Question VII

GRATIAN. Part I. That laymen are not to be heard in the accusation of bishops is attested by Pope Evaristus, who says, [to the Bishops throughout Egypt, letter II]:

A bishop is not to be reproved or accused by the people or by common persons, even if he is disorderly, because the life of rulers is disposed by God according to the merits of their subjects. I say these things for this reason: an ambusher is very often accustomed to turn good into evil and to place a stain upon the elect.

Likewise Pope Sylvester, [in the epilogue of the Roman Council]. Let no layman dare to bring a charge against a cleric.

Likewise Pope Marcellus, [to the Eastern Bishops, letter II]. Let it not be lawful for a layman to accuse any cleric.

Likewise Pope Julius, [in the decrees, c. 36]. It was established in the holy Synod of Nicaea that no one anathematized shall be received in an accusation before us, nor shall those persons who do not wish to receive us in an accusation before them, since we know that we have been constituted by the Lord over them, not they over us. And just as a greater cannot be judged by a lesser, so neither can he be bound by him, because everything great is rare. We bear the burdens of all who are burdened—or rather, blessed Peter the Apostle bears them in us, whose place we fulfill by legation and by whose rule we are formed—so that, supported by his aid, we may now and forever be defended from all adversities.

Likewise Eusebius, [to the Bishops of Gaul, letter I]. It has hitherto been observed and established that laymen have not accused bishops, because they are not of the same manner of life, and certain laymen are exceedingly hostile to them, especially since the bishops' life and manner of life ought to be separate and removed from the acts of laymen. Nor ought they to be assailed by those who do not wish to imitate their chastity and gravity, especially since the laymen do not wish to receive them in accusations against themselves.

Likewise Fabian, Bishop of the city of Rome, to all the faithful. Just as priests or the other clerics are excluded from the accusation of secular laymen, so the laymen are to be excluded and removed from an accusation by the clerics; and just as the former shall not be received against the latter, so the latter shall not be received against the former, because, just as the manner of life of the Lord's priests ought to be separated from their manner of life, so also ought their litigation, because a servant of God ought not to litigate.

[PALEA.

Likewise from the Council of Mainz. It was decreed that priests are able both to accuse their parishioners and to give testimony against them. But if they have neglected to do so, they shall be subject to peril of their rank.]

Likewise Clement, [to James, letter I]. Priests and the other ministers of the Church and all the people ought to love their bishops and obey their precepts, even if, which God forbid, they act otherwise, unless they have erred in the faith.

The same. Divine Scripture shows what kind of condemnation threatens those who sin against fathers. For if Ham was cursed because he did not cover his father's shame, those who inflict insult upon fathers who perform the legation of God are worthy of a much greater condemnation. GRATIAN. Persons of lower orders are not to be received in an accusation of those in higher orders. Hence Pope Sylvester, [in the epilogue of the Roman Council]:

A cleric cannot bring an accusation or bear testimony against an exorcist; an exorcist against an acolyte; an acolyte against a subdeacon; a subdeacon against a deacon; a deacon against a priest; or a priest against a bishop.

Likewise Pope Zephyrinus, [to the Bishops of Sicily, letter I]. Let no one among the highest be assailed by accusations of lesser persons.

Likewise Pope Anacletus, [letter III]. By the sentence upon Ham, son of Noah, those are condemned who betray the fault of their teachers or prelates, like Ham, who did not cover his father's shame but displayed it for ridicule.

Likewise Pope Eusebius, [to the Bishops of Alexandria, letter II]. The sheep entrusted to their shepherd can neither reprove him—unless he has strayed from the faith—nor accuse him in any way, because the deeds of shepherds are not to be struck with the sword of the mouth, although they may rightly appear worthy of reproof. GRATIAN. Part II. By these authorities it is proved that subjects, whether laymen or clerics, cannot accuse their prelates. But this is to be understood of criminal and infamous persons, who are prepared to reprove the life of their prelates, not to imitate it. This is given to be understood from the words of Anacletus, who says:

Laymen are not to be heard in the accusation of bishops, because certain of them are exceedingly hostile to bishops, and it is unworthy that bishops be accused by those who do not wish to imitate their gravity.

