Question II

GRATIAN. PART I. It is now asked: if priests are known to have given some things from the goods of the church, will those goods remain with any validity for those who received them? That the goods of the church can in no way be alienated, and that those alienated cannot be possessed, is proved by many authorities. For Pope Stephen says:

One who takes away, defrauds, and seizes the moneys of Christ and the church will be reckoned as a murderer in the sight of the Judge.

Likewise Pelagius to Bishop Hostilius. At the suggestion of Augustus, notary of our see, we learned that your affection had indicated to him by letters that certain men of your clergy, and especially of the parishes pertaining to you, had alienated not a few sacred vessels or furnishings and had perpetrated certain things of this kind which are foreign to a religious purpose. But you desire your charity to be fortified by the authority of our command, so that it ought to pursue or avenge these things with appropriate solicitude. Concerning this matter we command by the present words that, with the appropriate urgency of vigilance, you do not fail to exact without the intervention of anyone’s delay whatever you discover to have been usurped or alienated from sacred vessels or furnishings by any of the clerics, and to restore it to ecclesiastical uses.

Likewise Pope Boniface. Let no one be permitted to be ignorant that everything consecrated to the Lord—whether it be a man, an animal, a field, or whatever has once been consecrated—will be holy of holies to the Lord and pertains to the right of priests. For this reason everyone who takes away, devastates, invades, or seizes it from the Lord and the church to which it belongs will be inexcusable; let him be judged as sacrilegious until amendment and satisfaction to the church, and if he is unwilling to make amendment, let him be excommunicated.

Likewise Gregory VII, [book VI of the Register, in the council, c. 1]. Whoever among soldiers, or any person of whatever order or profession, receives ecclesiastical estates from any king or secular prince, or from unwilling bishops or abbots or any rulers of churches, or invades them or holds them with their consent, shall be subject to excommunication unless he restores those estates to the churches.

Likewise Pope Pius, [letter II]. Certain persons apply to human uses estates handed over to divine uses and withdraw from our God, to whom they were handed over, those things so that they may serve themselves. Therefore the affront of that usurpation is to be repelled by all, lest estates dedicated to the uses of the heavenly mysteries be molested by certain persons rushing upon them. But if anyone has presumed to do this, let him be judged as sacrilegious.

Likewise Anacletus, [Pope, letter I]. One who takes anything from father or mother and says that this is not a sin is a participant with a murderer. Without doubt God, who created us, is our Father; but our mother is the church, which regenerated us in baptism. Therefore one who seizes, takes away, and defrauds the moneys of Christ and the church is a murderer.

Likewise Pope John III, [to Archbishop Zachary]. It was decreed in the ancient statutes of the church that one who invades the goods of another shall not go unpunished, but shall restore all things with multiplication. Hence it is written in the Gospel: “If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore fourfold.” And provision is made in the laws of the world: “One who takes away another’s property, etc.” (as below in the authority of Pope Eusebius).

Likewise Gregory to Constantia, Queen of Gaul, [book IV, letter 33]. Since I know that the most devoted lady thinks assiduously about heavenly life and the remedy of her soul, I consider that I commit a fault grievously if I remain silent concerning those things which are to be suggested for fear of almighty God and do not assiduously admonish you, most holy lady, concerning ecclesiastical peace. The outcry of Julian, our brother and fellow bishop, recently saddened me exceedingly, especially since the estates of his own—that is, of the church—were plundered by most wicked robbers and burned by nocturnal fires in the manner of thieves; and since those same wicked men, in accordance with the decrees of our predecessor Boniface, were unwilling to make amendment for the immunity; and since the laws of the world also wished these matters to stand in the same way, as the common law bears witness, in which it is written thus: “If anyone with armed hand, with up to four men, comes into another’s village to do evil, the one who is first shall pay nine hundred solidi for the unlawful presumption, but each one of his followers eighty solidi. But if he has set a fire, he shall pay ninefold; and he shall restore the plunder fourfold.”

If the laws of the world wished to possess such justice, why ought divine law to be inferior, when in the presence of Truth Himself it was praised in Zacchaeus that, if he had defrauded anyone, he would restore fourfold? And because the highest good in affairs is to cultivate justice, to preserve each person’s rights for him, and not to permit that which belongs to power to be done against subjects but to preserve what is equitable—and we altogether trust both that you love this and that you strive for it—we therefore transmit Peter, our brother and fellow bishop, from the bosom of the holy Roman Church to your Excellency in the month of November of the present year, in the second indiction, so that, when the brothers of that province have been assembled into one, immunity, presumption, and sacrilege may receive such an end by canonical authority and your royal dignity that afterward the members of the devil, the sons of wickedness, may not presume such things against holy church while you also reign there.

Likewise Pope Eusebius, [letter II]. Provision is made in the laws of the world: “One who takes away the property of another shall restore elevenfold to the person from whom the property was seized the things that were taken.” And in divine law it is read: “Accursed is everyone who moves the boundaries of his neighbor.” Therefore let such things not be presumed without vengeance, nor practiced without condemnation. Accordingly, if anyone seizes ecclesiastical offerings and what has been consecrated to God, or consents to those doing so, let him be judged as sacrilegious, restore the loss fourfold, and do canonical penance. GRATIAN. On the contrary, Gregory, writing [c. 4 of the responses] to Augustine, Bishop of the English, concerning those who secretly take something from the church:

Your fraternity can judge from the person of the thief how he may be corrected. For there are some who, possessing means of support, perpetrate theft, and there are others who offend in this matter from poverty. Hence it is necessary that some be corrected by losses and others by lashes. And when action is taken somewhat more strictly, it is to be done from charity and not from fury, because this is furnished to the very person who is corrected, lest he be handed over to the fires of Gehenna. § 1. You also add with what increase they ought to return those things which they have taken by theft from churches. But far be it that the church should receive with increase what it appears to lose from earthly goods and seek gains from losses. GRATIAN. But the statement of Eusebius is understood to have been made concerning the severity of the laws, and this statement of Gregory concerning ecclesiastical gentleness.

