Waldensians (No. B2)

Page 2Waldensians

WaldensiansPage 3

Christian Churches of God

No. B2

Waldensians

(Edition 1.0 19980913-20060320)

This paper is the translation of the condemnation of the Waldensians and the political arguments used by the Roman clergy to condemn the Waldensian Barbes after their Inquisition by the English monk Raymond of Daventry on the way to the Lateran Council.

Christian Churches of God

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

Email: secretary@ccg..org

(Copyright © 1998, 2006 Wade Cox)

This paper may be freely copied and distributed provided it is copied in total with no alterations or deletions. The publisher’s name and address and the copyright notice must be included. No charge may be levied on recipients of distributed copies. Brief quotations may be embodied in critical articles and reviews without breaching copyright.

This paper is available from the World Wide Web page:http://www.logon.org and http://www.ccg.org

Waldensians

Preface

The Sabbatarian Church was long extant in Europe and had been established there from the early Church of the first and second century. The outline history of the Church has been covered in the papers General Distribution of the Sabbath-keeping Churches (No. 122) and the Role of the Fourth Commandment in the Sabbath-keeping Churches of God (No. 170).

As we said in paper No. 170; “We can tell with certainty that the Church was called, by the Catholic system, by various names in its different locations to disguise the widespread and uniform structure of its doctrines. However, the Church of God organisations had differing opinions as to its government and its emphasis (e.g. Presbyterian and Episcopalian in the Western Waldenses). We know that it was called Cathar or Cathari and hence Puritan in the English. It was also called Bulgar, Khazzar, Vallenses, Albigensian, Waldensian, Sabbatharier, Sabbatati, Insabbatati, Passaginians, among others. The term Sabbatharier seems to be a construction meaning Arian Sabbath-keepers.

We know that the commonality of views was generally understood and reflected itself in the vernacular language. For example, the term poor bugger in English is a common expression to convey sympathy for an unfortunate person undergoing some trial or torment. This is often confusing to modern Americans and even to Australians, as the word bugger and buggery has specific legal meanings relating to sodomy. The term, however, has another meaning which shows the application to the elect during the Inquisitions. The Oxford Universal Dictionary holds the term to be derived in the Middle English from the French bougre and the Latin Bulgarus or Bulgarian, or a heretic (or also usurer). It was held to be in reference to heretics to be used especially of the Albigenses. This was its first meaning. The second and pejorative meaning in relation to sodomy was a later term from 1555 and seemingly to denigrate the sect who had been persecuted for some three centuries. The term pauvre bougre or poor bulgar as applied to the Albigensians came to be in the English poor booger. The use as bogle or boggle in North English around 1505 is of uncertain derivation but came to be associated with phantoms and thence a quasi-proper name for the devil (hence, bogieman etc.). Certainly the term poor bugger had its origin in the Albigensian Crusades. However, one may be forgiven for asking what did the Bulgars have to do with the Albigensians? The answer is simple. The Churches of God, from its branches in what is known as the Pergamum era (Rev. 2:12ff) called the Paulicians, came into Europe from the relocations under Constantine Capronymous and John Tsimiskes (see the paper General Distribution of the Sabbath-keeping Churches (No. 122)). These relocations in Thrace spread into the Bulgars, the Southern Slavs especially in Bosnia and also into Hungary and Romania. They spread west and, from the fifteenth century, linked up with the remnants of the Sabbatati in the west called Vallenses or Waldensians. We can tell with relative certainty the extent of their doctrines from the thirteenth century, and with absolute certainty what the eastern branches, especially in Hungary and Romania, were from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries.

The Albigensian Crusades

The conduct of the Albigensian Crusades of the thirteenth century is outlined in the paper General Distribution of the Sabbath-keeping Churches (No. 122). The groups were without doubt Sabbath-keepers. The desire of the Roman Catholic Church to disguise this fact has led to some extraordinary claims regarding the linguistic derivation of the name Sabbatati. However, we also know that they were Unitarians. They are recorded as being extant before the year 934, when they were complained of by Atto bishop of Vireulli as had others before him.

They were first called Vallenses in 1179 in the condemnation of them by Raymond of Daventry. The elders, or barbes (uncles), Bernard of Raymond and Raymond of Baimiac were condemned as heretics by Raymond of Daventry in 1179 before the Lateran Council, not for their Sabbath-keeping but for their Unitarianism. The treatise written against them in 1180 by Bernard of Fontcaude then took up the name Vallenses in the title which is Adversus Vallenses et Arianos. They were thus subordinationist non-Trinitarians. This work of 1180 seems to have disappeared this century, but the work Liber Contra Vallenses written in 1190 by Bernard of Fontcaude still exists. The Vallenses of that time appear to be Unitarians and seen as distinct from Arians. This is a correct view and one upon which the Church of God would insist. Arianism, which according to the Catholics allegedly sees the Holy Spirit as a creation of the son, is distinct from biblical Unitarianism. They are both viewed as the same, or similar heresy by the Catholics, who may also have invented the doctrine of the creation of the Spirit by the son, as there is no actual record of this view in the texts attributed to Arius (see also the papers Arianism and Semi-Arianism (No. 167) and Socinianism, Arianism and Unitarianism (No. 185)).

The Albigensians were not simply a branch of the Vallenses. The Albigensians were in two divisions, the Vallenses or Waldensians and the local Cathari or Puritans. The Cathari held quite distinctive and heretical views of good and evil based on a form of Gnosticism and Manichean Dualism. The distinction, among others, is made by Ray Roennfeldt in his thesis (An Historical Study of Christian Cosmic Dualism, Andrews University) (cf. the paper Vegetarianism and the Bible (No. 183)). The faith was often attacked by this dualist tendency. Where the Church was established, many so-called converts among the monastic orders often developed bizarre views. The Bogomils are an example. In the Bogomils and among the Bosnians, monastic asceticism accompanied an heretical dualism and attempted to undermine the general body of the faith. Errors also appear in earlier branches of the Paulicians. One error was that of the Melchisedekians who created another structured order developed from the Unitarian view. Melchisedek was held to be the angelic mediator and Christ the human mediator, below him. The Catholic writings seize on these contemporary heretical groups and link them to the Church at the time. They attribute these erroneous views to the Church, thus obscuring the true doctrines.

The entire Albigensian crusade was levelled against both elements by Rome in the thirteenth century. The Albigensians had protection in the south of France under Raymond Count of Toulouse. The Vallenses or Sabbatati were the greater and more widespread, and extended into Spain. We can reconstruct the doctrines of the Vallenses from the Spanish branch of the Sabbatati because of the intense persecution they suffered.”

The actual doctrines of the Waldensians can be seen from the Spanish Inquisition and the edicts against them there. Those edicts are also contained in the paper The Role of the Fourth Commandment in the Sabbath-keeping Churches of God (No. 170).

What is important in this work is the political direction and condemnations of these people as shown in the translated work here.

It is asserted, quite incorrectly that the sect appeared under Lucius, which is demonstrably false, as we know from other councils as early as the eight century at least and histories before that.

We see from the prologue that the Archbishop Bernard of Narbonne had condemned them previously but was unable to stamp them out.

The prologue recounts the condemnation under Raymond of Daventry.

We know from this text, which was highly selective and defamatory that they refused to accept the authority of the Church of Rome and its bishops and prelates. They refused to worship in its churches and preferred to worship in rooms and houses and unconsecrated buildings. The pagan symbolism of the Churches themselves is not canvassed here for obvious reasons but it is clear that is the case from the arguments against their avoidance of these buildings.

The dignity of the provosts are argued in Chapter II as the very financial structure of the Church was attacked by another religious system and thus they reasoned it had to be destroyed.

Chapter III argues that dignity of the Soul is the responsibility of the priests. This very point was the center of the dispute as the Soul doctrine was an anathema to the Waldensian Church who depended entirely on the Resurrection of the Dead and argued that the priests had become apostate and were disqualified on grounds of their immorality.

Thus, the chapter spends time on slander because it was that issue that was to protect the priests. Nevertheless, it did not save the Roman church as it still faced the Reformation on the same grounds a few centuries later.

In Chapter IV it is clear that those of rudimentary education, including what were referred to by the Roman priests as laymen, were used by the Waldensians to teach and the authority of the apostles were cited in this manner. The church condemned that position as they sought to ascribe to the Roman church the authority of Scripture and its interpretation and the right to educate and qualify teachers.

In Chapter V we get down to the real issue of the power of the bishops and prelates in diocese and in parishes and the Waldensians did not recognise their systems and divisions and preached wherever they could. It is also obvious that when this was written that marriage is raised as an issue. It must be remembered that by 1175 over the period of the Lateran Councils the monastic sodomites had seized control of the Church and the Waldensians were another great threat to the power of these people. It had taken the Roman Church centuries to remove married priests and in this century by 1175 they had finally succeeded.