Likewise, [Anacletus to the Bishops of Italy, letter II]. The accusation of them, also, concerning which you wished to consult us, ought to be made only by suitable and most approved men who are free both of suspicions and of crimes, because the Lord did not wish the handlers of his sacred body to be defamed or calumniated by vile, reprobate, and unsuitable persons; rather, he himself cast the sinning priests out of the Temple with his own scourge. Hence it is clear that the highest priests, that is, bishops, are to be judged by God, not torn to pieces by human beings or by men of depraved life, but rather borne by all the faithful. The Lord himself gave the example, since in person and not through another he cast from the Temple the priests who were selling and buying. § 1. For, as I think, no one is found among us who wishes his servant to be judged by anyone other than himself. But if this has been presumed, either he himself grows angry with much indignation or, rather, seeks vengeance upon the other. § 2. Hence the Lord also says through the Prophet: “He who touches you touches the pupil of my eye.” And a little later: § 3. If detractors of any persons whatsoever are judged severely and fall into the snare of perdition, much more are the assailants, detractors, and accusers of God's servants condemned; and unless they have corrected themselves, made worthy satisfaction to them, and performed penance, they undoubtedly go into the abyss and are burned by avenging flames. § 4. Considering these and other dangerous things, the Apostles established that the pillars of the holy Church of God—who are not undeservedly called the Apostles and their successors—should not easily be disturbed, torn to pieces, or accused. But if anyone has been stirred against them or their churches, or has a case, let him first have recourse to them with zeal for charity, so that, after being admonished in familiar conversation, they may heal those things which are to be healed and charitably amend those things which they have recognized are justly to be amended. But if any persons have presumed to tear them to pieces, accuse them, or assail them before doing these things, let them be excommunicated and by no means absolved before, through worthy satisfaction, as has already been said, they have performed penance, because an injury to them pertains to Christ, whose legation they perform.

Likewise Alexander, [letter I, c. 3]. If anyone believes that he has any just complaint against a bishop or authorities of the Church, he shall not first approach the primates or other judges before repeatedly—indeed, very often—approaching familiarly the very persons by whom he believes himself injured, so that he may receive from them either his justice or an excuse. But if he has acted otherwise, let him be deprived of communion by them and by others as a contemner of the Apostles and the other Fathers.

Likewise Pope Evaristus, [to the Bishops throughout Egypt, letter II]. If there are any detractors or accusers of bishops or of the other priests, it is not fitting that they be heard by the judges of the Church before the suspicion or reputation concerning their standing is examined: with what intention, with what faith, with what rashness, with what life, with what conscience, or by what merit they have presumed these things—whether for God, for empty glory, from enmity, from hatred, or from cupidity.

Likewise Pope Callistus, [to the Bishops of Gaul, letter II]. In a judgment it is to be asked what manner of life and faith belong to the person who accuses and the person who is accused, because those who are not of right faith and manner of life, whose life is open to accusation, and whose faith and freedom are unknown, are not permitted to accuse their elders. Nor shall vile persons be received in the accusation of them.

Likewise Pope Sixtus II, [to the Bishops of Spain, letter II]. An accusation of bishops is not easily to be received, for the Lord says: “You shall not receive the voice of a lie.” And the Apostle says that a written accusation against a priest is not to be received without two or three suitable witnesses. If these precautions are to be taken concerning priests or the other faithful, how much more concerning bishops?

Likewise from the First Council of Orléans, [c. 8]. If anyone believes that something is to be reclaimed from a bishop, either concerning the right of the church or concerning his own right, if he has alleged nothing insulting or criminal, it shall not be lawful for him to be removed from the communion of the Church merely for bringing the action.