Likewise Deusdedit, Bishop of Milan. Priests have no permission to alienate goods acquired in the episcopate.

Likewise from the Sixth Universal Synod, [c. 15]. Renewing the apostolic and paternal canons, this holy and universal synod has determined that absolutely no bishop may sell or in any way alienate treasures and sacred vessels, except for the cause once ordained by the ancient canons, namely for the redemption of captives; nor may he deliver the revenues of churches under emphyteutic agreements, nor sell other rural possessions and through this harm ecclesiastical revenues, which we decree to exist for their proper utility and for the food of the poor and sustenance of pilgrims. And a little later: § 1. But whoever after this our determination has attempted to do anything contrary to this holy see and universal synod shall be deposed as a transgressor of divine goods and commands; the sale or emphyteutic conveyance or any other alienation of the treasures and revenues of the places made by the bishop, whether in writing or without writing, is of course to be made altogether void. But one who has received or bought anything from the aforesaid treasures or revenues and has not restored to the church again the things which belong to the church, and has not returned the charter of sale or emphyteusis to be cut up, shall be anathema until he has done what was confirmed by this holy and universal synod. § 2. But if a bishop has been convicted of constructing a monastery from ecclesiastical revenues, let him deliver that monastery itself to the same church.

Likewise Gregory, [book VI, letter 35], to Lord Bishop of Messina. Both the sacred canons and legal statutes permit the furnishings of the church to be sold for the redemption of captives.

The same to Demetrius and Valerian, Clerics of Fermo, [book VII, indiction 2, letter 14]. The statutes of the sacred canons and legal authority permit ecclesiastical goods lawfully to be expended in the redemption of captives. And therefore, since we have been informed by you that eighteen years ago Favius, bishop of the church of Fermo, expended eleven pounds of silver from the same church to the enemy for the redemption of you and of your father Passivus, our brother and fellow bishop but then a cleric, as well as of your mother, and that from this you possess a certain fear lest at some time what was given be demanded back from you, by the authority of this command we have provided that your suspicion be removed, establishing that neither you nor your heirs shall at any time sustain vexation from a demand for repayment on this account, nor shall any question be raised against you by anyone.

The same, [book VI, letter 35, to Lord Bishop]. Just as it is altogether grave to sell ecclesiastical furnishings without cause, so again it is a fault, when a necessity of this kind is imminent, to prefer to one’s captives the goods of an especially desolate church and to cease from their redemption. PART II. GRATIAN. But Pope Nicholas determines what penance is to be imposed upon invaders and robbers of this kind, who seize with polluted hands sacred vessels and the other things dedicated to divine worship and handle them as though profane, writing to Frontarius, Archbishop of Bordeaux.

Concerning the nefarious man named Burgandus, who, moved by insane rage, did not doubt to entangle himself in diabolical snares and, after the manner of gentiles, lying in ambush along precipitous roads and crossroads, presumed with demonic daring to inflict nefarious invasions and violent plunder upon you—while you remained with your clerics in a village of your church and strove to instruct the people with the salutary admonitions of doctrines, refreshed the empty hearts of men with the bread of the spiritual word, and possessed the praiseworthy desire of your own salvation to visit the holy thresholds of the apostles Peter and Paul—after gathering the followers of his malice and accomplices of iniquity; and, as the text of your letter declares, he presumed to seize with polluted hands the sacred altar, the sacred vessels of the Lord’s body and blood, and moreover the holy chrism, as though they were cheap things and suited to common use: your affection consulted us whether, if he or those who were with him in so impious and iniquitous a crime should at some time, drawn by divine grace, wish to come to penance, by what bond of penance you should constrain them, and you took care to request the determination of our institution. Concerning them, if indeed it is so, we command that, when they have hastened to return to penance, they remain outside the church of God for one year, because they did not doubt to carry off its most sacred vessels by plundering outside the rite of the Christian faith. But in the second year let them remain before the doors of the church without communion. In the third year let them enter the church of God and stand among the hearers without an offering, eating no meat and drinking no wine except on the days of the Lord’s Nativity and Resurrection. Moreover, in the fourth year, if during those preceding three their labor of penance has been fruitful, let them be restored to the communion of the faithful and, promising with the whole intention of their mind that they will never do such things thereafter, let them merit to receive the body and blood of the Lord; and until the seventh year let them remain penitents three days in the week without eating meat or drinking wine.

Likewise in the Council of Pope Leo IV. PART III. We admonish and affirm irrefragably that no bishop or priest presume to usurp the property of his title, nor attempt to take away because of friendship, fear, or a gift the revenue offered by Christians to holy places, lest the church of God be reduced to nothing. Any bishop or priest who has presumed to do this shall without doubt undergo canonical vengeance and be compelled to return what was unjustly taken from the church, in such a way that thereafter they can possess no force for litigating or possessing these things.

Likewise from the history of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, chapter XII. Whatever bishop or abbot wishes to transfer anything from the revenues of the bishopric or monastery into the hands of princes, or even to confer it upon another person, let what is established to have been given be void, according to the canon of the holy Apostles, which says: “Let the bishop possess solicitude for all ecclesiastical goods and dispense them as though God were watching. But he is not permitted to defraud anything from them, or to give to his own relatives the things which are God’s. But if they are poor, let him distribute to them as to poor persons, yet let the things which belong to the church not be defrauded under their pretext.” § 1. But if the bishop offers the excuse that the field causes loss and exists to no profit, even so let the field or place not be given to princes, but to clerics or cultivators. § 2. But if a prince has employed cunning and has bought the field from a tenant or from the clergy, let the sale be void and let it be restored to the bishopric and monastery. Let a bishop or abbot doing this be cast out, as one who scattered the things which he did not gather.