In this chapter also we see an attempt at stifling what are the understanding of the mysteries of God as lifting the cover of a pit on so-called arcane matters of the Scriptures.

Chapter VI shows that the teaching of the Waldensians was contrary to the Roman Church on a number of matters and the Waldensians held to follow God rather than man and obey Scripture. The Roman defence here was that the church was the authority for the interpretation of Scripture.

As this was an inherently political act in those centuries they were thus in opposition to the political power which was sanctioned by the Roman system.

In Chapters VII and VIII they attack the role of women in the Church as the Waldensians used women very powerfully. There were houses and places where men could not access and the women were ordained as deaconesses and sent into those areas to preach and perform the sacraments. The monastic Sodomites had spent centuries stamping out the deaconesses from the Roman Church and had just finally succeeded and the Waldensians threatened this hard won victory. Because the barbes were not warlike they accused them of being effeminate also. Many of these priests were soldiers and many murdered the Muslims in the East and the Christians who opposed them in the West.

We see below the central issue where they say:

“See that it is clear that they do not lead firm men astray but corruptible women, who deserve to be led astray, especially those burdened by sins. They also led astray men with feminine weakness, just as is written: “A gathering of bulls amongst the cows of the population.” (Psalm lxvii) He calls the heretics bulls, those who are proud and untamed in their faults. They are those who congregate amongst the cows of the population; that is, amongst those who may be easily led astray.”

Chapter IX is directed at the heart of the Waldensian attacks on Roman Catholic heresy and innovation. The giving of alms for the dead to get them out of manufactured plights (such as purgatory and limbo) are defended here in this chapter and show that the rejection of the Waldensians of these dogmas were the very issues that were to cause the Reformation later. Indeed, it was with these people that the Reformation commenced.

It is with the very right of the Church to control absolution that we are concerned here.

Chapter IX goes on into Chapter X with the concept of heaven and hell and purgatory. Thus, the denial of purgatory is seen as conveying direct access to heaven and hell. This error shows that we are dealing with the Cathar Puritanism as well and that there are two doctrines here, one of the Resurrection seen with the Waldensians and the Cathar heaven and hell error, which nevertheless rejected purgatory.

Chapter XI confirms this view as they then go on to attack the other view, which is of the Resurrection and which rejects Heaven and Hell entirely. That was the Waldensian view and that of the Church of God from the beginning. Indeed it was the original view of the Church at Rome as we know from the R document. That document has been examined in the paper Original Doctrines of the Christian Faith (No. 88).

In Chapter XII we get down to the rejection of the Roman Church buildings and the reference to Stephen saying in Acts that the Most High does not dwell in buildings made of hands. Note the use of the term “praying to the church” by the Roman writer here as though the idols and relics are themselves sacred, which is what the real objection of the Waldensians was to the practice here.

Thus, the real issue was not that churches were not to be used to congregate, but rather the practice and teachings there were contrary to the laws of God and were idolatrous. However, the Roman Catholic writer does not properly canvass this issue, as it might further compromise his argument and reveal the true nature of Waldensian objections.

From this time forward, and from the Council of Geneoa, the Sabbatarians were delivered up in chains to be burned.

***************

Prologue

I. While Lord Lucius of famed memory was presiding over the Holy Roman Church, new heretics suddenly raised their heads. They called themselves the Waldensians, having chosen the name from some prophet of future events, who came from dense Valle, and therefore they involved themselves in the deep and weighty haunts of sin. These men, although condemned by the pontifex maximus, by their rash deeds cast forth the poison of their perfidy far and wide through the earth.

II. On account of this, Archbishop Bernard of Narbon, honoured in religion and the grace of God, and zealous in God’s law, on behalf of God’s Church, set this strong defence against them. He called as many clerics as laymen, as many religious men as heathens, to come to a verdict. What more can I say? With the matter most diligently investigated, their heretics were condemned.

III. Nonetheless, afterwards they dared both privately and publicly to spread the seed of their wickedness. From this they were called to return to a debate between both clerics and laymen, although it was beyond what was required. And, lest the matter be drawn out too long, an arbiter was elected by both sides, a certain priest, Raymond of Daventry; a man without doubt religious and god-fearing, of noble birth, but nobler in behaviour.

IV. Therefore, the day appointed for the matter having arrived, the sides met together, and those men, just as many clerics as laymen, were accused by true Catholics as being from that very fraternity in which they think evils. And with them pleading their case one at a time, the matter was debated for a while, back and forth, and from both sides many authorities were brought out. The allegations of the sides were heard; the aforesaid judge gave his opinion through a written decision, and he pronounced that there were heretics in the chapters, just as they had been accused.

V. They defended their own point of view, however, with evidence and arguments; I must reply to these, as a Catholic. So that I may protect the Catholic faith by the testimonies of the Scriptures, I have interwoven them in this present little work, having combined it with other works against other heresies. All these things, however, I have written most of all for men to be instructed: whether they are fellow clerics or those who have been brought into an offence or scandal against the faithful, over whom they command, because they were working either with a lack of authority or of books, and did not resist the enemies of truth. For these men are not strengthened by the Catholic faith, nor are they revived by the nourishment of the sacred Scriptures. Whence, abandoned by spiritual men, they rebel, as if beggars in the state of this present world, lest they mean to return to the homeland, indeed to Paradise. For the cause of preventing greater evil is a just one, for there to be thrown from the sheep-flock of Christ the hungry wolves, that is, the heretical and tyrannical demons, neither by the voice of praise nor the rod of discipline and severity.

VI. Therefore, I beg, let them take up, if they please, the poor gift of this little work, and let them commend to memory the evidence of the sacred fathers, so that, God have mercy, they might have impenetrable armour against the governors of darkness, against the spinners of falsehood, against the cultivators of wrong dogma, that is, against those pagan heretics; in order that, by the primal grace of God, they might both be strong to triumph over them, and merit the receipt of the unwithered wreath of glory from the supreme shepherd, because of this course and the teaching of these subjects.

Chapter I

Against their argument that one need not be obedient to the Pope, nor to the other prelates

I. First, therefore, they argue regarding disobedience, because they are indeed not obedient to the Roman Church, which is full of the power of restraining and freeing, and has the authority to manage other Churches.

II. Because of this, nor are they obedient to the bishops, nor to the priests; since, by the testament of the blessed Gregory, those bishops who are chosen to lead this way of life take the place of the disciples of Christ, and have the authority to bind or to free. Therefore by this authority there exist the Roman Church and the other bishops, just as it is said: “Whatever you bind on earth, it will have been bound in heaven; and whatever you free on earth will also have been freed in heaven.” (Matth. xvi) They bind the aforementioned heretics with the shackle of excommunication, with the Apostle: “being ready to punish all disobedience.” (II Cor. x.) As Augustine said in Against Johannes, “thus a Christian ought to fear nothing more strongly than to be separated from the body of Christ.”For if one is to be separated from the body of God, he is not a limb of it, and he is not nourished by His Spirit. The Apostle said, “But he who does not have a part of the spirit of Christ is not of him.” (Romans viii.) This also comes from the words of the Apostle: “Every Christian, beloved ones, who is excommunicated by the priests is said to be given up to Satan. How is this? It is because the Devil is outside the Church, just as Christ is within the Church. And because of this, it is as if he who has been removed from the ecclesiastical community is given to the Devil. And those, whom the Apostle preaches to have been handed over to Satan, are shown to have been excommunicated from him.” This is indeed what the Apostle also said to the Thessalonians: “If there is someone who does not obey our words in this letter, note this: do not associate with him, so that he might be ashamed.” (II Thess. iii.) Take note that the Apostle demands disobedience to be condemned, and that the offender be removed from society and interaction with others, so that, having been thrown out, he might be ashamed.