Likewise Pope Evaristus, [letter II]. There are some who perversely reprove their prelates if the latter have been even a little troublesome to them. GRATIAN. From all these authorities it is given to be understood that those are removed from accusation who seek to defame and reprove the life of their prelates, not from an affection of charity but from the depravity of their own conduct. § 1. But that criminal persons are prohibited by the foregoing authorities from the accusation of prelates is attested by Augustine in the book of Soliloquies, who says thus:

Prelates presume that they ought not to be reproved or accused because the canons do not establish that they are to be accused indiscriminately. Yet this is denied only to criminal persons, since Truth itself establishes concerning reproof: “If I have spoken badly, bear witness concerning the evil.” GRATIAN. It is objected against this distinction: The sacred canons themselves distinguish in what case shepherds are to be accused by their subjects, saying: “Let sheep neither accuse nor reprove their shepherds unless they have strayed from the faith.” Behold the case in which they are to be accused by subjects; in other cases, by no means. GRATIAN. Part III. § 1. The response to this objection is as follows: That distinction of the canons is understood of criminal and infamous persons. For criminal and infamous sheep cannot accuse or reprove their shepherd unless he has strayed from the faith. But if he has strayed from the faith, so great is the stain of that crime that, for his accusation, slaves are admitted against a master, as are any criminal and infamous persons against anyone whatsoever. Hence Pope Dionysius, [to Bishop Severus, letter II]:

We cannot and ought not to receive an associate of an alien error, or one voluntarily departing from the path of his own purpose, or one not obedient to the sacred rules and constitutions of the Fathers. Nor do we permit them to assail those believing rightly or obeying the sanctions of the holy Fathers, because we judge to be infamous all who transgress their own law or the Christian law, or who willingly set aside apostolic or regular authority.

Likewise from the Fourth Council of Toledo, [c. 63]. One who has proved unfaithful to God cannot be faithful toward human beings. Therefore Jews who formerly became Christians and now have transgressed in the faith of Christ ought not to be admitted to give testimony, although they declare themselves to be Christians, because, just as they are suspect in the faith of Christ, so are they held doubtful in human testimony. The testimony of those who are shown false in the faith ought to be invalidated, nor are those to be believed who have cast away from themselves faith in the truth.

Likewise Pope Gaius, [to Bishop Felix]. Pagans, heretics, or Jews cannot accuse Christians or bring against them a voice of defamation. GRATIAN. In this chapter it is decreed that heretics shall not assail those believing rightly. From this it is understood, conversely, that heretics can be assailed by heretics. Likewise, persons voluntarily departing from the path of their own purpose cannot assail those observing the boundary of their profession. From this it is given to be understood that persons departing from their purpose can similarly charge other persons departing from theirs. Likewise, those not obeying the sanctions of the holy Fathers cannot accuse those obeying the sacred constitutions. In this it is similarly understood that disobedient persons are permitted to accuse disobedient persons. From this it is gathered generally that, in an accusation, equality of faith and manner of life between the accuser and the accused is always to be considered, so that the person who accuses is found to be either equal or superior.

[PALEA.

Likewise from the Novels, constitution 45, at the end. If a heretic litigates against a heretic, let either of them be permitted to bring forward a heretic as a witness. But if an orthodox person litigates against a heretic, the testimony even of a heretic shall indeed be valid for the orthodox person; but against an orthodox person only the testimony of an orthodox person shall be valid. § 1. But when orthodox persons are litigating, let no access to testimony lie open to any heretic.]

GRATIAN. But it is asked whether a most flagitious Catholic can bring an action against a heretic concerning a crime other than heresy. The response to this question is as follows: In that respect in which the heretic is inferior—namely, in the rule of faith—he can be accused by an evil Catholic. But in that respect in which he is superior—namely, in his manner of life—he cannot be brought to trial by a most flagitious person. § 1. Likewise, the statement that shepherds are to be tolerated rather than corrected for their acts is understood in two ways: either because they are to be tolerated by criminal persons and not corrected—hence it is added there that the life of rulers is often depraved according to the merits of their subjects; therefore, those by whose merit, with God's permission, the life of rulers is depraved are rather to tolerate them than to correct them—or because there are certain persons who are often deserted by public proofs and are unable to prove the crime which they allege. Concerning these Augustine says in the homily on penance, [c. 12]:

Many good men suffer the sins of others and remain silent for this reason: they are often deserted by public proofs by which they cannot prove before judges the things which they themselves know.

