The endowment of the Roman church; Christ held no civil lordship

Before I reply to the master’s objectionsinstancia; objectum: objection, two doubts are to be run through briefly.¹ First, how the endowmentdotacio: endowment of the Roman churchecclesia: church stands with the faith of scripture. For from many things said above it seems to be expressly implied that such a temporal privilegeprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging cannot be brought in against Christ’s privileges without grave sin on either side. But it seems probable (as I have often said elsewhere) that that endowment, as also that of particular churches, can be given colourcolorare: give colour to reasonably in this way:² that secular lordsdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it, seeing that the propertylessexproprietarii / exproprietarie: the propertyless / without property life such as Christ and his apostles had lived is more perfect than a secular and civil manner of lifeconversacio: manner of life, and so, to unburden them, to heap up merit for them, to multiply the soldiersmilicia; milites: knighthood; knights of Christ, who would draw the world away from worldly life (since such [a life] is more apt for multiplying the religion of Christ), gave their secular lordshipdominium: lordship by titletitulus: title of almselemosina: alms,³ not that the priestssacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter of Christ should exercise lordshipdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it civilly or secularly, but that, keeping their former humility, poverty and hardshippenalitas: hardship, they should faithfully minister to the poor the alms given for this, so that at least in this way the world might be drawn away from the civil manner of life and the rite which 300worldly men had observed before Christ. Nor do I believe that, once this condition is dropped, either the endowment by secularsecclesia laycalis / secularis: the lay church / the secular church or its acceptance by the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric of Christ can be compossiblycompossibilis: compossible upheld with the religion of Christ; but such endowment, sounding in pure and perpetual alms, is on both sides authorizable by the whole Trinity and capable of being founded in scripture.⁴

But here the modern superiorsprepositi: superiors kick back, saying that it is lawful for them to exercise lordship civilly and secularly, and that secular exercise of lordshipdominacio: exercise of lordship was due to Christ’s vicarsvicarius Christi: vicar of Christ by the law of heaven, since Christ exercised lordship secularly over the whole world.⁵ Hence (as they say) Constantine did not endow the church; but the lordship which he and his predecessors had thus occupied tyrannically they humbly and duly divided; hence Christ, Peter, Clement and the others who preceded blessed Silvester had full rightius: right / law to the whole empire, but were not in possession before the humble grantconcessio: grant of Constantine.⁶

And among all the heresies that scatter the christian religion and the faith of scripture, this is one of the chief. First, I say, it limps in this, that it says Christ had a right to exercise lordship civilly, since in manner of life and in speech, according to the testimonies of the holy doctors who expound the faith of the gospel, he taught the opposite. For he himself says in Luke 9:58: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." On which the venerable Bede says, on Luke, book II, chapter 4: "Why do you desire to follow me for the sake of riches and the gains of the world, when I am of such poverty that I have not even a little lodging and use no roof of my own?"⁷ And it is expounded in this sense by blessed Jerome, and not otherwise by any saint (as I have explained elsewhere).⁸ 301Again, if Christ and his apostles had had a right to exercise lordship civilly, and could easily have been put in peaceful possession by the offering of the mighty of the world, as is clear of the Evangelist and other saints, it followssequitur: it follows that they would have been very culpable through sloth, since they could so easily have sought the right for themselves and for their church, and have excused those who wronged them from their intrusion.⁹ But this is against the gospel, Luke 22, where, deciding the question of greatnessprioritas; majoritas: priority; greatness among the apostles, he says that it stands with them in the opposite way to the gentile rite, since greatness among them is reckoned by greatness of serviceservicium: service out of greater humility.¹⁰ From this, in 1 Peter 5:3, he takes it as a principle that his clerics should not be "lording it over the clergy." Again, that is expressly against the canon laws, since, under the authority of Augustine, the canon in distinction 8 speaks thus: "By what right do you defend the estates of the church, divine or human? The divine right we have in the divine scriptures, the human right in the laws of kings. Whence does each one possess what he possesses? Is it not by human right? For by divine right 'the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.' The poor and the rich one earth supports. By human right, therefore, it is said: This estate is mine. Take away, he says, the rights of the emperor, and who dares to say: This estate is mine, this servant is mine, this house is mine? But if the rights of kings have brought it about that these things are held by men, do you want us to keep silent about the laws, so that you may rejoice?"¹¹ Hence below, in distinction 96, Constantinus, the church incorporates the charter of Caesar in the form in which he endowed the church.¹² Since therefore by the law of scripture, by the law of the holy doctors and of canon law, the secular exercise of lordship by the clergy 302of Christ cannot be founded, with what rashness would the frowarddiscoli: froward dream up this blasphemy?