Part IV, Chapter XLVII, 1

ON THE BENEFIT THAT COMES FROM SUCH DARKNESS, AND WHO RECEIVES IT

Cicero speaks with honor of one of the Cassii, a stern judge among the Romans, for his custom in criminal cases, when the witnesses’ testimony was insufficient, of asking the accusers, Cui bono?—that is, what profit, honor, or other satisfaction the accused gained or expected from the deed. For among grounds of suspicion, none points so clearly to the author of an act as its benefit. By this same rule I intend here to examine who may have kept the people of this part of Christendom so long under the sway of doctrines hostile to the peaceful societies of humankind.

First, the error that the present Church, now militant on earth, is the Kingdom of God—that is, the Kingdom of Glory or the Promised Land, rather than the Kingdom of Grace, which is only a promise of that land—brings these worldly benefits. To begin with, pastors and teachers of the Church acquire by it, as God’s public ministers, a title to govern the Church and consequently, because Church and Commonwealth consist of the same people, to direct and govern the Commonwealth. By this title the pope persuaded the subjects of all Christian princes that disobeying him was disobeying Christ himself; and, in every dispute between him and other princes, he induced them, charmed by the words spiritual power, to abandon their lawful Sovereigns. This amounts to a universal monarchy over all Christendom. They themselves acknowledge that Christian emperors first invested them, under those emperors and within the limits of the Roman Empire, with the right to be supreme teachers of Christian doctrine under the title Pontifex Maximus, an officer subject to the civil state. Yet after the empire was divided and dissolved, it was not difficult to impose another title on a people already subject to them: the right of St. Peter. By this means they not only preserved their supposed power intact but extended it over the same Christian provinces, though these were no longer united in the Roman Empire. The benefit of universal monarchy, given the human desire to rule, is sufficient grounds to presume that the popes who claimed and long enjoyed it originated the doctrine by which they gained it: that the Church now on earth is the Kingdom of Christ. Grant this, and it follows that Christ must have some lieutenant among us to tell us his commands.

Once certain churches had renounced this universal power of the pope, one might reasonably expect the civil Sovereigns of all those churches to recover that portion of it which was theirs by right and in their hands before they unwisely surrendered it. In England this effectively happened, except that those through whom the kings governed religion, by claiming their office as theirs by God’s right, appeared to usurp, if not supremacy, at least independence from civil power. It was only an apparent usurpation, insofar as they acknowledged the king’s right to remove them from the exercise of their functions at his pleasure.

But wherever the presbytery took over that office, although many other doctrines of the Roman Church were forbidden, the doctrine that Christ’s Kingdom had already come, beginning at our Savior’s resurrection, was retained. But Cui bono? What profit did they expect? What the popes expected: sovereign power over the people. What does it mean for men to excommunicate their lawful king but to bar him from every place of public worship of God in his own kingdom and resist him by force when he tries by force to correct them? And what does it mean to excommunicate anyone without authority from the civil Sovereign but to take away that person’s lawful liberty—that is, to usurp unlawful power over their brethren? The authors of this darkness in religion, then, are the Roman and Presbyterian clergy.

Under this heading I include all the doctrines that help them retain this spiritual sovereignty once acquired. First is the doctrine that the pope in his public capacity cannot err. Who, believing this true, will not readily obey whatever he commands?

Second, the doctrine that every other bishop, whatever his Commonwealth, holds his right neither directly from God nor indirectly from his civil Sovereign, but from the pope. This creates in every Christian Commonwealth many powerful men—for bishops are such men—who depend on the pope and owe him obedience though he is a foreign prince. He is thus able, as he has often done, to raise civil war against a state that will not submit to rule according to his pleasure and interests.

Third is the exemption of bishops, of all other priests, and of all monks and friars from the civil laws. A large part of every Commonwealth thereby enjoys the benefit of the laws and the protection of the civil state’s power, yet pays none of the public expenses and is not subject, like other subjects, to the penalties due for its crimes. They consequently fear no one but the pope and adhere to him alone to uphold his universal monarchy.

Fourth is giving their priests—who in the New Testament are only presbyters, that is, elders—the name sacerdotes, or sacrificers, which was the title of the civil Sovereign and his public ministers among the Jews while God was their king. Likewise, making the Lord’s Supper a sacrifice helps persuade the people that the pope has over all Christians the power that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews: all power, civil as well as ecclesiastical, as the high priest then possessed.

Fifth, teaching that matrimony is a sacrament gives the clergy judgment over the legality of marriages and hence over which children are legitimate and who has the right of succession to hereditary kingdoms.

Sixth, denying marriage to priests secures this power of the pope over kings. If a king is a priest, he cannot marry and pass his kingdom to his descendants. If he is not a priest, the pope claims ecclesiastical authority over him and his people.

Seventh, through confession in private they gain, to secure their power, better intelligence about the designs of princes and prominent figures in the civil state than those figures can gain about the designs of the ecclesiastical state.