GRATIAN. Part IV. That statement of Anacletus is also understood concerning these persons: “By the sentence upon Ham, son of Noah, those are condemned who betray the fault of their teachers or prelates, like Ham, who did not cover his father's shame but displayed it for ridicule.” For by this authority subjects are not prohibited from accusation, but from betrayal. For it is one thing to betray, another to accuse. One betrays who reports things that cannot be proved; one accuses who, with the defendant present, offers a charge to the judge, intending to prove what he alleges. Ham alone saw his father's shame, and therefore by him are understood those who, since they alone are privy to the crimes of their prelates and therefore cannot accuse them, nevertheless offer their life for ridicule to others by defaming it.

§ 1. Likewise, it is objected that subjects, even religious subjects, cannot accuse their prelates. For it is read in Exodus that Miriam, the sister of Aaron—who first, after the passage of the Red Sea, merited to sing a hymn after taking up a timbrel—afterwards murmured against Moses because he had taken an Ethiopian woman as wife, and was struck with leprosy by the Lord. § 2. Likewise, it is read in the Book of Kings that, when David was fleeing from the face of Saul, he hid in a cave. When Saul turned aside into it to purge his bowels, David cut off the hem of his cloak; afterwards David grieved greatly and repented vehemently that he had done this. Saul had been rejected by the Lord and was persecuting David from envy in order to deliver him to death. David was a humble and gentle man, substituted by the Lord for Saul and anointed king through Samuel; but nevertheless, because he cut off the hem of Saul's cloak, he wept greatly, even though Saul surpassed him only in the administration of the anointing. From this it is given to be understood that subjects, although they are religious, cannot accuse their criminal prelates. For by Saul, who was purging his bowels, are understood prelates who bring into deed the malice conceived in the heart. Likewise, it is read in the Book of Kings that, when the Ark of the Lord was being brought back from Gibeah to Jerusalem, the oxen kicked and the Ark was tilted. When Uzzah the Levite applied his hand to it in order to raise it, he was struck by the Lord and died. By the Ark are understood prelates; by Uzzah, subjects; by the tilting of the Ark is understood the fall of prelates; and by the person who applied his hand are understood those who reprove or accuse the life of teachers, who are struck by the Lord and perish.

§ 3. The response to these arguments is as follows: It is true that prelates are signified by the Ark and subjects by Uzzah. But the assertion that the fall of prelates is signified by the tilting of the Ark is false. For it is one thing to incline or descend, another to fall. It is read that our Savior inclined himself—as when he wrote on the earth with his finger—and frequently descended from the mountains which he ascended, whether to spend the night in prayer, to teach the disciples higher precepts on the mountain, or to look upon the crowds and be able freely to teach them from the height of the mountain while fleeing them. Inclination or descent signifies the humility by which spiritual persons sometimes condescend to carnal persons and suffer with their infirmity, according to the Apostle's statement: “Who is weak, and I am not weak?” They were also signified by the angels whom Jacob saw descending on the ladder. Concerning them it is also said through the Prophet: “He inclined the heavens and descended.” By the inclined Ark, therefore, are understood those who mercifully bear the faults of their subjects and humbly suffer with their infirmity. Hence it is well said that, when the oxen kicked, the Ark was inclined. For the kicking oxen signify subjects not obeying their teachers; while prelates suffer with them, the Ark is as it were inclined when the oxen kick. The Levite who applied his hand signifies those who reprove the compassion of mercy in their prelates and wish to raise them into the bitterness of severity. Hence that Levite is well called Uzzah, for Uzzah is interpreted “strong.” They are called strong because, while they presume upon their own justice, they think that mercy is to be denied to sinners and reprove those who extend it. Hence, struck by the Lord, they perish, because judgment without mercy will be for those who do not wish mercy to be shown to those who transgress. To such a person it is said through Solomon: “Do not be overly just, because there is a just person who perishes in his justice.”