III. The Apostle also said to the Hebrews: “Be obedient to your superiors, and be subordinate to them. For they are watchful over your souls, as if about to give an account (of them).” (Hebr. xiii.) He also said to Timothy: “Let those elders who govern well be worthy of a double honour, and those especially who work in words and deeds.” (I Tim. v.) The elders have a double honour, that their instruction might be obeyed and they might minister aid to others with due respect being shown. The Lord also spoke, so that he might show that obedience must be extended to the prelates: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on the throne of Moses. Therefore whatever they say to you, obey them and do.” (Matt. xxiii) Also: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who spurns you, spurns me.” (Luc. X)

IV. Therefore Christ and the Apostles state that one must be obedient to the bishops and the elders: as a consequence whoever does not obey them lives disobedient to Christ and his apostles. Every error and incident of disobedience, as the Apostle demonstrates, “receives just punishment as its reward.” (Hebr. ii.) How therefore must they flee those who have neglected the teachings of Christ and his Apostles? Since those disobedient exist, they must be held as pagans and tax collectors, since the Lord said: “if someone does not hear the (teachings of the) Church, let him be to you as if a pagan or a tax collector.” (Matth. Xviii)

V. Moreover, one must abstain from interaction with such men, as is clear from the prescribing words of the Apostle to the Thessalonians. For even according to Mosaic Law, if a man is not obedient to the order of a priest, he must be executed, lest the people be corrupted by the evil of disobedience. Thus one finds in Deuteronomy: “Let the man be put to death by judicial decree, who will show himself arrogant by not obeying the order of a priest who at that time serves the Lord your God, and you will remove this evil from the people of Israel: and all the people, hearing this, will be fearful, so that no one afterwards will swell with pride.” (Deut. xvii). Therefore see how clear it is, how great is the crime of disobedience, when a man who does not obey a priest is put to death by the corporeal sword. In this time of true grace, because God does not wish the death of sinners, but that they might be converted and live (Ezech. xxxiii), they are not killed physically, but with a spiritual sword, and they are removed from participation in trust through the decree of the bishop, so that, since they have been rejected, they might be ashamed and repent.

VI. Indeed, whoever are disobedient are lumped together as infidels. As Samuel said: “to fight against him is to practise witchcraft” and “not to obey him is to commit the crime of idolatry.” (I Samuel xv). The blessed Gregory spoke concerning this topic also: “Obedience is that alone which possesses the merit of faith; a man without this is proven to be faithless, even if he might appear trustworthy.” The Apostle also mentions the sin of disobedience amongst the capital (mortal) crimes when speaking of “those gentiles replete with every sin: malice, fornication and avarice.” (Rom i). And a little later: “the doers of evil, not obedient to parents” (ibid.). To parents, just as the learned orthodox Christians comment, either actual or spiritual. And a little further on: “they who do things of such a kind are worthy of death: not only, however, those who do these things, but also those who consent that they be done.” (ibid.) Following Ambrosius, consent is when someone could censure the act, but remains silent, or when hearing of this, approves of it.

VII. It is no wonder if those who are disobedient to Ecclesiastical power deserve eternal death. For by the evidence of the Apostle: “There is no power, except through God, and those things which come from God are set in place. And so he who resists authority resists what has been ordained by God. Those who resist, however, procure damnation for themselves.” (Rom. xiii) Therefore let those aforementioned heretics, and those who agree to these things, listen to the instruction of the Apostle, when he says: “Let every spirit be subject to the higher power.” (ibid.) Just as, indeed, the Apostle writes in the Acts of the Apostles: “The Holy Spirit placed the bishops to rule over his flock and the Church of God which he won with his own blood.” (Acts xx) Therefore he who resists the bishops through pride sins against the Holy Spirit. For even when the Judaeans were muttering against Moses and Aaron, the answer was: “your grudges are not against us, but against God.” (Exod. xvi) Judas of Jacobus said to this end “Woe to those who die in defiance, together with Korah!” (Jud. 11) Korah and his accomplices rebelled against Moses and Aaron, the priests of the Lord, and without delay the fire of Heaven was sent. They burst into flames. Therefore they, who contradict the order of the priests, perish, like Korah, in defiance, and on that account are burned up by the heat of the eternal fire. Whence the “woe”, for there is to them eternal damnation.

VIII. Moreover, through the disobedience of Adam many sinners were created; and through the obedience of Christ, who was totally obedient to the Father, even to death, many just men have been spawned. Therefore whoever lives disobedient carries the image of that old man. Against this the Apostle says: “Just as we have carried the image of an earthly man, let us carry the image of a heavenly one.” (I Cor. xv) Wearing the virtue of obedience, just as they were thrown out of Paradise because of their disobedience, let us return all the more through our obedience, as if along another road. “Obedience is better than making sacrifices, and to obey is better than to offer a slaughtered ram.” (I Kings xv) This is because through sacrifices another flesh is honoured, but through obedience one’s own intention is rightfully glorified. Solomon said: “the obedient man will speak of victories.” (Prov. xxi) This is because while we are humbly subordinate to the voice of another, we ourselves conquer our own hearts. From all of this it is clear how great the virtue of obedience is, and how great is the crime of disobedience.

Chapter II

The dignity of the provosts is examined, and how they should be deferred to and obeyed

I. So that it might be clearly understood, by how much priests surpass others, and what deference and obedience must be paid to them, the words of the Saviour should be considered. He said to a leper who was cured: “Go, show yourself to the priest and offer a gift as a testament, as Moses ordered.” (Luc. v) Indeed, it is the duty of priests to discern and to judge who are Catholics and who have been contaminated with an heretical disease. Whence is the reason that since the Lord healed many sick men, he often sent lepers to priests. In the body of a leper the colour is varied, which signifies the truth in the heretical man intermixed with falsehood. Clearly the Lord did not wish the leper, even if purged, to be attached to the society of men without the judgement of a priest, so that he might show him, who had wandered from the unity of Catholicism, and who had perhaps repented by chance, that he may not be attached to assemblies of faithful men without the decision of a priest. He is ordered to make, in show of his devotion and humility, an offering to the priest; so that equally he might show himself obedient to the priest, he sacrifices his victim, with divine knowledge kissing his hand [that is, with the Church looking on].

II. Also, some clerics provide food, but others graze as if sheep: the first live from the altar, the latter truly ought to give offerings. The first are able to give sinners to Satan, but the others sit before them; nor should they bear those things, which are the province of God without the counsel of the former. Whence Jerome wrote in to Heliodorus: “One thing for the cleric, another for the monk. Clerics feed sheep, I graze. They live from the altar, for me is placed an axe as if at the root of a fruitless tree. If I do not bring an offering to the altar, it is not permitted me to sit before an elder. They are permitted, if I sin, to send me to Satan in the destruction of flesh, so that my spirit might be safe at the day of the Lord.” He also wrote in to Rusticus: “The Church has a Senate, a gathering of elders, without the judgement of which no monk is allowed to act. Rohobo’am the son of Solomon laid waste to the kingdom because he did not wish to listen to his own elders. The Romans also have a Senate, and all things are done with its approval, and we have our own Senate, a gathering of elders.”

III. Moreover, he who doubts divine law ought to run without delay to the priests and to question (them). For they are the men through whom the Creator of all faithful men commanded that the people feed. This what the Lord did to his own five disciples when he gave them seven loaves of bread, that they might place them before the crowds. He provided a spiritual doctrine for priests who succeed to the course of the disciples: so that they, as if good stewards, are ministers of food to the souls of the family of God, so the hungry do not want for food in the course of this life. Hence it is written: “who do you think is a trustworthy and prudent steward, whom the Lord appointed above his own family, so that he might give a measure of wheat to them from time to time?” Whence the Lord struck down Paul, and Saul besides, in the street, but he did not teach what they ought to do; he sent them, however, into the city of Anania to the disciples, to be taught. And neither did the angel, who appeared to the religious centurion, give up the matter on trust, but he ordered Simon to be fetched so that the man might be instructed through him who ought to do it.

IV. From these examples it is may be clearly understood that no one ought to presume to teach another the way of perfection, except if he lives in a Christian community, that is, in the Holy Church, and is a disciple of Christ. Since Christ (or his messenger) did not want to teach Saul or the Centurion, they showed that the guardianship of the Church must be held invulnerably, and none, without exception, may hold it, apart from those who have succeeded to the course of the disciples, that is, the bishops and the men of the Church, to whom the Lord entrusted this duty. As it is written, and as Malachia testifies: “The lips of a priest guard knowledge, and they bring out the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.” See how great is the merit of a priest. For he is, as is written in Ezekiel, the treasury in the house of the Lord; he guards the treasure of wisdom and knowledge in his own breast, and from his mouth, with the Lord’s command, the law must be sought. This the Lord himself taught, by the evidence of the Evangelist, by example, when he sat in the temple, amongst the learned men, and listened to them, and asked them questions. He taught likewise in the holy Church that the most heavenly knowledge must also be learnt neither in the forum nor in the streets, so that as much as it is well understood and committed to memory, so much in the Church will there be more leisure for attentive study in matters not temporal but divine.

V. How true is it, that a priest, an angel of the Lord, is called a messenger? Certainly he is sent to announce celestial justice, and therefore even if he is to be personally despised, he must be honoured as a proxy of the Lord. From the evidence of the blessed Gregory: “Often a powerful man has a contemptible slave, and he demands from him some response, either from strangers or perhaps from his own family; a person should not be despised when speaking as a servant, because he is preserved in the reverential heart of the Lord who sent him.” And therefore some priest, even if by chance he is rightly despised by someone ought to preserve in his own mind reverence for the Lord for whom he is sent.