Likewise Pope Symmachus, [in Synod III, c. 4 and following through c. 9]. The pope is not permitted to alienate an estate of the church in any manner for any necessity, nor to give rural lands in usufruct, except only houses which are maintained at no small expense in any cities whatsoever. Let all guardians be bound by this law, so that the giver, the assenter, and the seller lose their honor. And let one who has subscribed be anathema together with the one who gave or received, unless it is restored. Let any ecclesiastical persons also be permitted to object and to reclaim alienated goods with their fruits. It is said to be fitting that this be observed not only in the apostolic church but also in all churches throughout the provinces.

Likewise, [in Synod VI]. One who dares to invade ecclesiastical goods, to possess them unjustly, or to persist in an iniquitous or unjust defense of them is unworthily permitted to hasten to the altar of the Lord. § 1. Concerning these things there ought to be such provision that admonition precedes vengeance, and, with equity as patron, let the person who took away goods unjustly, or retains goods unjustly taken, restore the goods usurped unjustly in accordance with the laws. But if he has neglected this and necessity has compelled it, let matured priestly severity finally strike the robber. § 2. For it is exceedingly iniquitous and an immense sacrilege that whatever each person conferred upon or certainly left to a venerable church, whether for the remedy of sins or for the salvation and repose of their souls, should be transferred or converted to another purpose by those by whom it especially ought to be preserved, that is, by Christians and men who fear God. Therefore one who has not provided against these things and, otherwise than has been written, has sought, received, or possessed estates delivered to the church, unless he corrects himself quickly, shall be struck by the anathema by which an angered God strikes souls; and let there be anathema for the receiver and giver or possessor, and perpetual fellowship with the appointed penalty. Nor before the tribunal of Christ shall he fortify himself with any obstacle who, contrary to divine law and without any consideration of piety, dissipates the things left by religious souls for the sustenance of the poor.

Likewise Nicholas to Ado, Archbishop of Vienne, [in the letter whose beginning is “Because of Your Holiness”]. Concerning goods which were once contributed and dedicated to God and afterward are invaded and plundered by certain persons under the pretext of a grant from princes, we decree that you first consult the prince in order to cut off so presumptuous a faction and to learn whether the grant belongs to him or the presumption to the invader. But if the bestowal of the prince was disordered, let the prince himself be reproved for amendment. But if the presumption is shown to belong to the invader, let him be restrained by the vengeance of excommunication until amendment.

Likewise Gelasius to Justin the Archdeacon and Faustus the Defender. PART IV. For we have considered it prudent for you and your reputation that someone be substituted with you in the place of your pontiff by the same man, who may dispose all things equally in his name, so that you may recall all estates to your administration and not think that any land of the church is to be assigned to any cleric for his portion, lest it be diminished through carelessness and negligence; rather, you shall carry to the bishop the entire sum of rent collected from all rural and urban estates. From this collection, however, let account be taken of what is perceived to be necessary for matters or expenses of needs that arise, so that it may be sequestered from the common fund; and let four portions be made in every way either from the offering of the faithful or from this rent, so that the bishop takes one for himself, distributes another to the clerics according to his judgment and choice, causes a third to be distributed to the poor with the knowledge of all, and as to the portion which belongs to the buildings, we decree that it be paid by your expenditure according to the bishop’s ordering. If anything should perhaps remain from the annual expenditure, after a suitable custodian has been chosen by each party, let it be deposited in reserves, so that, if a greater building project arises, what the diligence of a different time was able to preserve may be a subsidy, or else let a possession be purchased which has regard for common utilities.

The same to Bishops Majoricus, Serenus, and John. Those who, with human laws trampled by an uncivil condemnation and reverence for religion cast aside, either strive to trample ecclesiastical privileges or anywhere leap forth to the loss of the poor, and who, even when admonished and convicted of this, do not consent to suppress their wickedness and repair the losses inflicted upon sacred goods, are deservedly to be deprived of participation in the divine gift, so that they may lack the reception of that which they held in contempt by sacrilegious daring. But Celestinus, priest of Serenus our brother and fellow bishop, who, breaking forth against pontifical judgment and against the mandates of the apostolic see, presumed to minister sacred communion to the aforesaid men although he could not have been ignorant of the sentence of his own priest, is to be driven immediately from ecclesiastical office, so that no minister of the church may strive to come against pontifical institutions.

The same to the same men. We have decreed that the administration or patrimony of the church of Volterra, which we have learned has hitherto been forsaken after the condemnation of Eucharistus, by whose depravity it had been dispersed, is to be delegated to your care, so that by the diligence with which we judge you to be vigilant for the utilities of the church, you may restore the estates to their ancient cultivation and recall any slaves who have been sold or given away. Let the possessions also which you see to be held by Bishops Eumachius and Opilio, or by others under any right whatsoever, be recalled nonetheless, because against the statutes of the synod the estates could not be alienated by bishops by any contrivance. Let purchasers have recourse against the person who presumed to alienate anything from the goods of the church by an unlawful sale, in such a way that you carry the annual rents to the pontiff, for whom it is fitting that his privileges be preserved intact in every respect, so that by his dispensation the customary portions may proceed, in such a way that the pontiff by his own ordering distributes the fourth portion which pertains to them, according as he recognizes the position and merit of each person. The same is likewise to be done from the offering of the faithful, so that the bishop may distribute a fourth to the clerics according to the consideration of his choice. Let the portion for buildings also be paid by your expenditure with the bishop knowing and directing, so that you permit absolutely nothing to be generated to the detriment of any property.

The same to the clergy, order, and people of Brindisi. Since the bishop whom you sought, Julian, now my brother and fellow bishop, has been granted to you, it was necessary, when he was immediately sent back to his church, that our writings likewise be directed to you, by which you might know that he had been commanded never to presume unlawful ordinations. And below: § 1. Let him divide the revenues and offerings of the faithful into four parts, of which he himself is to retain one, distribute another to the clerics for the assiduity of their offices, possess a third to be faithfully expended upon the buildings, and a fourth upon the poor and pilgrims; he will have to render an account of these to the divine examination.