The passage concerning Moses is to be understood in the same way. For by Moses are understood prelates; by the Ethiopian woman, sinners are designated. Moses takes an Ethiopian woman as wife when any preacher joins a sinner to himself, so that from him he may be able to beget for God offspring of good works. When Miriam—that is, subjects—reproves this union, they are infected with the leprosy of sin. Or by Miriam is understood the Synagogue, which murmured against Moses—that is, Christ—because he joined to himself the Ethiopian woman, that is, the Church from the Gentiles; the leprosy of unbelief and error made them filthy. Therefore, by these authorities subjects are not prohibited from the accusation of prelates, but are admonished not to reprove their merciful compassion.

§ 4. Likewise, by Saul are understood prelates, and by David, subjects. Saul purging his bowels signifies those who bring outwardly into deed the malice conceived in the heart. But the reproof of sin is not signified in the cutting of the cloak. For by the cloak is understood the power of the kingdom. One cuts it who strikes a prelate with a sentence of condemnation, which is lawful for none of the subjects. For the deeds of a shepherd are not to be struck by subjects with the sword of the mouth, that is, by a sentence of condemnation. Hence Jerome says upon Mark concerning the high priest who tore his garments: The tearing of the garment signifies the tearing of the priesthood, which was soon to be torn and taken away from the Jews. Or by David are signified those who, seeing the wickedness of their prelates, despise their greater sins, but strive to reprove and tear apart the smallest and lightest ones, as though cutting off the outermost hem of the cloak. Or because Saul alone turned aside into the cave in which David alone was hiding. § 5. The same thing can be understood concerning this as was said concerning Ham, who alone saw his father's shame, which he did not cover but displayed for ridicule. Therefore, by this authority subjects are not prohibited from accusing prelates if they have been open to accusation.

§ 6. Likewise, it is proved that subjects cannot accuse their prelates, even if they are religious. For they are infamous by the very fact that they attempt to reprove the life of their teachers. For, as the authority of the canons hands down, all who take arms against fathers and who reprove or accuse the life of their teachers are infamous. But no infamous person is to be heard in the accusation of prelates unless perhaps the prelate has strayed from the faith, as was said above. Therefore, since subjects become infamous by the very fact that they leap forward into the accusation of prelates, while the opportunity to accuse is denied to infamous persons, it is evident that subjects cannot accuse their prelates. § 7. The response to these arguments is as follows: Not all prelates are held as prelates; for the name does not make the bishop, but the life. Hence Gregory writes to Bishop Januarius, [book VII, indiction 2, letter 1]:

Paul says: “You shall not rebuke an elder.” But this rule of his is to be observed when the fault of an elder does not by its example draw the hearts of younger persons to destruction. But where an elder furnishes to the young an example leading to destruction, there he is to be struck with severe rebuke. For it is written: “All of you are a snare to the young,” and again: “Cursed is the child of a hundred years.”

Likewise Jerome to Heliodorus, [letter I, On the Praise of the Solitary Life]. Not all bishops are bishops. You attend to Peter; consider Judas. You receive Stephen; look upon Nicholas. § 1. Ecclesiastical dignity does not make a Christian. Cornelius the centurion, while still a gentile, is cleansed by the gift of the Holy Spirit; Daniel as a boy judges the priests. § 2. It is not easy to stand in the place of Peter and to hold the place of Paul, who now reign with Christ. § 3. Salt that has become insipid is useful for nothing except to be cast outside and trampled by swine.

Likewise Augustine in homily VI. Not everyone who says, “Peace be with you,” is to be heard as a dove. Ravens feed upon death. The dove does not have this habit; rather, it lives upon the fruits of the earth, and its food is innocent.

