have been more closely associated with the apostolic see in accordance with the will of the founders. But the free gift of devotion is one thing; the efforts of ambition intolerant of subjection are quite another. So much for this.

19. It remains for your consideration to survey the condition of the Church generally, and to ascertain whether the people are subject to the clerks, the clerks to the priests, the prints to God, in all due humility; if in monasteries and places of religion order is preserved, and discipline is watchful; if ecclesiastical censures are enforced against corrupt practice and perverse doctrine; if the vineyards show the goodly i Cor. iv. a.

bloom of priestly integrity and holiness; if the blossoms bear fruit in the obedience of faithful peoples; if, now at length, your own apostolic commands and ordinances are observed with fitting care, lest any portion of your Master's field be found uncultivated through neglect, or filched through fraud. You may be sure that such defects may be found. To omit count less other details, I could easily point to parts of the vineyards on all sides which are lying waste; I could show you that even of those which your own right hand has planted some are rooted up. At Rheims was it not your own mouth that published the canons submitted to the Council?* Who observes them? Who has observed them? You are deceived if you think they are observed. If you do not think so, you have yourself erred, either in decreeing what was not to be observed, or pretending that it is observed. ' We enjoin', you said, ' that bishops as well as clergy see that they do not, either by superfluous apparel, or an unbecoming medley of colours, or by divided garments, or by the tonsure, offend the eye of the beholders, to whom they ought to be a pattern and example; but rather by their own conduct so condemn these things, and by their mode of life evidence their love of innocence, as the dignity of the clerical order requires. But if after warning from their own bishops any do not submit within forty days, let them by authority of the same be deprived of their ecclesiastical benefices. If, however, the bishops neglect to enforce the aforesaid penalty, inasmuch as the faults of inferiors are to be attributed to none more than to indolent and negligent rulers, let them abstain from their pontifical office until such time as they do inflict the punishment appointed by us on the clergy subject to them. With this we have thought well to couple the order that no one be ordained archdeacon or dean, unless he be deacon and priest. Morever, if archdeacons, deans, and priors, below the aforenamed orders, contemptuously refuse to be ordained, let them be deprived of the honour they have taken upon themselves. We further forbid the bestowal of the aforesaid honours on youths not even as yet admitted to holy orders, but distinguished for their capacity and meritorious lives.' 20. These are your words; you authorized them. What effect was given to them? To this day youths, although not admitted to holy orders, are promoted in the Church. As regards the first canon, luxurious dress was forbidden, but it is not checked; the punishment was declared, but it has by no means followed the offence. It is now the fourth year since we heard the command given, and we have not as yet lamented a single cleric deprived of his benefice, or a single bishop suspended from his office. But the sequel is intensely sad. What is the sequel? Impunity, the child of carelessness, the mother of insolence, the root of impudence, the nurse of transgressions. And blessed will you be if you make it your earnest care to guard against carelessness, the first parent of all evils. But you will do your best in this respect. Now lift up your eyes and see if the spotted fur does not disgrace the clergy just as much as ever; if the immoderate division in the robe does not as much as ever almost show their nakedness. ' Does God care what a man wears? Does He not rather regard his character? * This is how men talk. But the clothing I refer to indicates deformity of mind and morals. How is it that the clergy wish to be one thing and seem another? The truth is that they are not so innocent and upright as they ought to be. Forsooth, in dress they are soldiers, in profession clergy, in conduct neither. For they neither light like soldiers, nor preach the Gospel like clergymen. To which order do they belong? In their eagerness to belong to both, they forsake both, confound both. ' Every one', says the Apostle, ' shall rise in his own order.' What is their order? Having sinned without order, shall they perish without order? I rather think that if the all-wise God is truly believed to leave nothing unordered, from the height above to the depth beneath, there is reason to fear their ' order' can be only where there is no ' order ', but where everlasting horror dwells. O unhappy bride entrusted to the care of bridesmen such as these, who are not afraid to appropriate to themselves what was intended for her adorning! They are surely not the friends of the bridegroom, but his rivals. And now I have said enough about the things beneath you; not enough, it is true, for the adequate treatment of the subject, which is far too great for me to handle, but enough for my purpose. We must now view the things around you; but the fourth book will open the door and admit us to them.