The same, [in the letter to the bishops throughout Lucania and Bruttium, c. 29]. But it is fitting that four portions be made both from the revenue and from the offering of the faithful, insofar as the resources of each church allow, just as was reasonably decreed long ago: one of these is to belong to the pontiff, another to the clerics, a third to the poor, and a fourth is to be applied to the buildings. Just as it will pertain to the priest to pay the aforesaid amount intact to the ministers of the church, so let the cleric know that he is insolently to demand nothing beyond the sum delegated to him. But let the manifest restoration of holy places show that those things attributed to ecclesiastical buildings have truly been expended upon this work, because it is impious if, when the sacred buildings have been left destitute, the prelate turns to his own gain the expenditures assigned to them. Likewise, although he is seen as one who will have to show by divine accounts that he dispensed the portion itself assigned to the poor, nevertheless, according to what is written, “That they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven,” it ought also to be proclaimed by present testimony and not passed over in silence by the praises of good reputation. Therefore let none of the clerics, etc.

Likewise Pope Simplicius to Bishops Florentius and Equitius, [letter III]. From the revenues of the church or the offering of the faithful, only one portion from them is to be remitted to the bishop; let two, intended to benefit ecclesiastical buildings and the distribution to the poor, be administered by the priest at the peril of his order; let the last be divided among the clerics according to the merits of individuals. And below: § 1. To him, that is Bishop Gaudentius, we specially command this: that he restore those three portions which he is said to have claimed for himself alone for three years.

Likewise Gregory to Maximian, Bishop of Syracuse, [book III, letter 11]. We have learned that the canonical disposition of fourths does not arise from the newly acquired revenues of the church, but that the bishops of the places distribute only a fourth of the old revenues and retain for their own uses the things now acquired. Let your fraternity hasten vigorously to amend this depraved and surreptitiously introduced custom, so that fourths may be dispensed according to canonical distribution both from past revenues and from those which have arisen or will arise. For it is unfitting that one and the same substance of the church should be assessed under, as it were, a double law.

The same to Augustine, Bishop of the English, [in the response to the first question]. It is the custom of the apostolic see to hand down commands to an ordained bishop that four portions ought to be made from every stipend which arises: one, namely, to the bishop and his household on account of hospitality and reception; another to the clergy; a third to the poor; and a fourth for repairing churches.

[PALEA.

Likewise from the Council of Toledo. We decree that care for the laity presses upon all bishops, so that if they find any persons in the faith of Christ, they love them with exceeding affection. Moreover, we confirm that, if they receive any gifts from them, they shall immediately divide them into four parts, so that the first part, according to the commands of the apostles, is diligently assigned to the restoration of title churches as well as cemeteries; the second to the clerics; the third to all the poor; and the fourth to strangers.]

Likewise from the Council of Agde, [c. 22]. PART V. We establish, as all command, that priests or clerics of the city or diocese, with the right of the church preserved, shall hold the property of the church as the bishops permit, but shall by no means presume to sell or give it. But if they have done so, both the completed sale will not be valid and, from their resources, if they possess any of their own, they shall render the church indemnified, and they shall be deprived of communion.

Likewise from the same, [Council, c. 26]. If any cleric has presumed with condemnable and punishable obstinacy either to suppress or deny the documents by which the possession of the church is confirmed, or perhaps to deliver them to adversaries, let him repay from his own resources whatever loss was inflicted upon the church through the absence of the documents, and let him be deprived of communion. But those who, impiously solicited to the loss of the church, receive anything from the betrayers shall be held by the preceding sentence.

Likewise from the same, [c. 33]. If a bishop who has no sons or grandsons leaves someone other than the church as his heir, whatever he presumed concerning the church’s goods for a cause or necessity not belonging to the church, what he alienated or gave shall be held void. But if he has sons, provision for the indemnity of the church shall be made from the goods which he left by his heirs.

Likewise from the same, [c. 49]. Deacons or priests established in a parish shall dare to exchange, sell, or give nothing from the goods of the church entrusted to them, because they are known to be goods consecrated to God. Likewise, priests shall presume to alienate nothing from the goods of the church committed to them, as was stated above. But if they have done so, having been convicted in a council and deposed from honor, let them restore from their own property another amount equal to that which they are seen to have presumed upon. § 1. We also command that freedmen whom priests or deacons wish to make from the church committed to them perform the services of the church. But if they have disdained to do so, it was resolved that they return to their former servitude.

Likewise from the same, [c. 53]. Whatever a parish priest has alienated from a possession under ecclesiastical right shall be held null and void, as regards both the purchase of the buyer and the action of the seller.

Likewise Pope Urban. We judge void all alienations made in any manner by those who obtained through intrusion, or were canonically elected under the name of bishop or abbot who is to be consecrated according to the usage of his church, as well as ordinations of persons made by the same men without the common consent of the clerics of the church, or likewise made through simony. § 1. We also prohibit this in every respect: that no cleric presume to alienate his prebend or any ecclesiastical benefice in any manner. But if this was presumed long ago or shall be at any time, it will be void and subject to canonical vengeance.

Likewise from the Council of Lérida, [c. 16]. It was resolved among us that this rule be preserved by the constitution of this decree: that when a bishop is dead, or even still at his last extremity, no cleric, of whatever order, office, or grade he may be, shall presume upon anything from his house or endeavor to invade anything from the property known to be the equipment of the house, that is, movable and immovable ecclesiastical property, suppressing, taking away, and concealing nothing by theft and nothing by deceit. Rather, the person to whom the house is committed, after one or two most faithful men have been joined to him, ought to preserve everything until the time when a pontiff is substituted, and to administer the customary sustenance to the clerics who are found in the house. But the substituted bishop shall order the resources of the see which he has received as God commands that he ought to use them with those whom he has learned faithfully obeyed the discipline and charity of his predecessor. But if after this any cleric of whatever order, as was said above, has been proved on any occasion to have taken anything from all the resources, or perhaps to have suppressed it by some deceit, let him be condemned as guilty of sacrilege by a more prolonged anathema, and let foreign communion scarcely be conceded to him, because it is harsh that those who are established to have toiled in the service of the Lord with the bishop of the first see should be afflicted in any measure through contempt by those who are known to have been brooding over their own property or serving and devoting themselves to their own advantages.