Likewise Bede on the Second Epistle of Peter. “They followed the way of Balaam from Bosor, who loved the reward of iniquity, but received a rebuke of his madness. A mute beast under the yoke, speaking with a human voice, prohibited the folly of the prophet.” Heretics very often bring forth dogmas so foolish and mysteries so execrable that even the dull understanding of pagans, and of those who are altogether without rational knowledge of God, detest their madness and, by thinking more sanely, refute their distorted paths contrary to God. And, what is worse, sometimes many Catholics love the reward of iniquity to such a degree that even the learned are deservedly refuted by the unlearned, and clerics by laymen. They are rightly compared to the prophet who is rebuked by the words of an ass speaking contrary to nature and nevertheless is not delayed from the purpose of his depraved journey. The name of the city from which Balaam is related to have come also most aptly agrees with them. For Bosor is interpreted “carnal” or “in tribulation.” No other cause exists more strongly for luxurious persons to adulterate the word of truth through love of money or temporal desires than that they have enslaved themselves to the concupiscences of the flesh. But the name of Balaam himself—which is interpreted “vain people” or “precipitating them”—also suits such persons. For what are those who voluntarily desert the recognized way of truth if not a vain people? And do they not cast their hearers into a precipice when they preach to them not salutary things which would correct them, but erroneous things which delight them? Concerning them it is aptly added: “These are fountains without water and clouds driven by whirlwinds, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved.”

GRATIAN. Therefore, because not all bishops are bishops, priests are indicated by Daniel as a boy, insipid salt is trampled by swine, and one who says, “Peace be with you,” is often reckoned not a dove but a raven, it is evident that one is not always to desist from accusation on account of the office or authority of a person. Rather, one must proceed against depraved persons, since every person who sins criminally is altered and, so to speak, is judged under the laws to have diminished legal status. For one who commits sin is the servant of sin both in punishment and in guilt. Hence Augustine:

One who neither possessed in himself the principle of governance, nor wiped away his own transgressions, nor corrected the crime of his sons is to be called a shameless dog rather than a bishop. GRATIAN. Therefore, since Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory take away from such persons the name of dove, bishop, and elder, ought not the privilege of dignity also to be taken away, so that they can be reproved by their subjects? Hence Scripture, disregarding the privilege of depraved old age, says, “Cursed is”—not the elder, but—“the child of a hundred years.” It is therefore evident that those become infamous through accusation of prelates who attempt to reprove and tear apart the life of those who hold the position of their governance not in name alone but in life and morals. But others become praiseworthy rather than infamous through the accusation of their prelates. Likewise, when it is said, “Let no greater person be assailed by accusations of lesser persons,” the lesser are to be understood as lesser not in dignity but in life. Hence Jerome says of Paul upon the Epistle to the Galatians:

Paul reproved Peter, which he would not have dared to do unless he knew that he was not unequal. GRATIAN. This is understood not of the office of ecclesiastical dignity but of purity of life and holiness of manner of life. For Peter alone held the primacy among the Apostles. Hence Augustine says to Jerome, [letter XIX, near the end]:

Although, according to the terms which usage has established, the episcopate is greater than the presbyterate, nevertheless Augustine is lesser than Jerome.

The same in book II On the One Baptism, [against the Donatists, c. 1]. I think that without any insult to himself, Bishop Cyprian is compared to Peter the Apostle insofar as the crown of martyrdom is concerned. But I ought rather to fear lest I be found insulting toward Peter. For who does not know that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate? But even if the distinction of sees differs, the glory of the martyrs is nevertheless one. Likewise: When Peter is corrected by Paul, who was later, and, with the bond of peace and unity preserved, is advanced to martyrdom, how much more easily and more firmly is that which is confirmed by the statutes of the universal Church to be preferred either to the authority of one bishop or to the council of one province?

The same, [tractate XXX on John, at the end]. A father complains concerning an evil son; a son complains concerning a harsh father. We preserve the honor which is owed to a father by a son. We do not equal the son to the father in honor, but we prefer the son to the father in truth, and we thus render the honor owed so that equity does not lose its merit.