VI. Sinners ought to confess their crimes to priests, so that they might be absolved from the fetters of their guilt. The Lord says this on the matter, to a man dead for four days: “Lazarus, come out of doors.” (John xi) Since he had come forth while alive, through the disciples he was loosed from his bonds, and the Lord ordered them: “Untie him, and allow him to go away.” (ibid.) The dead come out when a sinner confesses his crime. The disciples untied him when he came out (of the tomb). The preachers of the Church ought to exonerate him who merits it, who was not ashamed to confess what he has done. Indeed, Judas confessed his crime, but he was not a disciple of Christ, but of the Jews. He said: “I have sinned, by betraying noble blood.” (Matth. xxvii) And his confession did not aid him.

VII. Not only should the presbyters absolve, but they should also bind the guilty, and hand over to Satan the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit might be safe. Whence the Lord said: “Their sins, which you remit, are remitted by them, and those you remember, will be remembered.” (Matth. xvi) Indeed, by the evidence of Gregory, the disciples, in the study of whom the bishops occupy themselves, for the sake of God, do not absolve the sins of some, but absolve those of others. The Apostle also said of a fornicator: “I have decided in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (that is, for the sake of him, and for his glory); “to hand (this man) over to Satan, so that the spirit might be safe on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. v) He handed the man over to Satan so that he might be physically badgered and that he might repent. According to some, either the death of the body must be understood, or else excommunication, that is, the consignment to Satan... For in this way the devil has no rule over a man after he had been vindicated by his faith. But after a man, on account of a sin, is cut off from the sacraments of the Church, which are for him amour against Satan, let him then be tied under Satan’s yoke.

VIII. Moreover, the Holy Spirit reckons up the dignity of a priest readily (that is, what he deserves), and through him cares for the chosen people, concerning which Caiphas prophesied when he was bishop. There the Evangelist clearly bestowed the gift of prophecy on the divine sacrament, saying: “since he was pontiff” (John xi) (that is to say, pontifex maximus). He passed as water through the stone canals to the places of the spice-men, that is, as a waterer of spiritual grace, often flowing through the obdurate and unfeeling minds of the governors; he poured into and watered the spirits of the virtuous, which were sown and scented with perfume.

IX. The blessed James also showed how necessary and useful is the order of priests, when he said: “Who amongst you is weakened? Let him send for the elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. For this prayer in faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall heal him: and if he has sins, they will be forgiven.” (James v). See both that the prayer of the priest saves him and that through it God heals the sick man and forgives his sins. So too, therefore, he saves, as long as the prayer of the elders aids the body and the mind, in relieving sickness and remitting sins. Equally the Apostle punishes those who bring forward heretics and desert the elders; since he orders the elders to be brought forth, not the heretics. Silently, he also reprehends even those very Christians who, when they are sick, do not go to the elders, but send to the doctors; and who with the order reversed, afterwards send (for the elders); since often the weakness of the mind is the cause of corporeal infirmity. Whence the Lord resolved the sins of a paralysed man who had been brought to him first, saying, “son, your sins are forgiven;” (Luc. v) and afterwards his body became healthy. “For once the cause is discerned, the effect is relieved.”

X. It is the role of the priests to decide on questions, which arise concerning the Christian religion. Whence Moses, climbing the mountain, said to the senior men of Israel: “Wait here, until we come back. You have Aaron and Hur with you, and if some question arises, you will take it to them.” (Exod. xxiv) Indeed questions arising amongst believers, concerning belief or Christian worship, should be referred to the bishops and the elders. It comes from this that because of these and other necessities bishops (from individual cities) and elders (from individual churches) are appointed by the papacy. Wherefore the Apostle said to Titus: “I left you in Crete, so that you might set right the matters which need attention, and appoint elders from each town, just as I assigned you to do,” (Tit. i) In the Acts of the Apostles it is held that Paul and Barnabus set up elders in each Church.

XI. Truly it must be observed that the bishops are received in the name of the elders, just as in the Letter to Titus before, and similarly the priests, as was seen a little above in Acts. For the position is can be reversed and sometimes, in the name of bishops, sometimes lesser priests are named, just as in Philippians, where the Apostle says: “Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all devout people who are in Philippi, with the bishops and the deacons.” (Phil. i) For in one city there are not many bishops, or, speaking about the bishops, he places the silent bishops in a lower order, that is, (the order) of the deacons, except that he calls the bishops priests. Sometimes bishops are called greater priests in appropriate contexts, just as even daily communication demonstrates.

XII. This said on transgressions, one should know what is in the New Testament, when the question arises whether it behoves believers to be circumcised, and the law of Moses to be observed: Paul and Barnabus resolved that believers should so remain as they and those same Apostles might consider proper, and that they (from other places) should go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this question. “And they decided to see the apostles and elders about the matter.” (Acts xv) And together the apostles and elders decided the question; and they worked out regarding this, a letter of instruction for the believers necessitated, just as is written in the Acts of the Apostles.

XIII. From this example it is clear that when doubt arises regarding the practice of the Christian faith, one must have recourse to the highest patriarch, who performs his duty like the blessed Peter; and to others, both archbishops, who represent the apostles, and bishops, who preserve the course of other practices, whom Luke, in Acts (as quoted above) called elders (presbyters), and finally to elders. For if the Apostles Paul and Barnabus did not take it up themselves to decide such a great question, except in consultation with the apostles and the elders, and once a thorough exploration of the question had been made; it must be considered alarming how much presumption and madness there is about these matters which concern the faith of God and His system, that people questions not the priests of Christ but others, and especially heretics or evil Catholics.

XIV. To this, the Apostle, in the letter to the Corinthians, says regarding transitory matters that the faithful ought not to have the matter decided before unbelievers, but before holy men: “Does someone of us, having business against another, dare to be judged by sinners, but not the holy? You do not know that we will judge the angels? How much more pertinent is this in secular matters? But if you are to judge the world, are you incapable of judging trivial matters?” (I Cor. vi) And later: “So too is there not a wise man amongst you, who is able to settle a dispute between his own brethren? But a brother contends with another brother for judgement, and this in done before unbelievers? Indeed, already it counts against you, that you have court cases amongst yourselves.” (ibid.) If therefore the holy (that is, the believers, not the unbelievers) ought to pass judgement in lesser matters, so much more are unbelievers unworthy to judge on matters regarding the Christian religion and faith. Especially since Moses warns each and every one, saying: “Question your father and he will relate matters to you: question your betters, and they will speak to you.” (Deut. xxxii) Who is the father, or the betters, whom we ought to question, if not the guardians of spirits, who educate us in pious behaviour, as if they are rearing spiritual sons? And because by worthiness or merit they surpass us, they are called our “betters”, or by another name our “seniors”. About whom Saint Peter says, writing to the faithful: “I supplicate those seniors who are amongst you, I, a fellow senior and witness to Christ’s sufferings. Nourish the flock of God which is amongst you.” (I Petr. v) And a little after: “Likewise, young men, be obedient to the older men.” (Ibid.)

XV. See that it is clearly of importance, this flock of the faithful which ought to be nurtured, indeed, by their own seniors. For just as the blessed Gregory says: “the Holy Scripture calls those men old, who are mature in respect of the dignity of their habits, not the length of time, as it is written: old age is venerable, not in a long-lasting age, nor in the calculation of the number of years; old age is, however, the mature wisdom of a man, and old age marks a spotless life.” Also, young men are said to be those who are not weighed down by any dignity of wisdom. He is first to order some of the apostles to be subordinate to the older ones, so that extreme levity (lit, the lightness of lightnesses) might be weighed down by the dignity of dignities, following that text: “you shall be holy when with an holy man, and innocent with an innocent.” (Psal. xvii) In which words those men, who do not obey the wishes of the elders (that is, the prelates) are censured, and so are seen by the Apostle Paul to be disobedient.

XVI. Finally, just as the Lord said to them, in the character of Aaron the priest and his sons, “it is the mark of a priest to decide between the sacred and the profane, between the worldly and the unworldly (or, “the clean and the unclean”), and to teach all lawful things which God dictated to the children of Israel through the hand of Moses.” Just as is written in Leviticus: “The Lord said to Aaron: you shall not drink wine or anything else which causes inebriation, and then enter the Tent of my presence, and you and your children, or else you will die; this law is eternal for your race.” (Lev. x.) And “So that you may have the knowledge to discern the sacred from the profane, the polluted from the clean, and so that you might teach the children of Israel all my laws, which the Lord spoke to us through the hand of Moses.” (ibid.). From which matter it appears clearly that it is the role of the elders, not others, to determine who is holy, that is, Catholic, and who is profane, that is, heretical; or, who are clean of the stain of a crime, and who are not clean (that is, who are criminal). Moreover, he has charge of teaching the faithful the laws of God. Therefore it is damnable for others, who are not of the tribe of Levi (that is, from the clerical order), to usurp their duty in judging or teaching.