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Toledo, [c. 66]. And if those who distribute none of their own goods to Christ’s poor will be condemned in the future by the voice of the eternal Judge, how much more those who take from the poor what they did not give? Therefore let bishops who have contributed nothing from their own property to the church of Christ fear this divine sentence and not presume, to their own condemnation, to make free persons from the servants of the church. For it is impious that one who has not conferred his own goods upon the church of Christ should inflict loss and strive to alienate the right of the church. Therefore the succeeding bishop shall recall such freedmen to the right of the church without any opposition, because not equity but wickedness absolved them.

Likewise from the Council of Orléans. If any cleric has presumed with culpable and punishable obstinacy either to suppress, deny, divert, or perhaps deliver the documents by which the possession of the church is held secure, let him repay from his own resources whatever was inflicted upon the church through the absence of the documents.

Likewise from the same. Let abbots, priests, and other ministers be permitted to alienate or encumber nothing from ecclesiastical goods or those dedicated to sacred ministry without the bishop’s permission and subscription. But if they have presumed to do so, let them be degraded with communion conceded, and let what was rashly alienated be recalled by the bishop’s ordering.

Likewise from the Synod of Ancyra, [c. 15]. If priests have sold any goods of the church when there is no bishop, it was resolved that, with the contract rescinded, the goods be recalled to ecclesiastical right. But it will be established in the bishop’s judgment whether the price ought to be received or not, because it often happens that the income of the alienated goods returns a greater sum in proportion to the price received.

Likewise from the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 22]. Clerics are not permitted after the death of their bishop to seize the goods pertaining to him, as is held to have been established by the preceding rules. But if they have done this, let them know that they endanger their own grade.

Likewise from the Council of Metz. Let grants at will and exchanges made during the time of widowed churches by those who occupied the places of bishops be rescinded, and if they are to be made, let them be made with ecclesiastical or civil authority. Likewise Gregory to Maximian, Bishop of Syracuse, [book III, letter II]:

We have taken care to admonish your charity that, if any bishop has migrated from this light or, which God forbid, has been removed for his excesses, when the stewards and all the leading clerics have assembled and make an inventory of the goods of the church in his presence, all things which are found are to be described precisely, and no particular object or anything else from the goods of the church is to be taken, as it was said was done before, as though for the labor of making the inventory. § 1. With you directing, let visitors of churches and their clerics, who are wearied with them not throughout the parishes of their own city, take something as a subsidy for their labor. For it is just that those who are found to render their service for a time should obtain a stipend.

Likewise from the Council of Pope Urban held in Auvergne. A question was raised concerning laymen who, when bishops or other clerics are dying, invade the goods of the deceased and take them away from the church and the poor. Against them the common anathema of the whole council was pronounced, the pope himself promulgating a sentence of this kind: “If anyone, after knowledge of the present prohibition, invades the goods of bishops, priests, or other clerics, let him be excommunicated until satisfaction. § 1. But let the goods of bishops who are dying be dispensed through the hands of archpriests or archdeacons, either in alms for their salvation according to the judgment of the dead, or be reserved for the successor who is to come. Let the very same thing be done concerning the goods of priests or other clerics through the bishop or the aforesaid persons, or through those to whom the dying persons have committed them. But if anyone has presumed against these things, let him be anathema.”

Likewise Innocent II, [in the Lateran Council, c. 4]. We command that what was established in the holy Council of Chalcedon be preserved irrefragably: namely, that the goods of deceased bishops be plundered by absolutely no man, but remain under the free power of the steward and clerics for the use of the church and of his successor. But if anyone from now on has presumed to attempt this, let him be subject to excommunication. Those who seize the goods of dying priests or clerics shall be subjected to a similar sentence. GRATIAN. This is to be understood not only concerning laymen, but also concerning metropolitans and any other clerics, as is read in the Sixth Synod, [c. 35]:

No metropolitan is permitted, when a bishop who is under him dies, to take away either his goods or the goods of his church; rather, let them be under the custody of the clergy of the deceased bishop’s church until another bishop is ordained. But if there are no clerics in the church, then let the metropolitan return all things unimpaired to the bishop who will be ordained there. GRATIAN. Just as no one is permitted to usurp the goods of the church, so the church is not permitted to invade the goods of others. Hence Gregory, [book II, letter 43, to Bishop Boniface]:

Just as the church ought not to lose its own goods, so it ought not to invade those of others with the ardor of rapacity. GRATIAN. By all these authorities it is clearly shown that no priest is permitted to deliver ecclesiastical goods to anyone and that one who has received the resources of the church from a priest’s hand will be able to claim them under no right. Rather, he will be compelled to restore what he received unlawfully. § 1. But it must be noted that, when certain causes require it, the goods of the church can be alienated. For because of necessity, with the counsel of the clerics, or so that they may provide better things, the goods of the church can be alienated by priests. Hence it is read in the African Council:

Not even a bishop who has no necessity is permitted to usurp for his title property of the mother church.

Likewise from the Council of Carthage, [sole council, final c.]. It was resolved that priests shall not sell property of the church where they are established without their bishops knowing, just as bishops are not permitted to sell estates of the church, without any necessity, unless the council or the whole presbyterate has been consulted.