Likewise Ambrose, [sermon LXVI, on the feast of Peter and Paul]. Blessed Peter and Paul stand eminent among all the Apostles and excel by a certain particular prerogative; but it is uncertain which of the two is to be preferred to the other. For I think those who are equal in suffering to be equal in merits, and those whom we see arrived together at the glory of martyrdom to have lived with a similar devotion of faith. § 1. For we do not think it was done without cause that they suffered on one day, in one place, under one persecutor. On one day, so that they might arrive at Christ together; in one place, lest Rome be absent from either; under one persecutor, so that equal cruelty might bind both. Therefore, the day was decreed for merit, the place for glory, and the persecutor for virtue. And in what place did they at last undergo martyrdom? In the city of Rome, which possesses the primacy and headship of the nations, so that where the head of superstition was, there the head of holiness might rest; and where the princes of the gentiles dwelt, there the princes of the churches might die.

GRATIAN. Part V. Likewise, penitents and twice-married men cannot accuse priests. From this it is gathered generally that whoever are not priests or cannot be priests cannot bring an accusation or testimony against priests. Hence Fabian says, [letter II to the Eastern Bishops]:

The Apostles themselves and their successors established that those who are not and cannot be of their order shall neither accuse the priests of the Lord nor testify against them.

Likewise Pope Damasus, [to Archbishop Stephen, letter III, c. 3]. Witnesses ought to be without any infamy, suspicion, or manifest stain and instructed in the fullness of the true faith; and they ought to be such as divine authority commands to be chosen for the priesthood. For, as the authority of the ancients hands down, those who ought not and cannot be advanced to that same honor cannot charge priests with a crime or testify against them.

GRATIAN. Thus also that statement of Sylvester is understood: “A layman shall not accuse a cleric, etc.,” that is, those constituted in a lower grade who cannot ascend to a higher one ought not to accuse those acting in higher grades. § 1. Behold, it has been shown what response is to be given to the authorities and arguments by which subjects appeared to be repelled from the accusation of prelates. Now it must be demonstrated by what reasons they are proved to be receivable, and what is answered to the contrary by prelates. Christ, who was the shepherd of shepherds, said to his sheep—of whom he said, “I was sent only to the sheep of the house of Israel who have perished, etc.”—amid the insults and blows which he suffered from them: “If I have spoken badly, bear witness concerning the evil.” Likewise: “Which of you will convict me of sin?” But all who are admitted to testify against or reprove someone can be admitted to accuse the same person. Therefore, since sheep are admitted to bear testimony against their shepherd and to reprove him, if they can, it is evident that subjects can accuse their prelates.

§ 2. The response to these arguments is as follows: Although Christ was the shepherd of his sheep, whom he fed by word and example, nevertheless, with regard to the distribution of offices—from which some now preside over others in the Church, whence some are called prelates and others subjects—he did not hold pastoral office among that people. For he had been anointed by neither mystical nor visible anointing as king or priest, which alone among that people were the persons who claimed the name of prelacy for themselves. Therefore, from this authority subjects are not proved to be admissible in the accusation of prelates; it is shown only that, when they are hearers, they can reprove and testify against those who, although they do not possess ecclesiastical offices, nevertheless strive by word and example to gain for God whomever they can.

§ 3. The response is also made in another way. It is one thing which we compel to be observed by the rigor of discipline, another which is admitted from consideration of perfection. Christ admitted the Jews to reprove him from the perfection of humility, not the severity of law. For if they had been admitted by the rigor of law, by this authority criminal and infamous persons would have to be received in the accusation of religious persons, since those who were treating concerning Christ's death and wished to condemn the innocent man were most criminal. Therefore, by this example prelates are not compelled to receive subjects in an accusation against themselves, but they are permitted to do so.

