De convenientia institutorum Romanae Ecclesiae cum Evangelica libertate

1. Come now, the Lutherans say, let that power by which the Christian people are to be guided in spiritual life not obstruct evangelical liberty. But to possess earthly rule and to rage against Christ’s sheep—does that not conflict with Christian liberty? He would be blinder than a mole who failed to see that tyranny exists wherever a ruler can command his subjects as slaves. Therefore, wishing to drive from the hearts of his disciples any desire for such a kingdom and such rule, our Savior Jesus Christ said: The princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are greater exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever wishes to become greater among you shall be your minister, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your servant.¹

Tell us also, they say, you defenders of the Roman principate: do you think it just² that the man who acts as the prince’s deputy should possess greater power than the prince? The servant is not greater than his lord, says the Lord.³ If therefore Christ, the Supreme One, scorned,⁴ disregarded, and rejected every earthly rule, and chose for himself a humble and poor life, how is it fitting that the Roman Pontiff, who presents himself as Christ’s Vicar on earth, should act as an earthly prince, king, and emperor?

For Peter himself, that outstanding imitator of his teacher, is nowhere recorded as having held any earthly principate; rather, he cared for the salvation of Christ’s sheep and wished the Christian people to be free from every yoke of servitude.⁵

2. But we shall refute with little difficulty all those things from which the Lutherans take occasion to slander the Roman Pontiff, if first we explain that there are various modes of ruling. There are indeed some rulers who, as Aristotle approves in Book VIII of Nicomachean Ethics,⁶⁷ direct all their rule not to the subjects’ advantage but solely to their own benefit. There are others who, in their governorship, look above all to providing for the people’s safety, peace, and tranquility.⁸ Those who direct everything to their own advantage are not true princes but tyrants, robbers, and executioners; their rule is in every respect opposed to liberty. But those who use their power for the people’s advantage and peace are Christian princes, true shepherds and guardians of Christ’s sheep; their principate does no harm to evangelical liberty.⁹ Nothing could happen more freely to anyone than that his safety and tranquility be provided for in every matter.

Since, then, the earthly rule of the Roman Pontiff looks wholly to the benefit of Christians, it should be called a rule of LIBERTY¹⁰ rather than of servitude.¹¹ And the Roman Pontiff, to whom this earthly power has been granted by Christ, the Supreme One,¹² should rightly be called the guide, shepherd, and protector of the Christian people.

3. If the Lutherans object that it has sometimes happened that the Roman Pontiff directed this earthly principate solely to his own advantage and that of his followers, and not only weakened the Christian commonwealth but nearly overthrew it, let them consider that nothing must be subtracted from the nature of true and free rule because one person, and then another, abuses his authority. In this matter we must consider not how a ruler uses his office but the nature of the principate. No one will deny that almsgiving is good by nature, although some give alms badly and turn them to empty glory. Should almsgiving therefore be abolished or condemned because some corrupt it by abuse? In the same way, the Church’s earthly principate is good in its proper character and altogether praiseworthy, since it was established for the benefit and advantage of the Christian people. Very many Roman Pontiffs have used such rule not only justly and with civility but also most holily; and in our own age His Beatitude Clement VII, formerly called Julius de’ Medici,¹³ conducts this principate with the greatest moderation and wisdom.

Therefore, I consider that nothing should be detracted from the nature and proper character of this earthly rule because some Pontiffs have turned it entirely to the slaughter of peoples and the increase of their followers’ wealth and dignities.

4. What is so surprising, moreover, if our Supreme Pontiff holds an earthly rule joined to spiritual power? Was not Melchizedek both king of Salem and priest?¹⁴ Moses too exercised, to some extent, authority in both the earthly and spiritual principates. Are we not told in Joshua, chapter 21, that forty-eight cities were allotted to the Levites and priests?¹⁵

The Lutherans are certainly asleep on both ears¹⁶ when they suppose every earthly rule to be a master’s power over slaves. This view is condemned not only by the authority of philosophers but also by long experience of human affairs.¹⁷ Who does not know that a person bound to slavery is kept to his duty by fear rather than love, whereas a son is drawn to obedience to his parents by a certain gentle affection, and is guided and governed with a certain tact? The rule of the Roman Pontiff over Christians, then, does not have the character of that principate¹⁸ by which masters compel slaves to their service, but of that by which a father, with a certain gentle affection, keeps his son in a free life and in honorable conduct. Therefore this earthly rule of the Roman Church should be called not a master’s principate over a slave but a father’s over a son. Hence the ancient custom of the Church, by which the Roman Pontiff styles himself “Servant of the Servants of God” in his official documents, fits our position perfectly. For just as they call a man free when he acts and works for his own advantage,¹⁹ so they call him a servant when he labors solely for another’s benefit and advantage. Since the Roman Bishop labors for the common good of Christians, he should be called their servant rather than their master.

5. Christ certainly did not wish to keep this principate from his disciples: I mean the one that joins the prince’s servitude to supreme ruling power. He prohibited only that rule which is customarily exercised over subjects as though they were slaves, with ambition, arrogance, and greed. For our Savior Jesus Christ himself declared that he was both Lord and servant when, as we read in the Gospel of John,²⁰ after washing his disciples’ feet—a task certainly belonging to servants—he said: You call me Teacher and Lord, and you speak rightly, for so I am. He did not, then, wish his disciples to aspire to a principate of the tyrannical sort; but he did not forbid that dominion which is joined to a prince’s service. We need not fear that, if the Roman Pontiff possesses earthly rule, he will surpass our Savior himself either in dignity or in power. For Christ himself was governor of both the heavenly and earthly kingdoms,²¹²² King of kings and Lord of lords.²³ Yet, as the Apostle writes to the Philippians,²⁴ he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and was found in human likeness. He showed himself to be a king when, riding into the city on a donkey, he wished to be acclaimed king in accordance with Zechariah’s prophecy.²⁵ But although by his very nature he was Prince, King, and Emperor, he did not wish to use earthly principate while he lived this mortal life;²⁶ instead, he chose a poor life full of hardship so that he could devote all his effort more freely to humanity’s spiritual salvation, for which he had taken on human flesh.

6. The Apostles observed the same course. Through their effort, care, industry, and grace the Christian commonwealth took shape and grew, so that they would not be distracted from their mission by the cares and burdens of temporal affairs.²⁷ But after the fame and splendor of the Catholic faith had shone throughout the whole world, and the Christian commonwealth had grown almost immeasurably through divine providence and the labor, sweat, and blood of the holy Fathers, the Church departed from that original practice of poverty. The Roman Church began to possess wealth and to exercise earthly principate, so that by its majesty and authority—which could not honorably be maintained and preserved without wealth and rule—it might sustain the great mass of the Christian people. We must not, then, detract from the earthly rule of the Roman Pontiff because Christ, the Apostles, and the Pontiffs of the primitive Church lived poor lives and were adorned with no glory of earthly principate. The circumstances of different times, events, and affairs call for different customs, a different way of life, and a different use of things.