Likewise from the letter of Pope Leo to all the Bishops established throughout Sicily. We decree without exception that no bishop shall dare to give, exchange, or sell anything from the goods of his church, unless perhaps he does one of these things so that he may provide better things and, with the deliberation and consent of the whole clergy, chooses that which is undoubtedly going to benefit the church. And below: § 1. Let the bishop use the goods of the church as things entrusted to him, not as his own. For a sale or exchange of ecclesiastical property by bishops will be void without the connivance and subscription of the clerics. GRATIAN. Likewise, rulers of churches are permitted to sell or exchange houses in cities or fortified towns which bring more disadvantage than utility to the church, as is contained in the preceding chapter of Symmachus, “The pope is not permitted, etc.” Likewise, as is read in the Council of Agde, [c. 45]:

PART VI. “The bishop shall have power, without the counsel of the brothers if there is necessity, to alienate small plots of land or little vineyards which are less useful to the church, or small ones situated far away.” [GRATIAN.] Bishops are likewise permitted to alienate fugitive servants who cannot be retained when recalled. Hence it is read in the same Council, [c. 46]:

Fugitives abandoning their houses or households who cannot be held even if they are recalled may for the same reason be alienated by bishops, if they wish or if those persons have so deserved.

[PALEA.

It appears unjust and impious that bondservants whom faithful men or women have consecrated to God and His saints for the redemption of their soul should be reduced again to secular servitude for the price of any gift or through the transaction of an exchange, since canonical authority permits only fugitive servants to be alienated. And therefore let all rulers of churches take the greatest care lest the alms of one become the sin of another; and it is absurd that a servant departing from ecclesiastical dignity should be subject to human servitude.] PART VII. GRATIAN. Likewise, if rulers of a church wish to restore to the church the same amount from their own goods, they can freely give ecclesiastical resources, and they will remain for those to whom they were given with perpetual validity. Hence it is read in the Council of Agde, [c. 49]:

If anyone under any condition has presumed to alienate something from the goods of the church, if he has conferred upon the church from his own property as much as he is seen to have taken away, then at last this will be permitted to stand. PART VIII. GRATIAN. Likewise, if a bishop grants servants of the church to liberty, the things which had been given to them at manumission will possess perpetual validity, provided, nevertheless, that the things given did not exceed the quantity fixed by the canons. Hence it is read in the same Council, [c. 7]:

If a bishop has granted to liberty any servants of the church who have deserved well from him, it was resolved that the freedom conferred be preserved by his successors together with that which the manumitter had conferred upon them in freedom. Nevertheless, we command that this keep the number and measure of twenty solidi in a small plot of land, little vineyard, or small dwelling. But what has been given beyond this shall be recalled to the church after the manumitter’s death. GRATIAN. But it must be noted that servants of churches cannot be manumitted without ecclesiastical patronage being retained, unless perhaps the manumitter wishes to confer upon the church two persons of the same merit and the same personal property. Hence it is read in the Fourth Council of Toledo, [c. 86]:

A bishop who desires that a bondservant under the right of the church be manumitted without ecclesiastical patronage being retained shall offer before the council, by exchange, two persons of the same merit and personal property to the church over which he presides, with the priests subscribing, so that the determination of the one making the exchange may be found valid and just. For then he will be able to grant free manumission without the patronage of the church, because he has now acquired under his own right the person whom he determined to deliver to liberty. § 1. But let permission to accuse or testify against the church under whose right he existed be denied to a freedman of this kind. But if he has presumed to do so, it is resolved that, while the exchange remains in force, he be recalled into servitude of his own church, which he endeavors to harm. GRATIAN. For a freedman is not permitted to summon his patron into court unless permission has been obtained. Hence in book II of the Digest, under the title On Summoning into Court, [final law]: “If a freedman has summoned his patron into court without obtaining the edict’s permission, upon the complaint of the patron he either pays the aforesaid penalty, that is, fifty aurei, or is chastised by the prefect of the city as undutiful, if he is known to labor under poverty.” § 1. But if anyone has been manumitted by a college, he owes reverence not to the individuals but to the corporate body. Hence in the same book, under the same title, [law But If in This]: “One who is manumitted by any corporate body, college, or city will summon individuals into court. For he is not their freedman, but he ought to hold the commonwealth in honor. And if he wishes to proceed against the commonwealth or corporate body, he ought to seek the edict’s permission, although he is going to summon their appointed representative into court.” § 2. But if the prince makes him freeborn, he does not owe reverence to the patron. § 3. But in a criminal matter, if he has summoned his patron into court intending to seek his life and fortunes, he is to be punished capitally before the beginning of the suit. The crime of treason is excepted, or if he discovers his patroness engaging in unlawful intercourse with a servant, in which case even the servant is permitted to accuse his mistress with the reward of liberty, just as in book IX of the Code, under the title Concerning Women Who Have Relations with Their Own Servants, [sole law], Emperor Constantine is read to have established: “If any woman is discovered secretly to have relations with her own servant, let her be subjected to capital sentence, the scoundrel being handed over to the flames. And let there be opportunity for all to prosecute the public crime, let there be opportunity for the office to report it, and let there also be permission for the servant to denounce it; when the crime has been proved, liberty will be given to him.” § 4. They also cannot testify against patrons except in certain cases in which even servants are commanded to be tortured against their masters. Hence in the book of the Code, under the title Concerning Tortures, [first law], Emperor Antoninus:

“Judicial torture of servants against their masters ought not to be held, except in accusations of crimes of adultery, likewise of a defrauded census, and of the crime of treason which pertains to the safety of the prince. § 1. But in other matters, although the things which a servant said against his master ought not to form the sentence of those who will judge, nevertheless, if the credibility of truth is investigated through other proofs also, the prejudice of the objection vanishes. § 2. But in pecuniary cases it is manifest that servants cannot be interrogated against their master even through a lack of proofs.”

The same. “It is unusual and grave as a precedent that servants be heard against the guardians or mother of their masters, unless an action concerning the guardianship is brought.” [GRATIAN.] But if a freedman has departed from the patronage of the church by his own authority, if after being admonished he has disdained to return, he will be recalled into servitude. Hence it is read in the same Council:

Freedmen of the church who, departing from its patronage, adhere to any persons whatsoever: if after being admonished they have disdained to return, let their manumission be void, because through contempt of disobedience they are held by an action for ingratitude.