XVII. See that I have collected a little material about many things to show how great is the dignity and authority of both bishops and priests: by which I think that those who thus far have been rebels against them must humbly submit to them.

Chapter III

Against those who disparage the guardian of souls

I. But there are those who disparage the guardians of souls, and those who censure them with danger to their own souls: let me say a little to correct them. Let listen those of such a kind who, with the evidence of the Apostle: “are detestable slanderers of God, and blabbermouths, and trouble-makers who deserve death.” (Rom. i) A slanderer is he who diminishes the good qualities of a neighbour as much as he is able, and places upon him evil qualities which he does not have. A blabbermouth however is one who secretly passes on evil from neighbour to neighbour. A trouble-maker is he who willingly inflicts some disgrace or dishonour on a neighbour, either in word or in deed. The Apostle also said to the Corinthians: “If he who is called a brother is a liar” (that is, a slanderer), do not take food with him.” And following: “Slanderers will not possess God’s kingdom.” (I Cor. Vi)

II. Therefore since a slanderer or liar must not be received into a community of the faithful and deserves death, seeing that he is someone who shall not possess the kingdom of God; particularly however, he is prohibited from slandering a guardian of the people. Whence Paul, when it was ordered by the head priest Ananias that he be struck in the mouth, being ignorant that he was the head priest, said: “May the Lord strike you, you white-washed wall! And those who stood by said, ‘do you slander the high priest of God?’” Paul answered: “I did not know, brothers, that he is the high priest. For it is written that you shall not speak evil to the ruler of your people.” (Acts xxiii) See, however, that it is openly permitted that the leader of the people act against the law, and (it is permitted) for him to decide that a man be struck, and Paul says that slander must not be committed, and he demonstrates this by the authority of the Scripture. Therefore they weigh up carefully, how much damnation those who speak slander against the guardians of the Church deserve; if the Apostle forebears to slander an unbeliever, and one acting out deeds contrary to the law, from the time he realised him to be a leader of men. And he said that he had committed slander because he did not know that he was the ruler over the people.

III. Moreover, Ham saw the naked genitals of his father Noah and laughed; and he was damned with his descendants, when Noah said: “slanderous Canaan will be a boy slave to his brothers” (Gen ix) Therefore one ought not to add to the evils of his own betters, or rashly to divulge them, or to rejoice when seeing them: otherwise he will be damned into posterity; that is, in the future. Truly the sons of Noah, coming with their backs turned, covered the private parts of their father with the cloak from their backs, thrown over him. Just as the blessed Gregory said: “Because the good (sons) were obedient, they were so unhappy with the harm done to their superior that they hid his genitals from others: and deciding on this course of action and revering their guardian, they did not wish to see what they covered.”

IV. And let those aforementioned slanderers take notice that holy David humbly obeyed Saul who was a king, although an arrogant one, but chosen by God: but Saul persecuted and wished to kill David; but finally, once his own crimes were weighed up, he was reproved by God, and David was chosen by the Lord for the governorship of the kingdom. Therefore things were such, and since David obeyed the evil king, it is written about him: “Who, like David, has come into all things, entering your kingdom, leaving it, and proceeding to the power of a king?” On the other hand, although he was able to strike the king who was persecuting him, he prostrated himself in an expression of humility, saying: “Whom do you persecute, King of Israel, who is it? a dead dog and a flea.” Therefore let subordinates learn from this, it is permitted for humble men, and innocents, once they have preferred the powers of God to their own, to defer to a wise men against their own judgement, not to disparage them, to obey them, not to speak against them. Likewise David, when his servants wanted to attack Saul, who had entered the cave where they were hiding. He crushed them with an answer, that he ought not send a band of the Lord against a Christian. He rebelled secretly however, and cut off the hem of Saul’s cloak. And because he did this, afterwards David berated himself. See that although he considered himself anointed by God and chosen, it was permitted to him to seek to kill, but David did not wish to, and because he had cut the hem of Saul’s cloak, he regretted it. Regarding this episode the blessed Gregory said: “The deeds of those who have been placed in positions of power through the sword of words must not be borne, even when they are rightly judged as being worthy of punishment. If a tongue is mistaken, whether against them or in lesser matters, it is necessary for a heart to be ‘burnt’ by inflicting punishment on it, up to the point at which he punishes himself. And when those in high power err, let them be afraid of His judgement against them, by which they placed themselves in command. For when we in positions of power wander, we oppose the judgement of Him who offered them to us.”

V. See that I have demonstrated, with the authorities of the Holy Scriptures and with sacred examples, how much reverence must be shown, once disparaging has been removed, and that towards the prelate’s deference must be shown, not disparagement or slander. Otherwise we both go against the orders of God and do not stand in the footprints of the holy.

Chapter IV

Against their argument that all, even laymen, should preach. And what they say about this, and what we say against them.

I. Heretics argue: everyone, everywhere, should preach, without regard for condition, age or sex. And since many who in appearance are called Christians are led into this error, having recovered some of them back by grace, and proving the remainder (to be heretics), let us see, God willing, on what line of arguments or authorities they support themselves, what may be said by Catholics to weaken these arguments which are hollow within, and lastly what Catholics draw on in their own argument.

II. First of all, they say that every person who knows how to sow the word of God amongst the people must preach. James says about this: “It is a sin for someone to know how to do good, and not to do it.” (James iv) However, if we know how to preach a sermon, and we cease doing so, have we sinned gravely? When indeed the heretics draw on the Scripture for their own argument, it provides a response: it is written in the Gospel that the Devil spoke to the Lord Jesus: “‘I know who you are, Holy Son of God.’ And Jesus threatened him, saying: ‘Be silent.’” (Mark. i) See that the Lord did not wish to preach through the mouth of the Devil, although he said that he know him; lest by chance in offering a falsehood he might deceive half-wits as to the truth, as though he had seduced a woman into degradation. So too, student, the name of Christ should not be sent out from your mouth, even if you know how: lest, in the manner of a poisoner, while you are believed to deliver, with all the guilelessness in the world, drinking cups coated with honey, you have poured in poison and mixed it in. Regarding evil men indeed it is written: “the bile of dragons is their wine, and the incurable poison of adders.” (Deut xxxii) The incurable poison of adders is the dogma of the heretics, because whoever drinks it, that is, learns about it by actively listening, without doubt is granted death.

III. Moreover, the Apostle did not say that it is good for the knowledgeable to teach, rather that it is good for them to act. (James iv) Therefore, this statement must be understood to concern him who understands what is good and does not act upon it, and who sins in this matter. It does not apply to him who knows how to teach what is good and does not do it. For not every man sins when he does not teach what he knows: he sins all the more deeply, if he teaches when he himself, however, is a liar. For David says: “God said to the sinner, ‘why do you explain my justice and declare my testament through your mouth?’” (Psal. xlix) And the Apostle says this: “Do you, who teach others, not also teach yourself? Do you, who are glorified in the Law, dishonour God through the false enactment of that Law?” (Rom ii.)

IV. Also, they draw on this for applause for their error: “He who hears this must say, ‘come!’” (Rev. xxii) To this the blessed Gregory said: “The more he received in his heart the voice of celestial love, the more let him return the voice of exhortation out of doors to his neighbours.” Gregory also said “In how much you avail of divine largess, give ladles of good words to your neighbours.”

V. To this we respond: that if these things are diligently scrutinised by them, the passages are of no use to them in their erroneous observations. When he said: “he who hears this must say, ‘come!’” it should be understood from this that the man who does not hear the voice of fraternal love inwardly in his heart, or who does not hear the voice of God through the ears of his body, or through his heart (although that is a part of the body); or yet someone not filed with this service, should not say “come.” For who, when he does not submit to the word of God, and does not fulfil it with his works, is able to attract another to that obedience through his guise? Or, how does he construct the obedience in another, which he demolishes in himself? Therefore those who do not heed the word of God exist in disobedience all the more deep, just as was demonstrated above, and ought not teach others. Whence the blessed Gregory gave this homily: “As much as you may think you have advanced, even so draw others with you, and desire to have companions on the way of God.” And it is clear from these words that the blessed Gregory advises people to exhort their neighbours; those who have advanced and were on the path of God; and he advises them that they should draw others along with however much they have advanced. But heretics do not advance, but rather they fall back, and they are not on the path of God; rather, as it is written: “He makes them wander in the wilderness, not on the path.” (Psal. cvi) Therefore they ought not to encourage others. For their works, if faith is wanting, are of this kind, even if they are of great power and a short cut along the road.

