Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 1: On the Name of Cleric and Layman
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
What these names, “cleric” and “layman,” mean I think is doubtful to no one. For although they are of Greek origin, yet they are common and well known. For who is ignorant that laos is the same to the Greeks as “people” to the Latins? And kleros the same to them as “lot” or “inheritance” to us? Hence, then, the laity are so called as it were plebeians and common people, to whom no part of the ecclesiastical function is entrusted; but the clergy as it were the Lord’s lot and inheritance, who, consecrated to divine worship, have undertaken, by God’s own command, the providence and care of managing religion and sacred things. “Let a cleric,” says Saint Jerome in the letter to Nepotian, “first interpret his own word, and, the definition of the name being set forth, strive to be what he is called. For if kleros in Greek is called ‘lot’ in Latin, therefore they are called clerics, either because they are of the Lord’s lot, or because the Lord Himself is the lot, that is, the portion, of the clerics.” And why an inheritance is called by the name of “lot,” this reason is wont to be given: that an inheritance is for the most part divided among several by lot. Whence is that of the Prophet (Psalm 77): “He divided to them the land by lot, in the line of distribution.”
There is added that although a whole inheritance may come to some one person, yet this happens not by choice but by lot; for men are for the most part born, not made, heirs. And who labored, who gave effort, that he should be born the son and heir of this man rather than that? And to this the Apostle Paul, Chrysostom being witness, looked when he said, writing to the Colossians: “He hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints.” And again to the Ephesians: “In whom we also are called by lot.” Not that (as the Lutherans will have it) eternal blessedness is acquired by no merits, but that we are called to the grace and adoption of the sons of God without any work of ours. For the Pelagians err, who attribute the first parts to man, but the latter to God, in the conversion and penance of a sinner. For how are we called by lot, if we ourselves anticipate God by any work or effort of ours?
No one, therefore, invokes grace unless prevented by grace; no one chooses God unless first chosen by God; no one loves unless first loved. He converts the turned-away, He recalls the erring, He is found by those who seek Him not, He appears openly to those who ask not. Yet because what to us is lot, to God is providence and predestination, therefore the Apostle wisely joins both together when he says: “In whom we also are called by lot, predestinated according to the purpose of His will.” But of these things thus far.
We have, then, what the name of clerics and of laymen signifies. And hence arises the first question between us and the heretics: whether rightly or wrongly certain persons among Christians are called clerics, certain laymen. For the Lutherans and Calvinists, although they by no means deny (as to the matter) that the ministry of the word and of the Sacraments does not pertain equally to all, and although they themselves too have certain of their own ministers and pastors, or (as they speak) superintendents, to whom they entrust almost the whole care of their religion, yet because their contentions and schisms took their beginning from a hatred of the clergy and a favoring of the laity, and the word “clergy” seems not obscurely to bear a certain excellence and dignity, they in no way bear that the ecclesiastical ministers be called clerics, the rest laymen.
And so Luther, in that plainly infernal book On the Abrogation of the Private Mass, part 1, treating that of Blessed Peter, “not lording it over the clergy,” says: “That our translation has ‘not lording it over the clergy’ was the carelessness of the translator, which caused them to understand by ‘clergy’ in this place those whom now an impious tradition of men has distinguished from the laity.” And below: “We are content to have said this: that the Christian people is simple, in which there ought to be no sect at all, no difference of persons, no cleric, no layman, no anointed, no shaven, no monk.” And Calvin (in Book IV of his Institutes, chapter 4, section 9): “This appellation was born either of error, or certainly of a depraved affection, since the whole Church is called by Peter the clergy, that is, the inheritance of the Lord.” And in the commentary on chapter 5 of the first epistle of Blessed Peter: “Would that it had never come into the minds of the Fathers to use this word.” Thus they. Of whom I would gladly ask, at what time, in what place, by what authors they think this appellation was born.
For if the Lutherans could demonstrate that a few years ago, in some corner or other, this word was fabricated by some ambitious and unlearned artificer of words, we too in turn could easily believe that it was born of error, or of depraved affection, or even of an impious tradition. But if this appellation, drawn from the divine writings, was in the mouth of all the Councils, all the Fathers, the whole Church, the whole world, in all ages and centuries, who will be able sufficiently to marvel at the audacity and impudence of these men?
And indeed if the decrees of the Councils and the volumes of the holy Fathers are in question, it is not so much to be asked where the name and distinction of clerics and laymen is found, as where it is not found. So everywhere, on almost every page both of the Fathers and of the ancient Councils, that appellation occurs which Luther and Calvin affirm to have been born of error, or depraved affection, or impious tradition.