Likewise from the Second Council of Seville, [c. 8]. An eighth discussion was held concerning a certain Elisep from the household of the church of Cabra, who, having been delivered to liberty by his bishop, immediately leapt from liberty into the disease of contumacy and thus through pride not only wished to harm the safety of the same bishop by evil or treacherous arts, but, forgetful of his freedom, even condemned beforehand the church his patroness. Against him an action for ingratitude is justly directed by authority of the canons and laws, namely, that, punished by the loss of undeserved liberty, he be forcibly recalled to the bond of servitude. For it is fitting that the status of such persons who strive against their bishop or the church their patroness be cut down rather than preserved, so that those whose liberty is pernicious may have a salutary servitude, and those who learned to grow proud when liberty had been obtained may, once exposed, learn to obey in subjection.

Likewise from the Third Council of Toledo, [c. 6]. Concerning freedmen, however, the holy synod commanded this: that if any have been made priests or deacons by bishops according to the manner in which the ancient canons give permission, let them be free, and nevertheless let neither they nor those begotten by them depart from the patronage of the church. § 1. Let those delivered to liberty by others and commended to churches also be gathered under the bishop’s patronage, and let the bishop request from the prince that they not be given to anyone. GRATIAN. But lest the condition of their origin be obscured by length of time, at the time of their manumission let freedmen write a profession in which they profess that they are from the household of the church and that they will never depart from its service. Hence it is read in the same Council:

It often happens through length of time that the condition of origin is not manifest. Hence it was already decreed in an earlier canon of the universal council that freedmen of the church ought to make their profession, in which they profess both that they are from the household of the church and that they will never relinquish its service. Hence we also add this for them: that whenever a priest has completed the course of life and migrated from this life, as soon as his successor has arrived, all freedmen of the church, or those begotten by them, ought publicly to present their charters to the pontiff who is substituted, in the sight of all, and renew their profession in the sight of the church, so that both they may retain the force of their status and the church may not lack their obedience. But if within a year of the new pontiff’s ordination they have disdained to manifest the writings of their liberty or have been unwilling to renew their professions, let those charters remain void and empty, and let them, returned to their origin, be servants in perpetuity.

Likewise from the same. Because the patroness of freedmen of the church never dies, let them never depart from the patronage of the church, nor indeed their posterity, as the preceding canons decreed. And lest perhaps their liberty not be manifest in future offspring and that posterity withdraw itself from the church’s patronage, it is necessary that both those freedmen themselves and those begotten by them make a profession to their bishop through which they acknowledge that they were made freedmen from the household of the church and do not relinquish its patronage, but furnish it service or obedience according to their ability. GRATIAN. Ecclesiastical goods can also be usefully given as recompense for service rendered. Hence it is read in the Fourth Council of Toledo, [c. 36]:

Whoever, by anyone’s support, has provided something of ecclesiastical utility, and in return they have promised him any advantage as recompense, the payment of what was promised ought to release them, in such a way that it is referred to the council of the province, so that it may be confirmed by their assembly, because, as Paul says, the laborer is worthy of his wages.

Likewise Gregory, [book II, indiction 11, letter 18, to Theodore the Counselor]. It is fitting that those who labor for ecclesiastical utilities rejoice in ecclesiastical recompense, so that those who willingly subject themselves to the voluntary necessities of services may worthily be consoled by our provisions. Therefore, because we have learned that Theodore, a most eloquent man and our counselor, is destitute of the ministry of bondservants, we command that a boy named Acosimus, a Sicilian by nation, be given and delivered to his right and dominion. Because he now possesses the boy delivered by our will, it was necessary that this gift be fortified by authority as testimony and confirmation for the future, so that, with the Lord protecting, he may securely be able always to possess him as master without suspicion of anyone’s reconsideration. GRATIAN. Servants of churches can also be granted to liberty in consideration of mercy. Hence Gregory to Montana and Thomas, [book V, letter 12]:

Since our Redeemer, the Creator of every creature, being propitiated wished to assume human flesh for this purpose—that, after the bond of servitude by which we were held captive had been broken by the grace of His divinity, He might restore us to our original liberty—it is salutarily done if men whom nature brought forth free from the beginning and the law of nations subjected to the yoke of servitude are restored by the benefit of the manumitter to that liberty in which they had been born. And therefore, moved by consideration of piety and reflection upon this matter, we make you, Montana and Thomas, servants of the holy Roman Church which by God as author we serve, free persons and Roman citizens from this day, and we remit to you all your servile peculium. § 1. We dictated that this page of manumission be written by Paterius the notary and, for the fullest validity, subscribed it with our own hand together with three leading priests and three deacons, and we delivered it to you. Enacted in the city of Rome. GRATIAN. Likewise, servants of churches ought not to be wearied by public compulsory services. Hence it is read in the Third Council of Toledo, [c. 21]:

We grieve that servants of churches and of bishops or of all clerics are wearied by judges or public officers in various compulsory services. On account of this the whole council requested from the piety of our most glorious lord that he prohibit such practices hereafter, but that the servants of the aforesaid offices labor for their uses or those of the church. But if any judge or public officer has wished to occupy a cleric or the servant of a cleric or church in public and private business, let him be made a stranger to the ecclesiastical communion which he impedes. GRATIAN. Likewise, for the sustenance of the poor and the redemption of captives, sacred goods may be alienated.

