The two swords, and the clergy’s civil lordship not founded in scripture

And by each sword, in the mystical sense, I understand a power of chastising: by the first, the power of chastising 315spiritually both the sons of the churchecclesia: church and its enemies too, and by the second sword the power of coercingcoactivus; cohercere, cohersitivus: coactive; coerce, coercive bodily. And since these two parts of the church, like all its membersmembrum: member, share in everything they have, it is clear that each of these parts has both swords in its own manner, in the manner in which the Apostle speaks, 2 Corinthians 2:3: "My joy is the joy of you all." The priestsacerdos / presbiter: priest / presbyter, then, has the spiritual sword in himself formally, and subject to his jurisdiction, so that he may regulate its use.¹ But for this a knowledge of both testaments is required, so that he may know how to teach how and in what manner that sword is to be exercised; for otherwise God would not be giving that sword into the hands of an unlettered man, a frenzied or a lethargic man, who does not know how to use it, for the defence of the church according to the rules of fighting which Christ instituted, but wholly to the harm or disturbance of the church.² A secularecclesia laycalis / secularis: the lay church / the secular church, therefore, has the temporal sword in himself subjectively, for carrying out that office; but the priest has that sword, if he has the knowledge, objectively, for regulating its office; and so each part of the church shares in the fruit of both swords.³ But Christ was at once king and priest, having both swords in himself subjectively, in a manner in which it was impossible that [it] be communicated to Peter or to his vicar, because the principle and exemplar of a kind must be more perfect, holding more simply all the aspects of the whole Christian kind. Hence after that headcaput: head or principle of the whole Christian kind there must be two branches of disparate vicarship, namely of the laity and of the clergy; and in those branches, founded in the same vine, there are two sorts of powers, unmixed as to the subject [that bears them].⁴ Nor is any vicar of Christvicarius Christi: vicar of Christ sufficient to exercise one of those powers fully without sin; much more so with them mixed together in confusion. Hence, to figure 316those powers, Christ commanded swords for its powers, and defined their sufficiency as two.⁵ And (as blessed Bernard notes to Pope Eugenius), by commanding Peter to put up the sword into the scabbard, he forbade the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric the execution of the bodily sword in their own person or cause.⁶ But Christ, keeping inseparably the highest degree of innocence, knew how to regulate both swords without defect or confusion and to receive the honours of both estates (as I have explained elsewhere); and he could not, with these estates, exercise lordshipdominus; dominari: lord; to exercise lordship / to lord it civilly.⁷

And if it is asked where scripture forbids the clergy to exercise lordship civilly, I ask the one so asking another question: since every privilegeprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging of the church can be founded in scripture, where in scripture is the power or the usefulness of exercising lordship in this way founded for the clergy? For according to Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2, at the end: "If anything is useful, it is found there";⁸ now no such exercise of lordshipdominacio: exercise of lordship by the clergy is found there; therefore no such exercise of lordship by the clergy is useful. The major of this argument is the assertion of the arch-doctor Augustine, who greatly abhorred a lie; and this major is either necessary or supremely heretical, which will not be said out of reverence for so great a saint. And for the minor of this argument there is a plain induction through the several parts of either testament; or, if the induction is not plain, let the false writerfalsigraphus: false writer say where possession that lords it in this way is founded for the clergy of Christ.⁹ For so necessary and so notable a privilege would have been expressed somewhere by the author of scripture and head of the church. But I have not found it, unless it be said ironically or by antiphrasis that¹⁰

the civil exercise of lordship of the clergy is founded in these three places. First, in that of Luke 22:25–26: "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them ... but you not so"; where it is known that Christ approved the secular exercise of lordship of the gentile kings, as is clear of Job, of Nebuchadnezzar, and of other kings both past and future. But according to blessed Bernard he forbade it to his apostles.¹¹ The second place of scripture in which the secular lordshipdominium: lordship of the clergy would be founded in this way would be Christ’s command, Matthew 10:9: "Do not possess gold, nor silver"; in keeping with which Peter spoke to the blind man, as we read in Acts 3:6, saying: "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee."¹² And hence he gives as a rule, in the fifth chapter of his first epistle, that we should not be lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock for forsaking the world and its desires, not by constraint and unwillingly, but willingly and from the heart.¹³ The third place of scripture is the saying of the Apostle, 1 Timothy 6:8: "Having therefore food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content."¹⁴ Now he is not content with food and covering who beyond these demands a superabundance of temporal goodstemporalia: temporal goods not only for ministering but for lording it, and not only in clerical fashion but in secular fashion. Hence we contend more insistently about jurisdiction and the secular exercise of lordship as a privilege required for us, a point the Solemn Doctor touches on, Quodlibet 6, q. 23, but with misgivingformido (sine / cum formidine): misgiving: "That the clergyecclesiastici: CONTEXTUAL: clergy / those who belong to the church," he says, "should have jurisdiction over temporal goods is perhaps not very expedient, and it was perhaps the poison 318which we read fell into the church of God in the time of Constantine, who endowed the church in his jurisdiction; but I do not assert it."¹⁵¹⁶¹⁷

And this doctor had been sharply rebuked because he treated of the pope’spapa: pope power; therefore he hinted with misgiving what he ought to have asserted steadfastly, as Hugh of St Victor teaches, On the Sacraments, book 2, part 2, chapters 3 and 7.¹⁸ For whatever in the clergy is more than the free use of the fruits, tending to a worldly rite, is evil, because it is a hindrance to the priestly office.¹⁹ Since therefore in these places of scripture civil standing is not founded for the clergy, but plainly the contrary, and scripture is not contrary to itself, would that that lordship were suspendedsuspendere; suspencio: to suspend; suspension from the clergy until it has found its foundation in holy scripture; and I would wish, if it pleased God, that no priest should have a primacy or privilege of the church until he has found its charter in scripture.²⁰ For since no one ought to desire a privilege unless it is useful to him, and according to Augustine, "if it is useful, it is found there", it seems that it belongs to the cleric who is to be privilegedprivilegiandus: the one to be privileged that he find so authenticautenticus / autenticacio: authentic / authentication a charter in scripture; for then we would labour over the knowledge of it, or we would strive at a laying aside, so adverse to us from the deformity of our life, [answering] to that charter.²¹ And thirdly, we would not accept so great a burden except as though unwilling, at the great urginginstancia; objectum: objection of the people pressing us for spiritual aidsuffragium sensus: aid of sense.²²