VI. Also they draw upon for their argument what is said in the Gospel of Mark: John answers the Lord, saying: “‘Teacher, we have seen someone casting out devils in your name, a person who does not follow us, and we forbade him do it.’ Jesus said, however, ‘Do not forbid him. For there is no one who does a virtuous deed in my name and can easily speak evil about me, for who is not against you is with you.” (Mark ix)

VII. They say: See that they say that he does not follow the apostles; and however, because he cast out devils in the name of Christ, the Lord ordered them that they not prohibit it. Therefore, if we preach the name of Christ, although we do not follow bishops or other priests, they ought not to stop us.

VIII. But we respond to this that the passage does not aid them, but rather it harms them. For the man both did good things, because he cast out demons, and he did them in the name of Christ, just as if he had faith, and he did not speak evilly. Regarding this matter, although a man might not follow the apostles in body, he must not be prohibited from doing good deeds, because by living spiritually, according to the faith, and doing (good) works, he follows the apostles and does not introduce contrary dogma. But these men are both unbelievers and without obedience, “which possesses merit in faith alone.” Since, following the Apostle, “It is impossible to please God without faith.” (Hebr. xi) And works actually take them further away from the road of faith; and through them they do not approach God, but withdraw from him, and become tellers of lies, and cultivators of contrary dogmas. Therefore those who act against the priests of Christ should be prevented from doing so. On these topics learned Catholics have also written, saying that the communal sacrament, which exists with us, does not exist in heretics and bad Catholics, but we ought to detest this and put a stop to the division and the notion opposing peace and truth, by which they oppose us and do not, with us, follow the Lord.

IX. Also, they say that the Apostle supports them when he says: “Some preach Christ on account of their jealousy and quarrelsomeness, but some on account of their goodwill.” (Phil. i) For some envy the glory of the Apostle and aim to gain it, trying to bring peace to themselves by the praise-worthy action of preaching. Others preach Christ because they wish all men to come to the recognition of the truth. A little later, the Apostle says: “What does it matter? Provided that Christ is announced in every possible way, whether through truth or through opportunism. I rejoice because of this, and I shall continue to rejoice.” (ibid.) See that they say, “the Apostle rejoices,” in whatever way Christ “is preached, whether by jealous men or by good, with good intentions or with distorted ones.” Therefore, why do the bishops not likewise rejoice when Christ is preached by us but actually contradict us? To this I say that it is a great concern by whom Christ is preached: by Catholics or by non-Catholics. That Christ is preached sometimes by good Catholics, sometimes by bad (that is, those jealous or having hate for their brothers), is the same as the sheep of Christ being looked after now by shepherds, now by mercenaries. Regarding this it is said: “On the chair of Moses sat the scribes and the Pharisees; do what they say to you, and do not do what they do.” (Matth. xxiii) Regarding good men, however, the Apostle says: “Remember your former leaders, who spoke to you the word of God. And imitate their faith, taking note of their manner of living and their death.” (Hebr. xiii) Regarding non-Catholics, that is, heretics, it is said: “Take notice of the false prophets who come to you in the clothes of sheep. Within, however, they are ravenous wolves.” (Matth. vii) And as if someone had asked in what way true prophets may be differentiated from false ones, the Lord advised: “You will recognise them by their fruits.” (ibid.) Because they suppress the faithful, they blaspheme against God in their deeds, if not in their words. Most easily, however, they may be discerned through their lack of patience in times of adversity. They are identical to good men in fasting, speech and things of that kind. Therefore they may be discovered not in their leaves (that is, in their speeches), but in their product. Whence the Apostle: “I shall come quickly to you, if the Lord wishes it, and I shall become acquainted with not just the speech of those who are proud, but their power. For the kingdom of God lies not in words but in power.” (I Cor. iv) As if he were saying “I shall not become acquainted with their foliage, but their fruit.”

X. Moreover, Christ is the truth, just as he said: “I am the way, the truth and the life.” (John xiv) Therefore he who makes up and spreads contradictory dogma does not preach Christ. Therefore the Apostle spoke about those bad Catholics (that is, the mercenaries) who speak nonetheless about Christ (that is, the truth). These men however fabricate their own lies and on that account attention must be paid to them, along with the orders of the Lord, that is, that one must be diligently beware of them. And so we do not rejoice in their preaching, because they do not preach Christ, but falsehood, and because they are not guardians, nor hirelings, but wolves, since shepherds must be heard and imitated, as just now we proved using the Apostle’s evidence. Hirelings must be heard, so that the matters which they teach through the Word might happen, but they are not to be imitated in their labour, just as the Lord said. Wolves must be attended to and shunned. Whence the Apostle: “I ask, brothers, that you take notice of those who make dissension and obstacles to the doctrine which you teach, and I ask that you turn away from them; for in this way they do not serve the Lord Christ, but their own stomachs; and through sweet speeches and benedictions they seduce the hearts of the innocent.” (Rom. xvi) See that people of such a kind should be avoided. And why? Because they make dissension, removing those who trust them from the sentiment of the faithful, and even making offence against their neighbour, since it is written: “Live without offence to the Jews and the Gentiles and the Church of God.” (I Cor. x) In this, indeed, take care that you “please everyone by doing everything” which is permitted to be done or forbidden to be done (that is, that you do or do not do). On that account he joins opposition to and stumbling blocks for them together, because whoever believes anything else goes against how many other believers, “dashing against the stone of offence and the rock of scandal.” Whence the Apostle called them “sinning against their brothers and wounding their weak conscience.” An example of this is seen in them: “you sin against Christ,” whose limbs they are. (I Cor. viii) The Apostle therefore orders that dissension be avoided, when he says: “I beseech you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you say the same things and there are not factions amongst you. But rather be smoothed in the same feeling” (that is, wishing the same thing) “and knowledge” (that is, belief). (Cor i) On the other hand, he ordered them to beware of offence, when he said: “Resolve all the more that you will never place a stumbling block for your brother, or make a cause of offence.” (Rom xiv)

XI. Therefore the heretics who make dissension and stumbling blocks act contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle, and are therefore to be shunned.

XII. On the other hand, they use as evidence for their own position what Moses said to Joshua. For when Joshua wished to stand in the way of two men who had remained in the camp and were prophets; Moses said to him, “Do you rival my interests? Would that someone would allot to all these people the power of prophecy; and would that the Lord give to them his Spirit.” (Num xi) See that the heretics say, “Moses did not envy the prophets, on the contrary he desires that the whole population are prophets. The order of clerics resists us, however, and envies the prophets, that is, the exponents of the mysteries of the word of God.” Prophecy is the foreknowledge of future events, the revelation of things hidden away, or the exposition of dark mysteries. There are therefore clerics similar not to Moses, but to Joshua, both because they do not follow in the footsteps of the holy, but of the jealous, and they sin and must not be heeded when they speak against us.

XIII. To this we say that just like Moses, we wish that the whole population would prophesy and that the Lord would give to them his Spirit, and also the truth, of which we cannot speak enough, and that the mouths of all should sound. “But everyone has a peculiar gift from God [that is, a gift peculiar to himself], one this, another that. He gave the gift of apostleship to some, others he made prophets, others evangelists, others shepherds and learned men.” (I Cor. vii) This is similar to what the Apostle said: “I wish all men to be as I myself” (ibid.), as containers, but “each has a peculiar gift from God.” The mark of God however is not dissension, but peace, just as the Apostle teaches in every holy Church. Therefore prophecy is not given to all. And I say that prophecy is not given to them, for prophecy is the gift of God; they, however, make dissension and stumbling blocks, as was said above. Therefore God is not with them, since he lives in the peaceful and the concordial. Whence the Apostle: “Have peace, and the God of peace and love will be with you.” (II Cor. xiii) And elsewhere: “Supporting each other in love, be anxious to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace.” (Ephes. iv) These men however neither have nor love Catholic peace, but rather they make dissension and discord amongst the Christian people. And therefore because some follow them, some others are irresolute as to whether they ought to follow them or true Catholic men. Therefore there is not in them the unity of the Spirit, which is preserved in the restraints of peace.

XIV. Therefore I am not jealous of their prophesying, because they are not prophets, except perhaps false ones, regarding whom the Lord said: “Be on your guard against false prophets” (Matth. vii) and so on. Jeremiah too spoke to the Israelites regarding this: “Your prophets saw for you false things; they did not show you your sin, with the purpose of encouraging your repentance.” (Lam. ii) Of such a kind are they who are seers for the Christian people, and they assert falsehoods. Since it is written: “Shout, do not cease to tell my people of their sins, and the sins of them of the house of Jacob.” (Isa. lviii) The heretics, on the contrary, do not announce to the faithful the sins which they have committed, and they do not urge them to repent. Therefore rightly are they cast away, as if false prophets. The Lord said also: “False Messiahs and false prophets will rise, and they will give many prodigious signs so that they might lead even the chosen people into error, if it is possible.” (Matth. xxiv) Even in later times false Messiahs will gives signs and therefore deceive many people. It is no wonder then, when those who give no signs deceive the trust of many and through sweet speeches seduce the hearts of the innocent.