Let Tertullian come forth from the ancient writers, who was not only most ancient but also most learned. He, then, in the book On Monogamy, speaks in this way: “When we are exalted and puffed up against the clergy, then we are all one, then all priests, because He hath made us priests to God and the Father. When we are challenged to the equalization of priestly discipline, we lay aside the fillets, and are unequal.” And below: “But because monogamy does not suit the laity, the rest too are foreign to them.” What could Tertullian say more clearly against Luther and Calvin than that the laity are arrogant and proud who are exalted and puffed up against the clergy? But perhaps the testimony of individual men is contemned without rashness.
Let there come forth, then, not from individual men but from assemblies of men, the First Council of Nicaea — ecumenical, most ancient, most numerous, most celebrated, whose authority was always so great among all the ancients that by Eusebius (Book III On the Life of Constantine) and Augustine (Book I On Baptism, chapter 18) it is called the Council of the whole world; by Athanasius (in the letter to the bishops of Africa) and Leo (letter 53 to Anatolius) it is compared with the oracles of the Holy Spirit; and by Gregory (Book I, letter 24) with the Gospel itself. In so great a Synod, then, which we can reprehend neither of error, nor of depraved affection, much less of impiety, unless we reprehend the whole Church and the whole world of those same vices — in that Synod, I say, the appellation of clerics is inculcated in almost every canon. So the first canon has: “If anyone in sickness has been cut by physicians, or castrated by barbarians, it has been decided that he remain in the clergy. But if anyone in health has cut off himself, this man, even if he is in the clergy, ought to cease, and from henceforth no such man ought to be ordained.” And in canons 2, 3, 8, 17, 18, and 19, almost nothing else is treated than the ordinations of clerics — which occurs everywhere in absolutely all Councils.
What of this, that even in the very canons of the Apostles set down by Saint Clement, the distinction and name of clerics and laymen is read more than once? Canon 12: “If anyone prays with a condemned cleric, as with a cleric, let him be condemned.” Canon 13: “If any cleric or layman suspended from communion,” and so on. Canon 15: “If any priest, or deacon, or anyone of the number of the clergy, leaving his own parish goes to another, we suffer him no longer to minister, especially if, called by the bishop to return, he has contemned it; nevertheless let him communicate there as a layman.”
What will Calvin and Luther here say? Were the Fathers of Nicaea ignorant, was the Pontiff Clement ignorant, were the Apostles ignorant, that the Christian people ought to be simple, so that there be no cleric, no layman in it? Or rather did they, by an impious tradition, error, and depraved affection, impose such a name on the ministers of the Church?
But, they say, we do not much labor about what men say; for we long ago bade farewell to the words of men. Let the word of God be brought forward into the midst, if the controversy is to be ended. Let us see, then, what the word of God has — although there were no need greatly to litigate about the name, when the matter is established. In Jeremiah, chapter 12, the Holy Spirit thus speaks: “Their clergy shall not profit them.”
And lest perhaps there be litigation about these very words of God, I bring forward witnesses beyond all exception: Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome, who were not only most diligent handlers of the Scriptures, but also almost alone among all the Fathers of the Church had knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, in which the volume of Jeremiah is established to have been written. So then Origen (homily 7 on Jeremiah) expounds these words, “Their clergy shall not profit them”: “These things others before me have expounded, and because I do not disapprove their interpretation, agreeing with it I bring forth the same. We who are thought to be something, that is, who preside over you in the order of the clericate — so much so that some of the lower grade desire to attain to this place — ought to know that we are not straightway to be saved because we are clerics; for many priests too perish, and laymen most blessed are found.”
And Saint Epiphanius, at the beginning of that letter which he wrote to John bishop of Jerusalem: “It behooved us, most beloved, not to abuse the honor of the clericate unto pride, but by the keeping of God’s commandments and most diligent observance to be that which we are called. For if the sacred Scripture says, ‘Their clergy shall not profit them,’ what arrogance of the clericate will be able to profit us, who sin not only in thought and sense, but even in speech?”
In the same way Saint Jerome, in his commentary on this passage: “This is said to ecclesiastics too; for what will the name of bishop, and of priest, or the rest of the ecclesiastical order, be able to profit, when they are rather burdened by their dignities, and the mighty shall mightily suffer torments?” The same Jerome too, in the letter to Nepotian: “I beseech thee, and again and again repeating I will admonish, that thou think not the office of the clericate a kind of ancient military service — that is, that thou seek not the gains of the world in the warfare of Christ, that thou have not more than when thou didst begin to be a cleric, and it be said to thee: Their clergy shall not profit them.” We have, then, the word of God, in which, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome being witnesses, bishops and priests and the other ecclesiastical orders are named clerics.