Eighth, by canonizing saints and declaring who are martyrs they secure their power, inducing simple people to resist the laws and commands of their civil Sovereigns obstinately, even to death, if the pope’s excommunication declares those Sovereigns heretics or enemies of the Church—that is, as they interpret it, of the pope.

Ninth, they secure it likewise through the power they attribute to every priest to make Christ, to prescribe penance, and to remit or retain sins.

Tenth, the doctrine of purgatory, of justification through outward works, and of indulgences enriches the clergy.

Eleventh, through their demonology and the use of exorcism and related practices, they keep—or think they keep—the people more in awe of their power.

Lastly, Aristotle’s metaphysics, ethics, and politics, together with the frivolous distinctions, barbarous terms, and obscure language of the schoolmen, taught in universities all founded and regulated by papal authority, serve to prevent these errors from being exposed and to make people mistake the will-o’-the-wisp of vain philosophy for the light of the Gospel.

If these did not suffice, one could add other dark doctrines whose profit plainly goes toward establishing unlawful power over the lawful Sovereigns of Christian peoples, maintaining that power once established, or bringing worldly wealth, honor, and authority to those who sustain it. By the rule stated above, Cui bono?, we may therefore justly name as authors of all this spiritual darkness the pope and Roman clergy, together with all others who seek to implant in people’s minds the erroneous doctrine that the Church now on earth is that Kingdom of God mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

Yet the emperors and other Christian Sovereigns under whose government these errors and similar ecclesiastical encroachments upon their office first crept in, disturbing their possessions and the peace of their subjects, may be considered accomplices in their own and the public’s injury. Though they allowed it for lack of foresight about the outcome and insight into their teachers’ designs, no seditious doctrine could initially have been preached in public without their authority. I say they could have stopped it at the outset; but once these spiritual men had taken hold of the people, no human remedy anyone could devise was possible. As for remedies God might provide—who never fails in his own good time to destroy all human designs against the truth—we must await his pleasure. He often allows his enemies’ prosperity and ambition to rise to such a height that their very excess opens the eyes that their predecessors’ caution had kept closed, and their grasping too much makes people lose everything, as Peter’s net was broken by the struggles of too many fish. By contrast, the impatience of those who tried to resist the encroachment before their subjects’ eyes were opened only increased the power they resisted. I do not therefore blame Emperor Frederick for holding the stirrup for our countryman Pope Adrian: his subjects were then so disposed that had he refused, he was unlikely to have succeeded to the empire. But I blame those who, when their power was still whole, let such doctrines be forged in the universities of their own dominions and thereby held the stirrup for every succeeding pope as the popes mounted the thrones of all Christian Sovereigns, to ride and exhaust both rulers and people at their pleasure.

ON WHO BENEFITS FROM SUCH DARKNESS

Cicero praises one of the Cassii, a strict Roman judge, for a habit he had in criminal cases. When the witnesses did not provide enough evidence, he would ask the accusers, Cui Bono? That is, what profit, honor, or other satisfaction had the accused gained, or hoped to gain, from the act? Among the clues to a person's identity, none points more clearly to the person responsible than the benefit of the act. I will use this rule here to examine who may have kept people in this part of Christendom believing, for so long, doctrines that are contrary to peaceful human society.

First consider the mistaken claim that the present Church, still at work on earth, is the Kingdome of God: the Kingdome of Glory or the Promised Land, not the Kingdome of Grace, which is only the promise of that land. This claim brings worldly benefits. First, it gives the pastors and teachers of the Church, as God's public ministers, a supposed right to govern the Church. Since the Church and the Common-wealth consist of the same people, it consequently gives them a supposed right to govern the Common-wealth. By claiming this right, the pope persuaded the subjects of every Christian prince that disobeying the pope meant disobeying Christ himself. Whenever the pope and another prince disagreed, those subjects, captivated by the phrase “spiritual power,” abandoned their lawful Soveraigns. In effect, this gave the pope a universal monarchy over Christendom. The popes were first given the position of supreme teachers of Christian doctrine within the Roman Empire by Christian emperors and under their authority. The popes themselves acknowledge this. The title was Pontifex Maximus, an officer subject to the civil state. But once the empire had been divided and dissolved, it was easy to press a different title, the right of St. Peter, on people already under their control. This preserved the power they claimed and extended it over the same Christian provinces after they ceased to be united in the Roman Empire. People want to rule. The benefit of a universal monarchy is therefore enough reason to presume that the popes who claimed and long enjoyed it invented the teaching through which they acquired it: that the Church on earth now is Christ's Kingdome. If that is granted, Christ must have a deputy among us to tell us what he commands.

Once some Churches had rejected the pope's universal power, we might reasonably expect their civil Soveraigns to recover whatever part of that power had rightfully been theirs before they unwisely surrendered it. This effectively happened in England. There was one exception: the officials through whom the kings governed religion maintained that they held their positions by God's right. They thus appeared to claim, if not supremacy, at least independence from civil power. But this was only an apparent claim, since they acknowledged the king's right to stop them from performing their functions whenever he pleased.