XV. To this they say: many laymen spread the word of God amongst the believing population, such as the blessed Honoratus and the blessed Equitius, whom the blessed Gregory records in his book of dialogues, and in this time the holy Raymond, known as Paul, to whose attestation of sainthood many miracles occurred. Finally, the first apostles were both monoglots (idiotae) and illiterate. (Acts iv) And all these men, although laymen, preach or preached the word of God. And therefore we are imitators of their acts, and should not be repelled, but rather heard.

XVI. To this, however, I shall respond that true apostles were illiterate before their calling, but “the Lord appeared to them in their minds, so that they could understand the Scriptures.” (Luc xxiv) He poured into them the Holy Spirit, and he himself sent them to preach the kingdom of God. Moreover, they did not preach untruths, but the Catholic faith and the will of the Lord. And because of this they worked new and unusual miracles, through the grace of God, “with God willing, by confirming their speech, by accompanying signs.” (Mark. xvi) But these men do not understand the sacred writings, just as the Apostle says: “some have lost the way, and keep company with lies; they wish to be learned in the laws, but they understand neither what they say nor the arguments which they assert.” (I Tim. i) They do not understand because they lack faith, without which no one is able to have the gift of intelligence, just as is written: “Unless you believe, you will not understand.” (Isa. vii) Also, they do not understand because they do not act. If they were to do what is written, they would understand well, just as is written: “The good man comes to understanding in doing everything.” (Psal. cx) The same happens when the vine is taken from the farmers who are not producing fruit, and given to others who produce fruit in their own time. And a talent was taken from a fat servant who did not wish to carry out trade. Thus the Lord said to the Jews: “May the kingdom of God be taken from you” (that is, understanding of the Holy Scriptures) “and it will be given to the tribe who produce fruits.” (Matth. xxi) They truly do not have the Holy Spirit because they go away from the Holy Church, outside of which it (i.e., the Holy Spirit) is given to no one. Whence is what the Lord said to the disciples: “Rule in the town until you may be clothed in the power from above.” (Luke xxiv) The Church indeed is the city of a great king, in which leaders are clothed in the power of the Highest. Whence the impassioned Spirit: “He fills the whole house where they are seated.” (Acts ii) That is, (he fills) the Holy Church where the humble receive the Holy Spirit. For it is written: “On whom does my spirit rest, except upon the humble, and the quiet and he who trembles at my words?” (Isa. lxvi) They are truly not humble as long as they place themselves before the guardians of the Church. On the contrary, humble David, who placed the proud king before himself when he said: “Whom do you persecute, King of Israel, who is it? A dead dog and a single flea.” (I Kings. xxvi) It should be noted how humble he regards himself when he names himself a dead dog and a single flea. And what of Saul, although reproved by God, whom he (David) called the King of Israel? To this let both heretics and other arrogant Christians take note of how greatly they ought to defer to the powers of the Church, or of secular authorities, whose merit in the eyes of God they ignore, if the holy David held respect for the proud king, whom he knew to have been reproved by God, and to have elected himself to the governorship of the kingdom.

XVII. Moreover, they walk restlessly, “doing nothing,” as the Apostle says regarding those similar to them, and “not minding their own business.” And also regarding others, whom the Apostle orders to “worship in silence, eating their own bread.” (II Thess. iii) (That is, of their own labour, not of another.) Since they are arrogant, and restless, there does not repose within them the Holy Spirit, who inhabits the humble and the quiet.

XVIII. Their arguments regarding holy laymen, that they have preached the Word of God, would in no way be put forward, if they would take note of the words of the blessed Gregory. For he says regarding the blessed Honoratus that he glittered with miracles even from above through the virtue of abstinence, through humbleness and through his other virtues. He also transfixed the mound of a huge rock, which was coming from the sky and about to destroy his brothers, with an invocation in the name of Christ and the sign of the cross, through the extension of his right hand in opposition. Gregory testifies that he had not heard that Honoratus had the teaching of another. Heretics cling to him, saying that they receive the likeness of him after the disciples, although they have no teachers. But let them take note of the argument the blessed Gregory applies. For he says: “The application of the correct manner of life is for him not to dare to be leader who has not learned to be subordinate.” The same man said: “This liberty must not be dragged down into imitation, lest someone presume himself to be likewise filled with the Holy Spirit; that is, presumes to be untaught by a human instructor, since he despises to be the student of a man, and he then becomes a teacher of error.” and so on. And also: “This should revered by the weak, but not imitated.”

XIX. The blessed Equitius was also inspired by an angel, and was sent. By night the imposing youth stood near him in a vision, and placed on his tongue a lancet, saying: “See that I have placed my words in your mouth: go and spread them.” That same Spirit shone with chastity, clear-speech, zeal of intention, doctrine, humbleness, prophecy and power in driving unclean spirits away. It is therefore no wonder if they are educated and sent from God, and if so many, being strong in virtues, preach, even if they are not members of a holy order. Indeed, let the heretics learn from the example of this man that they ought without delay to be obedient to both the pontifex maximus and the bishops. For called by the Roman Pope through the protector Vitalianus, Equitius continuously gave praise to God; and ordered at once that some mares be prepared within the hour; and he began to urge Vitalianus most vehemently that they ought to depart that same hour. But because Vitalianus was tired from his journey at his command they remained that night. The next day the pontifex maximus decreed through another announcement that Equitius, the servant of God, should not move from his monastery. Having heard this, the servant of God, made however gloomy because they had not made haste, remained. See that this holy man was obedient to the Roman Pope, both in leaving and in remaining.

XX. Also, the bishop Cadorius ordered this same servant of God that he should in his congregation take a man by the name of Basil, who was foremost in magic arts and, fleeing from Rome, was seeking Valeria, in the habit of a monk. Therefore having been asked, the blessed Equitius responded to the bishop: “This man, whom you, father, commend to me, I shall not view as a monk, but as the devil.” And the bishop said: “You seek a reason so that you might not have to execute that deed for which you are a candidate.” To whom the blessed Equitius said: “I shall proclaim that he is the one when I see him; but do not imagine that I do not wish to obey you. I shall do what you order.” He was therefore taken into the monastery. After only a few days, when the servant of God was absent, this same Basil deceived with his magic arts one of the chaste virgins, over whom Equitius was guardian. This virgin came down with a fever and said that she would die immediately unless Basil (the monk) would come and cure her. The servant of God (Equitius) was sent for and the matter was told to him, and he completely cured the virgin. He saw to it that Basil was thrown out of the congregation once it had been recognised that he was an evildoer. See that the man was obedient to the bishop in his acceptance of Basil, although he recognised through the spirit of prophecy that the man was evil. By these examples the heretics teach that one should obey both the Roman pontiff and the other bishops.

XXI. Indeed, it is true what they allege about the blessed Raymond Paul, that he preached when he was a layman, and the Church received him. But the man of Catholic manner of living preached honestly with the permission of the bishops, leading no one into error, but orthodox in all matters, obedient to the guardians of the Church, burning with total effort to collect souls for God, a most keen opponent of the heretics on behalf of knowledge and possibility; on that most rapid river, which is called Difficulty, constructing a bridge from the alms of the faithful and a ford from every tribute, returning, so to speak, a free path to wanderers and all travellers. He did pious work in a place that is called the Boni Pas, with others in need, according to the appropriateness of the time. Therefore let the heretics desist from drawing on this Catholic man for the defence of their own error, a man from whose footsteps they are recognised to have deviated much.

XXII. I have said these things to confute the arguments of the heretics, by showing the certain authority of the sacred Scriptures. By the evidence of the Apostle Paul they distort the way in which they should be understood, to their own ruin. Now it is my intention to publish, with the Holy Spirit willing, both the evidence and the reasons by which it is clearly evident that they ought not to preach the word of God, and that they should be heard by the faithful.

Chapter V

That it is not permitted tothem to provide the word of God to the faithful

I. Regarding laymen, there is the question of whether they are able to spread the word of God amongst the people, and on this point we must distinguish Catholics from non-Catholics. There is no doubt if they are Catholics and the honesty of their lives commend them; if their speech is grounded in the salt of wisdom; and they know to vary the degree of difficulty of their speech according to the capacity of each individual listener, and they prefer a certain path of study or to be obedient to a Catholic of true faith, according to the level of their achievement in knowledge or in work, either to the will of the bishops or the elders in whose area they might be; and they are able, I think, to encourage those around them. And if, moreover, they were not married, neither would the weight of earthly trouble oppress them. Indeed, if their life were reprehensible, it would not be necessary to listen to them. For the Lord said this: “Do what they say.” It has not been said except about those who sit above the seat of Moses, that is, about the teachers and those learned in divine law, whom God made superior to his people. “God said to the sinner, however: ‘Why do you explain my justices and assume my testament through your mouth?’” (Psal. xlix) Yet David also spoke thus: “You will not build a house for me because you are a man of blood.” (II Reg xvi) A man of blood is not permitted to build a temple of God because he may dwell in carnal deeds and it is necessary that he shame the minds of his neighbours into building spiritually.