But let there come forth, lastly, the most grave testimony of God Himself, not only uttered in word, but also sealed, as by His own seal, by a certain horrible prodigy. For what in this time Luther and Calvin cry against the clergy, the same of old Dathan and Abiram cried against the priests of the Old Testament: “Let it suffice you,” said they (Numbers 16), “that all the multitude is holy, and the Lord is among them; why do you lift yourselves up above the people of the Lord?” But what do Luther and Calvin say? Let it suffice you that the whole Church is the clergy, that is, the inheritance of the Lord; why do you lift yourselves up above the laity? Why do you alone usurp to yourselves the word “clergy”?
But what end did that contention of the ancient schismatics find? Bitter altogether and mournful. For straightway, as the Scripture in the same place narrates, at the command of the Lord, who cannot bear schisms and seditions against His ministers, the earth was rent asunder under their feet, and opening its mouth devoured them with their wives, with their children, with their tents, and all their substance; and they went down alive into hell, covered with the earth, and perished from the midst of the multitude. This, namely, is the most just punishment of those who strive to confound and disturb the diverse grades in the Church, and the most beautiful order established by the very Wisdom of God — that they be thrust down to those places of hell where is the shadow of death and no order, but everlasting horror dwells.
But let us briefly dissolve their little objections, cold and empty though they be. The Christian people, says Luther, ought to be simple, where there is no cleric, no layman; for as the Apostle says (Galatians 3): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
That the Christian people ought to be one and simple cannot be denied; but it matters by what unity, by what simplicity. “One Lord,” says the Apostle (Ephesians 4), “one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all.” This is the unity, this the simplicity of the Christian people: that all be of one faith, that all say the same, all hold the same, and that there be no schisms among them. Of which simplicity, since the Lutherans are altogether destitute — having as they do almost as many sects as cities, as many creeds as heads — let them see how well they can be called a Christian people.
Moreover, the distinction of clerics and laymen no more conflicts with this simplicity than the distinction of the members conflicts with the unity of the body. The human body is one, and yet the whole is not eye, nor the whole ear, nor the whole hand, nor the whole feet; otherwise, to use the words of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 12): “If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole hearing, where the smelling? And if all were one member, where the body? But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.” So exactly in the Church some are clerics, some laymen, some monks; and again of the clerics some are priests, some ministers; of the laymen some princes, some private persons; of the monks some anchorites, some cenobites. But this is a variety of members and parts, while the body is one, since we all have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God the Father, one Church our mother, by one Spirit we live, by one bread we are nourished.
Nor indeed do those words of Paul contradict these: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female” — although by the same reasoning he could have said, there is neither layman nor cleric. For by those words the Apostle did not wish to exclude from the Church the diversity of sexes, nations, conditions, but to admonish that these are not what make the sons of God, but the faith which works by love; for thus he says: “You are all the sons of God by faith which is in Christ Jesus; for whosoever of you have been baptized in Christ Jesus have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female.” And so sex is no hindrance, if faith be present; it profits nothing if it be absent; and a layman with charity is a son of God, and a cleric without charity is a slave of the devil. There are, then, in the Church clerics, there are laymen, there are free, there are bond, there are males, there are females; but it is not these differences of grades, or conditions, or sexes, but faith with hope and charity, that constitutes the heirs of the eternal kingdom.
But Blessed Peter in his epistle, chapter 5, properly calls the whole Church “the clergy,” when he says to the bishops: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it not by constraint but willingly, not for filthy lucre’s sake but voluntarily, neither as lording it over the clergy but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.” Therefore, they say, out of error, or impious tradition, or depraved affection, the laity have been cast down from the honor of the name of clergy.
But this objection is dissolved neither with difficulty nor in one way. First, it is altogether probable what Saint Jerome (in the letter to Nepotian) and Oecumenius (in the commentary on this epistle) teach: that the appellation of “clergy” set in this place is to be referred not to the universal Church, but only to those who are properly commonly named clerics. For although both clerics and laymen pertain to the bishop’s flock, yet because there was so much greater danger that bishops should wish to lord it over the clerics than over the laity, as the clerics ought, by their very profession, to be more subject and obsequious to the bishops, as their own ministers, than the laity, therefore Blessed Peter admonishes the bishops that they indeed diligently feed the whole flock, but in feeding the laity beware of filthy lucre, in ruling the clerics flee the lust of dominating.