Hence Ambrose says in book [II] On Duties, [c. 28]:

The church possesses gold not so that it may preserve it, but so that it may expend it and give aid in necessities. What need is there to guard what helps nothing? Do we not know how much gold and silver the Assyrians took from the temple of the Lord? Is it not better that a priest melt it down for the sustenance of the poor if other subsidies are lacking, than that a sacrilegious enemy contaminate and carry it away? Will the Lord not say: Why did you allow so many needy persons to die of hunger? And surely you possessed gold; you should have supplied sustenance. Why were so many captives led into commerce and, not redeemed, killed by the enemy? It would have been better that you preserve vessels of living beings than vessels of metals. No answer could be returned to these things. For what would you say? I feared lest ornament be lacking to the temple of God? He answers: The sacraments do not seek gold, nor are things which are not bought with gold pleasing because of gold. The redemption of captives is the ornament of sacred things, and those are truly precious vessels which redeem souls from death. That is the true treasure of the Lord which works what His blood worked. And a little later: § 1. No one can say: Why does a poor man live? No one can complain because captives have been redeemed. No one can accuse because a temple of God has been built. No one can be indignant because spaces have been enlarged for burying the remains of the faithful. No one can grieve because the rest of the dead is in the tombs of Christians. In these three kinds of cases it is permitted even to break, melt down, and sell the consecrated vessels of the church. It is necessary that the form of the mystical people not depart from the church, nor that the ministry of the sacred chalice be transferred to nefarious uses. Therefore vessels within the church which were not consecrated were sought first, then broken into pieces, and finally melted down; distributed to the needy through small expenditures, they also availed for the prices of captives. But if new vessels and those which appear by no means to have been consecrated are lacking, I judge that all things can piously be converted to uses of this kind which I stated above.

Likewise Jerome, [to Nepotian On the Life of Clerics]. The glory of a bishop is to provide for the resources of the poor; the ignominy of a priest is to devote himself to his own riches. Born in a poor house and in a rustic hut, I who could scarcely satisfy my rumbling stomach with millet and coarse bread now disdain fine flour and honey. From the same: § 1. Many build walls and remove the columns of the church; marbles gleam, ceilings shine with gold, the altar is distinguished with gems, and there is no selection of Christ’s ministers. Nor indeed let anyone object to me the rich temple in Judea, the table, lamps, censers, dishes, cups, mortars, and the other things wrought from gold.

These things were then approved by the Lord when priests sacrificed victims and the blood of cattle was the remission of sins, although all these things preceded as a figure; but they were written on account of us, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. But now, since the poor Lord has dedicated the poverty of His house, let us bear the cross and reckon delights as mud. From the same: § 2. To seize something from a friend is theft; to defraud the church is sacrilege. To have received something to be distributed to the poor and, when very many are hungry, to preserve it is either cautious or fearful; or, what belongs to most manifest crime, to withdraw something from it exceeds the cruelty of all robbers. Likewise from the same, [to Paulinus, On the Institution of a Monk]: § 3. That Crates of Thebes, once a most wealthy man, when he proceeded to Athens to philosophize, cast away a great weight of gold and did not think that he could possess virtues and riches at the same time. We, laden with gold, follow the poor Christ and, brooding over our former resources under the pretext of alms, how can we faithfully distribute the goods of others when we fearfully preserve our own? A full belly readily discusses fasts. It is not having been at Jerusalem, but having lived well at Jerusalem, that is praiseworthy. GRATIAN. Likewise, by the bishop’s generosity it is also permitted to give clerics a stipend from the goods of the church, a profession of which ought to be made under the name of a grant at will. Hence it is read in the Seventh Council of Toledo:

It often happens that length of time opposes original ownership. Therefore, providing against this, we decree that if any cleric receives a stipend from the goods of the church by the generosity of any bishop, he ought to write a profession under the name of a grant at will, lest through lengthy retention he bring prejudice upon the church; and he ought usefully to work whatever he has received for use, so that neither may goods under divine right appear to be neglected on any occasion, and clerics may be able to receive support from the church which they serve. But if any of them has disdained to do this, he will be seen to deprive himself of his stipend. GRATIAN. In consideration of religion, those things in which the church suffers no detriment can also be delivered to monasteries. Hence it is read in the First Council of Toledo, [c. 4]:

If a bishop wishes to dedicate one of his parish churches as a monastery so that a congregation of monks may live regularly in it, let him have permission to do this with the consent of his council. And if he has given to the same place from the goods of the church for their substance something which presents no detriment to the church, let it be stable. For the holy council gives consent for establishing a good thing.

Likewise in the Tenth Council of Toledo, [c. 5]. To give counsel for a good thing is both held to be a support of the present life and seen to await the reward of eternal recompense. Therefore, whichever of the bishops should perhaps wish to establish a monastery in his parish and decree to enrich it from the goods of the church over which he presides ought to give no more than a fiftieth part there, so that, with this equity of moderation preserved, he may both confer fitting support upon that to which he gives and not inflict grave losses upon that from which he takes. But upon a church which will not be formed by monastic rules, or which he wishes to enlarge for his own burials, it will be permitted to confer there no more than a hundredth part of the revenue of the church over which he presides, with this caution nevertheless preserved: that he assume only one of these two recompenses, whichever has pleased him.

Likewise Gregory, [book II, indiction 11, letter 17, to Gratiosus the Subdeacon]. It is fitting that we provide with appropriate consideration for those choosing the religious life, lest the occasion of some necessity either make them idle or, which God forbid, break the strength of their manner of life. Therefore by the present authority we command you to deliver to the same woman, undoubtedly to be possessed by right of ownership, the house situated in this city in the fourth region beside the place which is called White Hens, or the garden under the right of the holy Roman Church over which, by God as author, we preside, in which Campana, formerly of Patricius, is known to have dwelt, together with the garden and the lodgings which the gate enclosed within the same house, so that in that house, with Christ assisting, she may construct a monastery where she can dwell with her congregation, and so that both she herself and the woman who shall succeed in her honor and place may be able to possess with quiet and unshaken right the aforesaid house and garden with all things pertaining to them, granted by us, as we have said, in consideration of piety. GRATIAN. Behold, it has been shown how the goods of the church can be given without fault and remain valid for those to whom they were given.