Where presbyteries assumed that office, however, they kept the teaching that Christ's Kingdome had already come and had begun with our Savior's resurrection, even though they prohibited many other Roman Church doctrines. But Cui Bono? What benefit did they expect? The same thing the popes expected: sovereign power over the people. What does it mean for them to excommunicate their lawful king, except to bar him from every place of public worship in his own kingdom and forcibly resist him if he tries to correct them by force? And if they excommunicate anyone without the civil Soveraigne's authority, what does that mean except taking away that person's lawful liberty and unlawfully claiming power over their fellow citizens? The Roman and Presbyterian clergy, then, are the authors of this religious darkness.

I also include here all the doctrines that help them keep spiritual sovereignty once they have acquired it. First is the claim that the pope cannot make a mistake when acting in his public office. Who would not readily obey everything he commands if they believed that?

Second is the teaching that bishops in every Common-wealth receive their right to office neither directly from God nor indirectly from their civil Soveraigns, but from the pope. This gives every Christian Common-wealth many powerful men—for bishops are powerful—who depend on and owe obedience to the pope, even though he is a foreign prince. It enables him, as he has done many times, to stir up a civil war against any state that refuses to be governed according to his wishes and interests.

Third is the exemption of bishops, other priests, monks, and friars from civil law. It means a large part of every Common-wealth enjoys the protection and benefits of the civil state's laws but pays none of the public expenses and is not subject to the penalties that other subjects face for their crimes. As a result, these people fear no one but the pope and support only him, to maintain his universal monarchy.

Fourth, they give their priests, called merely presbyters or elders in the New Testament, the name sacerdotes, meaning people who offer sacrifices. When God was king of the Jews, that title belonged to the civil Soveraigne and his public ministers. Likewise, they turn the Lord's Supper into a sacrifice. These practices encourage people to believe that the pope has the same power over all Christians that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews: all civil and church power, as the high priest had then.

Fifth, teaching that marriage is a sacrament gives the clergy the authority to decide whether marriages are lawful. This lets them decide which children are legitimate and therefore who has the right to inherit kingdoms.

Sixth, forbidding priests to marry helps secure the pope's power over kings. If a king is a priest, he cannot marry and pass on his kingdom to his descendants. If he is not a priest, the pope claims church authority over him and his people.

Seventh, through confession made privately to a priest, they gain better information about the plans of princes and other important civil figures than those figures can gain about the plans of the church authorities. This helps secure their power.

Eighth, by declaring people saints and martyrs, they strengthen their power. They make trusting people stubbornly resist the laws and orders of their civil Soveraigns, even to the death, if the pope excommunicates those rulers and declares them heretics or enemies of the Church—which they interpret to mean enemies of the pope.

Ninth, they secure the same power by attributing to every priest the power to make Christ, impose penance, and forgive or retain sins.

Tenth, the clergy grow rich through the doctrines of purgatory, justification by outward acts, and indulgences.

Eleventh, through their teachings about demons, exorcism, and related practices, they keep, or think they keep, people more afraid of their power.

Finally, the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of Aristotle, and the pointless distinctions, crude terms, and unclear language of the schoolmen, are taught at universities, all founded and regulated under papal authority. They help conceal these errors and make people mistake the misleading glow of worthless philosophy for the light of the Gospel.

If these examples were not enough, we could add other obscure doctrines of theirs. The obvious benefits of these doctrines are to establish unlawful power over the lawful Soveraigns of Christian peoples, to sustain that power once established, or to give wealth, honor, and authority in this world to those who maintain it. So by the rule of Cui Bono, we may rightly identify the authors of all this spiritual darkness: the pope and Roman clergy, together with anyone else trying to persuade people of the mistaken teaching that the Church now on earth is the Kingdome of God mentioned in the Old and New Testaments.

But emperors and other Christian Soveraigns also played a part in harming themselves and the public. Under their governments these errors first appeared, along with similar attempts by church officials to take over their duties, threatening their possessions and disturbing their subjects' peace. They allowed this because they failed to foresee the consequences or understand what their teachers were planning. Without the rulers' authority, no rebellious doctrine could initially have been preached publicly. They could have stopped it at the start. But once these religious figures had won over the people, no one could devise a human remedy. We must await whatever remedies God chooses to provide. In his own good time he never fails to destroy human schemes against the truth. He often lets his enemies' success and ambition grow so extreme that their violence opens eyes that the caution of their predecessors had kept shut. Their attempts to seize too much make them lose everything, as Peter's net broke under the struggles of too many fish. Meanwhile, those who impatiently tried to resist such encroachments before their subjects' eyes had opened only increased the power they opposed. I therefore do not blame Emperor Frederick for holding the stirrup for our countryman Pope Adrian. His subjects were so disposed at the time that he was unlikely to have retained the empire if he had refused. Instead, I blame those rulers who originally had their full power and allowed such doctrines to be invented in the universities of their own lands. They held the stirrup for every succeeding pope as the popes climbed onto the thrones of all Christian Soveraigns, ready to ride and exhaust both those rulers and their people as they pleased.