Add that the name of “clergy” was derived to the Christians from the Jews, and without doubt Saint Peter alluded to the Levites of the Jews, who (Numbers 18 and Deuteronomy 18) are said to be of the Lord’s lot, and the Lord is said to be their lot and inheritance, because He gave them in a manner His own portion, that is, the tithes and oblations of the children of Israel. Now to the Levites there correspond in the Church of the New Testament not all Christians, but only the priests and their ministers. Peter, then, by the name of “clergy” understood not all Christians, but only the ecclesiastical ministers.
But if this interpretation be obstinately rejected by the adversaries, there is no reason why we should greatly contend. For the same appellation of “clergy” can, by a different reasoning, most fitly suit both the universal Church and the ministers of the temple alone. For as the universal Church is the lot and inheritance of Christ, because He acquired it by His own blood, and yet at the same time a certain fixed portion of the Church, consecrated to the ministry of the altar, can by a more proper reasoning be called the lot and inheritance of the same Christ — just as of old the whole Synagogue of the Jews was everywhere in the books of the Prophets called the inheritance of the Lord, because God had freed the whole of it from Egypt and in a manner redeemed it, and yet the same Lord called only the tribe of Levi, which He had set over sacred things, by a special reasoning His lot and inheritance.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT I. De nomine Clerici et Laici. Quid haec nomina Clerici atque Laici sibi velint, nemini dubium esse puto. Tametsi enim Graecam originem habeant, tamen tri¬ ta sunt, ac pervulgata. Quis enim ignorat idem esse Mzov Graecis , quod populum Lati¬ nis? Idem illis, xXfyov, quod sortem, sive hae- reditatem nobis? Inde igitur laici dicti sunt quasi plebeii , ac populares , quibus nulla pars functionis Ecclesiasticae demandata est; Clerici autem quasi Domini sors, et haeredi- tas, qui divino cultui consecrati, procuran¬ dae religionis ac rerum sacrarum , Deo ipso jubente , providentiam , ac sollicitudinem susceperunt : « Clericus, inquit S. Hierony¬ mus in epistola ad Nepot. interpretetur pri¬ mo vocabulum suum, et nominis definitione prolata , nitatur esse quod dicitur. Si enim ylrtpo<; Graece, sors Latine appellatur, propte- rea vocantur Clerici , vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors, id est, pars Clericorum est. » Cur autem haereditas sortis nomine appelletur, illa ratio reddi so¬ let, quod haereditas in plures sorte plerum¬ que dividatur. Unde est illud Prophetae Ps. LXXYI1 : Sorte divisit eis terram in funiculo distributionis (1). Accedit quod licet ad unum aliquem hae¬ reditas tota perveniat, id tamen non electio¬ ne, sed sorte fit : Nascuntur enim ut pluri¬ mum, non fiunt haeredes. Quis autem labo¬ ravit, quis operam dedit , ut hujus potius quam illius filius et haeres nasceretur? At¬ que huc Apostulus Paulus, Chrysostomo tes¬ te , respexit cum ait , scribens ad Coloss. : Dignos nos fecit in partem sortis sanctorum. Et rursus ad Ephes. : In quo nos sorte vocati sumus (2). Non quod (ut Lutherani volunt) aeterna beatitudo nullis meritis acquiratur, sed quod adgratiam et adoptionem filiorum Dei sine ullo opere nostro vocemur. Fallun¬ tur enim Pelagiani, qui priores partes homi¬ ni, posteriores vero Deo tribuunt in conver¬ sione ac poenitentia peccatoris. Quomodo enim sorte vocamur , si nos ipsi Deum ullo nostro vel opere vel conatu praeveniamus? Nemo igitur gratiam invocat, nisi praeven¬ tus a gratia; nemo eligit Deum, nisi prius electus a Deo, nemo diligit, nisi prius dilec¬ tus : Aversos ille convertit, errantes revocat, invenitur a non quaerentibus , palam appa¬ ret non interrogantibus. Quia tamen quod nobis sors est, Deo providentia, et praedesti¬ natio est, propterea sapienter Apostolus si¬ mul jungit utrumque, cum ait : In quo nos sorte vocati sumus , praedestinati secundum pro¬ positum voluntatis ejus (3). Sed de his hacte¬ nus. Habemus igitur quid Clericorum at Laico- rum nomen significet. Hinc autem prima in¬ ter nos, et haereticos quaestio nascitur, recte ne, an secus, quidam inter Christianos Cle¬ rici , quidam laici nominentur. Lutherani enim et Calvinistae tametsi minime negant, quod ad rem attinet, ministerium verbi , et (1) Psal. LXXVII, 54. (2) Coloss. I, 12: Eph. I, 11. — (3) Eph. Ibid. -416 LIBER 1. Sacramentorum non ex sequo ad omnes per¬ tinere, et habent ipsi quoque suos quosdam Ministros et Pastores , sive (ut ipsi loquun¬ tur) Superintendentes, quibus totam fere re¬ ligionis suae curam permittunt : tamen quod eorum contentiones et schismata ab odio Clericorum, et Laicorum favore initium du¬ xerint, et vocabulum Cleri non obscure ex¬ cellentiam quamdam, ^ac dignitatem prae se ferre videatur, nullo modo ferunt, ut Minis¬ tri Ecclesiastici, Clerici ; caeteri, laici appel¬ lentur. Itaque Lutherus in lib. illo plane tartareo de abroganda Missa privata par. i. tractans illud B. Petri; Non dominantes in Cleris : « Quod, inquit, nostra translatio habet, non dominantes in Cleris, interpretis incuria fuit, quae fecit, ut Clerum hoc loco intelligerent, quos nunc a laicis discrevit impia hominum traditio. « Et infra : » Hoc dixisse contenti su¬ mus, Christianum populum esse simplicem, in quo prorsus nulla secta, nulla differentia personarum, nullus clericus , nullus laicus, nullus unctus, nullus rasus , nullus mona¬ chus esse debeat. » Et Calvinus in IV. lib. suae Institut. cap. 4, §.9. «Haec, inquit, ap¬ pellatio aut errore, aut certe ex prava affec¬ tione nata est, cum tota Ecclesia clerus, id est, haereditas Domini, a Petro dicatur. » Et in comment. cap. v. prioris epist. B. Petri: « Utinam, inquit, numquam Patribus venis¬ set in mentem, ut hac voce uterentur.» Haec illi. A quibus ego libenter quaererem , quo tempore, quo loco, quibus auctoribus hanc appellationem natam esse putent? Si enim paucis ante annis, in angulo nes¬ cio quo, ab aliquo ambitioso, atque indocto artifice vocabulorum, fabricatam esse hanc vocem demonstrare possent Lutherani, pos¬ semus et nos vicissim facile credere , ex er¬ rore, aut pravo affectu, aut etiam impia tra¬ ditione natam esse : Sin autem ex divinis lit¬ teris deprompta haec appellatio, in ore om¬ nium Conciliorum, omnium Patrum , totius Ecclesiae, orbis terrarum universi, omnibus aetatibus, ac saeculis fuit , quis poterit satis hominum istorum audaciam, impudentiam¬ que mirari? Et quidem si de Conciliorum decretis , et sanctorum Patrum voluminibus agitur, non tam quaerendum est, ubi Clericorum et lai¬ corum nomen et distinctio habeatur , quam ubi non habetur. Ita passim in singulis pro¬ pe paginis tum Patrum , tum Conciliorum veterum appellatio illa occurrit , quam ex errore, aut pravo affectu , vel impia tradi¬ tione natam esse Lutherus et Calvinus affir¬ mant. Prodeat ex vetustis scriptoribus Tertullia¬ nus, qui non modo antiquissimus, sed etiam doctissimus fuit. Is igitur in lib. de Mono¬ gamia hoc modo loqnitur : « Cum extollimur, inquit, et inflamur adversus Clerum , tunc unum omnes sumus , tunc omnes Sacerdo¬ tes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit. Cum ad perajquationem disciplinae sacer¬ dotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas , et impares sumiis. » Et infra : « Laicis vero quia Monogamia non convenit, csetera quo¬ que aliena sunt. » Quid potuit clarius ad¬ versus Lutherum et Calvinum Tertullianus dicere , quam arrogantes ac superbos esse laicos, qui extolluntur, atque inflantur ad¬ versus Clericos? Sed fortasse singulorum ho¬ minum testimonium sine temeritate contem¬ nitur . Prodeat igitur, non ex hominibus singulis sed ex coetibus hominum , Concilium I Ni¬ caenum, QEcumenicum, vetustissimum, fre- quentissimum, celeberrimum, cujusque auc¬ toritas tanta semper apud omnes veteres fuit, ut ab Eusebio lib. III de vita Constantini, et Augustino lib. Ide Baptismo cap. 18. orbis terrae Concilium appelletur ; ab Athanasio in epistola ad Episcopos Africae , et Leone epist. 