II. According to the Apostle, “May your speech also be grounded in grace and in the salt of wisdom so that you may know how you ought to respond to someone.” (Col. iv) Indeed, one responds to a mono-glot in one way, a learned man in another, in different ways to different persons. But how could a layman be able to distinguish these modes, when clerics hardly have this knowledge? And indeed food is not palatable unless seasoned with salt; neither is speech useful without evidence of wisdom. Whence in Leviticus: “Give salt in all offerings.” (Lev ii) That is, may you have apostolic wisdom in every speech and deed. If, therefore, a man does not have apostolic wisdom in word and deed, his speech is not useful, and he must on that account be shunned. For the Apostle said to Timothy: “Avoid profanities” (that is, heresies) “and foolish discussions.” (II Tim ii) That is to say, those things which are without fruit, even if they are not so much evil as profane. “For they progress towards much impiety,” that is, against the worship of God, “and their speech crawls along like a crab,” little by little, corrupting those things which are healthy.

III. To this, a teacher ought to take note of the capacity of his audience, so that he hands out the correct measure of wheat (that is, of divine words), “just as God set out the bounds for each faithful man.” (II Cor x) Whence the Apostle orders prophesy, that is, the revelation of spiritual matters, to be supplied by those by whom mystical things ought to be supplied, according to the capacity for (that is, the measurement of) the faith of them; lest there be the situation where the discussion of rudimentary matters are suffocated by concerns of higher things, or conversely, where the discussion of more advanced points is frustrated by the necessity of discussing more simple arguments. Otherwise, it would happen that if the listener is offended by the teacher’s words, then with God the guilty man will be held a learned man. Whence it is written in law: “If anyone uncovers a pit, or digs one and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit is to give as compensation the price of the animals.” (Exod. xxi) To uncover a pit is to lift intellectually the lid on arcane matters of the Holy Scripture. He who has begun this touches on the sublime senses of the Scripture, but they are understood through silent contemplation, not publicly. But whoever does not touch upon the brute hearts of his listeners, must answer as a defendant to the charge, if through his words a mind, whether clean or blemished, is caught in scandal.

IV. Moreover, if men superintend a certain area, or are obedient, they become well known; and because they are obedient to the Holy Church, it is clearly revealed, since almost all are located in some diocese, and since almost every diocese has its individual boundaries. Not only this, but in certain diocese the established Churches are distinguished in different ways by their own boundaries, as far as a bishop does not have episcopal jurisdiction except in his own diocese. And neither does a priest have power in a different parish, since it is written: let no one send a scythe into another man’s harvest; that is, let no one presume to be the judge of believing men committed to another. And the Apostle says: “Who are you who judges another man’s servant? He stands or falls at the will of his own master.” (Rom. xiv) If therefore it is not possible for a bishop or a priest to exercise his power in the normal course of events when outside his diocese or parish, how much less can an ignorant man and a layman be able to send his scythe into another’s crop, that is, into those people committed to another, without the licence of a bishop or priest, to whose concern the matter is relevant? And indeed they do not labour in the vineyard, as the Evangelist testifies, except drawn from the same family. And in another place it is written how the head of a household hired out his vineyard to farmers, who would return to him the fruits in their own time. Indeed, however, they did not return the fruits to their lord, but rather they killed his servants (they threw stones at one and killed another) and in the end they also killed the master’s son. Not one of them, however, dared to transfer the ownership of the vineyard to himself, as long as the master tolerated their idleness and wrong-doings. Since they were committed to a community, although idle, although evil, as long as they were tolerated by the Church, without the permission and the licence of him to whom the vineyard was trusted, not one of them presumed to work, that is, to get rid of the dead vines and to plant new ones, to use the hoe of the Word, to think the vineyard to be superfluous and to cultivate the necessary.

V. Finally, who is so foolish that he attends to the feeding of another’s sheep without consulting his master? For by the fact itself it is suspicious, that he takes this on himself, especially if he is low-born. And it is he, who “does not enter through the door, but climbs up through another way, and is a thief and a bandit. But a thief does not come except so that he may thieve, kill and cause destruction.” (John x) And indeed, as the learned say, one enters through the door by trusting in the Son of God, and by imitating his humility, and by preaching for his love, not for reward from others. Besides, if he is an unbeliever, or arrogant or seeks his own things, not those of Jesus Christ (Phil. ii), he is a thief, who says that what is another’s is his own; and a bandit is one who kills to get another’s property.

VI. From all these things it may be seen that it is permitted to neither cleric nor layman whose dwelling-place is unknown (nay rather even if it is known where he may dwell), to cultivate a vineyard (that is, a people) and to feed the flock of another, without the permission of a bishop of elder, whose concern it is. And if by chance anyone presumes to do this, this objection may be made: “Who made you ruler and judge over us?” (Acts vii) It may be read in the testament of the Evangelist that the same man said this to Jesus regarding a crowd: “‘Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘which man appointed me judge over you, or a distributor of property?’” (Luke xii) And, if it is resolved that in secular matters a judge must be chosen, so that a man does not suddenly nominate himself, how much more important is it in divine matters? Also in the account of the Apostle: “Neither should anyone take up the honour for himself except he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.” (Hebr. v) And yet, wishing to show his faith in the invocation of God from hearing God’s Word, and wishing to spread his preaching from the fount of divine grace, he said: “How will they pray to Him, in whom they do not believe; or how will they believe in Him, about whom they have not heard; but how will they hear without there being preachers; and how will men preach without being sent out to do so?” (Rom. x) From this connexion it is demonstrated that others do not invoke God if they do not believe in him; neither do they believe if they have not heard; neither do they hear unless others preach to them; neither ought those others preach unless they have been sent. First therefore is to be sent from God, from whom all good things proceed; and so he who has been sent ought to obey and to preach. So too without doubt Moses was sent from God for the children of Israel and after many pleas that he not be sent, with God persisting in his wish, he obeyed. So too Isaiah, so too other blessed prophets did not teach the people of God except having been sent.

VII. Also, in the New Testament, other apostles and disciples was sent by God to preach His word. Whence they are called Apostles, that is, ones who were sent. The apostles Paul and Barnabas were also sent by the Holy Spirit, but when the disciples were fasting. They prayed for them and laid their hands upon them, and apportioned them tasks, which they took up. They did not, however, receive the task of preaching, by which all the way things had been done, both by God and by the disciples. Then the apostles appointed elders in individual churches. The blessed Paul also ordered Titus that he appoint elders for each city, that is, bishops.

VIII. From this it is clear that some men are sent by God alone; some by God and man; some neither by God, nor by man. Moses, John the Baptist, and the above-mentioned blessed Equitius are examples of men sent by God alone. Indeed in the words of the blessed Gregory: “The freedom of their life from baser matter must not be dragged into imitation; lest someone presume himself to be likewise filled by the Holy Spirit, and he might despise to be a disciple of men, and become a teacher of error.” There are those who are sent by God and man, just as the apostles were by Christ, indeed a God and a man, and others from by apostles or the bishops of their area. This is what the Apostle said to the bishops, whom he himself had appointed: “Take care of yourselves and the entire flock, in which the Holy Spirit placed you to rule as bishops the Church of God, which he made through his own blood.” (Acts xx) See, just as Acts confirms, that he appointed them himself, but he says that they are sent by the Holy Spirit. There are others who are not sent by God; but they come of their own accord, with their own extreme presumption, and so that they might lead others astray less blatantly, they lie that they have been sent from God; as people who are in fact able to make and interpret a prophecy. “Woe to those who prophesy from their own hearts; who act at the behest of their own wills; who say, ‘the Lord says’, and the Lord did not send them.” (Ezech. xiii) Regarding whom the Saviour says in the gospel of John: “All those who came before me are thieves and brigands.” (John x) Those who came had not been sent. For he said: “They came, but I did not send for them.” In coming there is a presumption of arrogance. In being sent, there is the compliance of serving. Therefore he says ‘woe’, that is, eternal damnation, to those who say that they are sent and are not, as if to liars, thieves and brigands and presumptuous men. Indeed there are very clear signs to identify those who are sent by God: they have virtues: charity, peace, patience, continence, goodwill, humility, and obedience as an inseparable companion. To this the blessed James said: “That w