53. ad Anatolium, cum oraculis Spiri¬ tus sancti; a Gregorio vero lib. I, epist. 24. cum ipso Evangelio conferatur. In ea igitur tanta Synodo , quam neque erroris, neque pravi affectus, multo etiam minus impietatis possumus reprehendere , nisi vitiorum eo- rumdem Ecclesiam totam , et orbem terrae universum reprehendamus : in ea, inquam, Synodo appellatio Clericorum in singulis fe¬ re canonibus inculcatur. Sic habet Canon, primus : « Si quis in aegritudinem vel a Me¬ dicis sectus , vel a Barbaris, castratus est, placuit ut iste permaneat in Clero. Si quis autem sanus seipsum abscidit , hic etiam si est in Clero, cessare debet, et ex hoc nullum talem oportet ordinare. » In II vero can. III, VIII, in XVII, in XVIII, et XIX, nihil fere tractatur aliud, quam de ordinationibus Clericorum , quod in omnibus omnino Con¬ ciliis passim occurrit. Quid, quod in ipsis etiam Apostolorum ca¬ nonibus a S. Clemente descriptis, distinctio, et nomen Clericorum , et laicorum non se¬ mel legitur? Can. XII : « Si quis cum dam¬ nato Clerico, ut cum Clerico, oraverit, dam- CAPUT I. 417 netur. » Can. XIII : « Si quis Clericus aut laicus a communione suspensus etc. » Can. XV : « Si quis Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut quilibet de numero Clericorum , relinquens propriam parochiam pergat ad aliam, huffc ulterius ministrare non patimur, praesertim si vocatus ab Episcopo redire contempserit, verumtamen tanquam laicus ibi communi¬ cet. » Quid hic Calvinus et Lutherus dicent? Ignorabant Patres Nicaeni, ignorabat Clemens Pontifex , ignorabant Apostoli Christianum populum simplicem esse debere , ut nullus in eo Clericus, nullus sit laicus? An potius impia traditione , errore , pravoque affectu Ecclesiae Ministris ejusmodi nomen indide¬ runt. At, inquiunt, non multum nos laboramus quod homines dicant; jamdudum enim va¬ lere jussimus verba hominum. Verbum Dei proferatur ad medium , si controversia fi¬ nienda est. Videamus igitur quid habeat Verbum Dei , ^quamquam opus non esset, cum de re constet, magnopere de nomine li¬ tigare. Apud Hieremiam cap. XII. ita Spi¬ ritus sanctus loquitur : Cleri eorum non pro¬ derunt eis (1). Ac ne forte de istis ipsisverbis Dei litigan¬ dum sit, profero testes omni exceptione ma¬ jores, Origenem,Epiphanium, Hieronymum, qui non modo Scripturarum diligentissimi • tractatores fuerunt, sed etiam pene soli in¬ ter omnes Ecclesiae Patres Hebraicae linguae, qua Hieremiae volumen scriptum esse cons- ' tat, scientiam habuerunt. Sic igitur Orige- nes hom. 7. in Hierem. exponit haec verba: Cleri eorum non proderunt eis : « Haec, in¬ quit, ante me alii exposuerunt , et quia non improbo interpretationem eorum , consen¬ tiens eamdem profero. Nos qui putamur ali¬ quid esse, id est, qui in clericatus vobis or¬ dine praesidemus, in tantum , ut quidam de minori gradu ad hunc locum cupiant perve¬ nire, nosse debetis , non statim in eo esse salvandos, quia Clerici sumus; multi enim, et Presbyteri pereunt, et laici beatissimi re- periuntur. » Sanctus autem Epiphanius ad initium ejus epistolae, quam ad Joannem Episcopum Hie- rosolymae scripsit : « Oportebat, inquit, nos dilectissime , clericatus honore non abuti in superbiam , sed custodia mandatorum Dei, et observatione diligentissima hoc esse quod dicimur. Si enim sacra Scriptura loquitur ; Cleri eorum non proderunt eis , quae arro¬ gantia clericatus conducere nobis poterit, qui non solum cogitatione et sensu, sed etiam sermone peccamus? » Eodem modo S. Hieronymus in commen¬ tario hujus loci : «Dicitur, inquit, hoc et Ecclesiasticis; Quid enim juvare poterit Epis¬ copi nomen, et Presbyteri, vel reliquus ordo Ecclesiasticus ; cum magis graventur digni¬ tatibus suis , et potentes potenter tormenta patiantur. » Idem quoque Hieronymus in epist. ad Nepotianum : « Obsecro, inquit, te, et repetens iterum , iterumque monebo, ne officium clericatus , genus antiquae mili¬ tiae putes, id est, ne lucra saeculi in Christi quaeras militia, ne plus habeas quam quan¬ do Clericus esse coepisti, etdicatur tibi : Cleri eorum non proderunt eis. » Habemus igitur verbum Dei, in quo, Origene, Epiphanio et Hieronymo testibus, Episcopi et Presbyteri, caeterique ordines Ecclesiastici, clerici nomi¬ nantur. Sed accedat postremo Dei ipsius gravissi¬ mum testimonium, non solum verbo prola¬ tum , sed etiam horribili quodam prodigio quasi sigillo proprio consignatum. Quod enim hoc tempore Lutherus, et Calvinus adversus Clericos clamant, idem olim Dathan et Abi- ron adversus Sacerdotes Testamenti veteris clamabant : Sufficiat vobis , aiebant illi Num. XVI : quod omnis multitudo sanctorum est , et in ipsis est Dominus, cur elevamini super popu¬ lum Domini (2)? Quid vero Lutherus et Cal¬ vinus dicunt? Sufficiat vobis quod omnis Ec¬ clesia clerus , id est, heereditas Domini est, cur elevamini super laicos? Cur soli vobis Cleri vocabulum usurpatis? At qualem exitum reperit contentio illa veterum schismaticorum ? Acerbum omnino et luctuosum : Siquidem continuo, ut scrip¬ tura eodem loco narrat, ad imperium Domi¬ ni, qui schismata, et seditiones adversus mi¬ nistros suos ferre non potest, dirupta est ter¬ ra sub pedibus eorum , et aperiens os suum de¬ voravit illos cum uxoribus , cum liberis , cum ta¬ bernaculis , cunctisque opibus , descenderunt que vivi in infernum , operti humo, et perierunt de medio multitudinis (3). Haic videlicet justissi¬ ma poena illorum est, qui diversos in Eccle¬ sia gradus , ordinemque pulcherrimum, ab ipsa Dei sapientia constitutum, confundere, ac perturbare nituntur, ut ad ea inferorum (1) Jerem. XII, 13. — (2) Num. XVI, 3. — (3) Num. XVI, 31 et 32. Tom. II. ' 27 V 418 LIBER I. N detrudantur loca, ubi umbra mortis, et nul¬ lus ordo , sed sempiternus horror inha¬ bitat. Sed eorum objectiunculas , licet frigidas, et jejunas , breviter diluamus. Christianus populus, inquit Lutherus, simplex debet es¬ se, ubi nemo sit clericus, nemo laicus ; nam ut Apostolus ait ad Galat. III : Non est Ju- dceus , neque Graecus , non est servus neque li¬ ber , non est masculus neque fcemina , omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Jesu (1). Unum et simplicem Christianum populum esse debere, negari non potest, sed interest qua unitate, qua simplicitate : Unus Domi¬ nus, inquit Apostolus ad Ephes. IV, una li- des, unum Baptisma , unus Deus et Pater om¬ nium (2). Haec est unitas, haec simplicitas po¬ puli Christiani , ut unius sint omnes fidei, idem dicant, idem sentiant omnes, nec sint in eis schismata. Qua simplicitate cum om¬ nino careant Lutherani , quippe quibus tot pene sunt sectae, quot civitates, tot symbola, quot capita, viderint ipsi quam bene Chris¬ tianus populus dici possint. Porro distinctio Clericorum et laicorum cum hac simplicitate non magispugnat,quam pugnet membrorum distinctio cum corporis unitate. Unum est corpus humanum, nec ta¬ men totum est oculus , nec totum est auris, nec totum manus, nec totum pedes, alioqui, ut verbis utar Apostoli, I. Gorinth. XII : Si totum corpus oculus , ubi auditus ? si totum au¬ ditus, ubi odoratus ? et si essent omnia unum membrum , ubi corpus ? Nunc autem multa qui¬ dem sunt membra , unum autem corpus (3). Sic prorsus in Ecclesia alii Clerici, alii Laici, alii Monachi sunt; et rursus Clericorum, alii Sa¬ cerdotes, alii Ministri ; Laicorum alii Princi¬ pes, alii privati; Monachorum alii anachore¬ ta?, alii ccenobitee. Sed ha?c membrorum ac partium varietas est , corpus vero unum, quoniam unum omnes Dominum habemus, unam Fidem, unum Baptisma, unum Deum Patrem, unam Ecclesiam matrem, uno spi¬ ritu vivimus, uno pane nutrimur. Neque vero his repugnant verba illa Pau¬ li : Non est Judaeus neque Graecus , non est ser¬ vus neque libev, non est masculus neque fcemi¬ na (4). Tametsi eadem ratione dicere potuis¬ set, non est laicus , neque clericus. Neque enim illis verbis excludere voluit Apostolus ab Ecclesia diversitatem sexuum, natio- (1) Galat. III, 28. — (2) Eph. IV. 5 et 6. — (3) (5) Galat. III, 27 et seq. — (6) I. Petr, V, 2. num, conditionum, sed admonere, non ista esse quae filios Dei faciant , sed fidem quae per dilectionem operatur, sic enim ait : Om¬ nes vos filii Dei estis per fidem , quae est in Chri¬ sto Jesu : Quicumque enim in Christo Jesu ba- ptizati estis, Christum induistis : Non est Ju- dceus neque Graecus, non est servus neque liber, non est masculus neque fcemina (5). Itaque ni¬ hil obest sexus, si adsit fides : nihil prodest, si absit ; et laicus cum charitate , Dei filius est , et Clericus sine charitate mancipium Diaboli est. Sunt igitur in Ecclesia Clerici, sunt laici, sunt liberi, sunt servi, sunt mas¬ culi, sunt fceminae; sed haeredes regni sem¬ piterni, non ista? graduum, sive conditionum, sive sexuum differentiae , sed fides cum spe et charitate constituit. At B. Petrus in epistola sua proprie cap. V. totam Ecclesiam Clerum appellat, cum ad Episcopos ait : Pascite qui in vobis est gregem Dei, providentes non coacte, sed spontanee , ne¬ que turpis lucri gratia , sed voluntarie , neque ut dominantes in cleris , sed forma facti gregis exanimo (6). Ex errore igitur, inquiunt, im- piave traditione, aut pravo affectu ab hono¬ re Clerici nominis dejecti sunt laici. Sed ha?c objectio nec difficulter, nec uno modo solvitur. Primum omnino probabile est quod S. Hieronymus in epist. ad Nepo- tianum, et QEcumenius in commentario hu¬ jus epistolae docent, Cieri appellationem hoc loco positam, non ad Ecclesiam universam, sed ad eos tantum esse referendam, qui pro¬ prie Clerici vulgo nominantur. Tametsi enim ad Episcopi gregem tum Clerici , tum laici pertinent, tamen quia tanto majus periculum erat, ne Episcopi Clericis dominari vellent quam laicis , quanto Clerici magis subjecti, atque obsequentes Episcopis, ut proprii eo¬ rum administri, ex ipsa sua professione de¬ bent esse, quam laici , propterea B. Petrus Episcopos monet, ut universum quidem gre¬ gem diligenter pascant, sed in pascendis lai¬ cis caveant turpe lucrum, in Clericis regen¬ dis fugiant dominandi cupiditatem. Adde, quod nomen Cleri derivatum est ad Christianos a Juda?is, et sine dubio S. Pe¬ trus allusit ad Levitas Juda?orum, qui Num. XVIII. et Deuter. XVIII. dicuntur esse de sorte Domini, et Dominus dicitur esse eorum sors et hsereditas, quia donavit eis quodam¬ modo partem suam, id est, decimas, et ob- I. Cor. XII, 17 et 18. — (4) Galat. III, 28. — CAPUT n. 419 lationes filiorum Israel. Porro Levitis non respondent in Ecclesia novi Testamenti om¬ nes Christiani, sed soli sacerdotes, eorumque ministri. Petrus igitur nomine Cleri non om¬ nes Christianos , sed solos ministros Eccle¬ siasticos intellexit. Quod si haeC interpretatio ab adversariis obstinate rejiciatur, nihil est cur magnopere contendamus. Potest enim eadem appellatio Cleri diversa ratione cum universae Eccle¬ siae, tum solis templi Ministris aptissime con¬ venire. Nam ut Ecclesia universa, sors atque haereditas Christi est , quod eam acquisierit sanguine suo, et simul tamen quaedam cer¬ ta Ecclesiae portio, altaris ministerio conse¬ crata, magis propria ratione sors, et haere¬ ditas ejusdem Christi dici potest, non secus atque olim Synagoga Judaeorum universa in libris Prophetarum passim haereditas Domi¬ ni vocabatur, quod eam universam Deus et iEgypto liberasset , et quodammodo rede¬ misset , et tamen solam tribum Leviticam, quam rebus sacris praefecerat, speciali qua¬ dam ratione sortem suam et haereditatem idem Dominus appellabat.