§ 4. Likewise, Paul reproved Peter, who was prince of the Apostles. From this it is given to be understood that subjects can reprove their prelates if they have been worthy of reproof. But this is easily refuted if one attends to the matter for which he was reproved. Peter was compelling the gentiles to Judaize and to depart from the truth of the Gospel, making a flock with the Jews and secretly withdrawing himself from the food of the gentiles. But to stray from the faith oneself and to cast others down from the faith by example or word are equal. Therefore, by this example prelates are not proved to be accusible by subjects unless perhaps they have strayed from the faith or compelled others to stray. § 5. Likewise, when Peter had entered to Cornelius, the brothers who were in Judea complained and reproved him because he had turned aside to a gentile. Behold, prelates can rightly be reproved by subjects. But blessed Gregory responded to this objection, saying, [to the Patrician Theoctista, book IX, letter 39]:

Peter had received the power of the kingdom, and yet, when the same first of the Apostles faced a complaint made against him by the faithful as to why he had entered among the gentiles, he responded not from the power of his office—by which he could have said, “Let sheep neither accuse nor reprove their shepherd”—but from the authority of the divine power by which the gentiles had received the Holy Spirit. GRATIAN. Therefore, since Peter could have repelled the complaints by virtue of his office but was unwilling to do so, prelates are not compelled by this example to receive the reproof of subjects. That statement of Leo IV to Louis Augustus is also understood from this dispensation of humility:

If we have acted incompetently in anything and have not preserved the path of just law among our subjects, we wish to amend all things by your judgment and that of your envoys, because, if we who ought to correct the sins of others commit worse things, we certainly will not be disciples of truth but, as we say with grief, teachers of error above all others. Therefore we earnestly implore the clemency of Your Magnitude to direct into these regions, for the investigation of the things which we have said, such envoys as fear God in all things and investigate all things diligently, just as if your imperial glory were present. We ask that they examine exactly not only those things which we said above, but, whether smaller or even greater matters concerning us have been reported to them, that all of them be concluded by their lawful examination, so that henceforth nothing concerning them may remain unexamined or undetermined.

GRATIAN. Part VI. Likewise, when Balaam the soothsayer was going to curse the people, the angel of the Lord opposed himself in the road to the ass upon which he was sitting and, with drawn sword, restrained her from the journey. When Balaam afflicted her with blows, she burst into speech and refuted the madness of the prophet. Therefore, if a mute animal, by angelic power, reproved the folly of a prophet, much more can subjects accuse their prelates. § 1. The response to these arguments is as follows. It is true that subjects are signified by the ass and prelates by Balaam. Nevertheless, by this example prelates are not proved to be accusible by subjects; rather, a form is given to subjects only for humbly resisting prelates if perhaps they wish to compel them to evil. For Balaam urging the ass to carry him to curse the people of God signifies those who by blows and tortures demand from subjects that they become their supporters and helpers in evil. But because the angel—that is, any preacher—with drawn sword, namely with the fear and horror of future vengeance openly preached, calls them back from consent to another's malice, it is lawful for them to burst into the voice of complaint and say to their prelates: Why do you afflict us with blows? Why are you unjustly angry with us? Have we ever been disobedient to you except now, when we are compelled to evil? See the one who prohibits the undertaking. Therefore, from this prelates are not proved to be accusible by subjects.

§ 2. Likewise, when David had committed adultery and homicide, Nathan the prophet was sent by God to refute him. Behold, prelates are to be reproved and rebuked by subjects. § 3. But it is to be noted that there are two persons by which this world is ruled, namely the royal and the priestly. Just as kings preside in the affairs of the world, so priests preside in the affairs of God. It belongs to kings to inflict corporal punishment, to priests to impose spiritual vengeance. Therefore David, although by royal anointing he presided over priests and prophets in the affairs of the world, nevertheless was subject to them in the affairs of God. Hence kings were anointed by prophets and priests, and the sins of kings were expiated by their offering. § 4. Therefore, just as Ahaz was struck with leprosy by the Lord when he wished to usurp the offices of priests, so priests and prophets were not permitted to usurp the offices of kings. Therefore, when Nathan the prophet refuted the king, he carried out his own office, in which he was superior to the king; he did not usurp the king's office, in which he was inferior to the king. He admonished him to expiate his sins through penance; he did not deliver against him a sentence by which, as an adulterer and homicide, he would be condemned to death. § 5. Thus blessed Ambrose also excommunicated the emperor and prohibited him from entering the church. § 6. For just as a judge does not bear the sword without cause, so priests do not receive the keys of the Church without cause. The former bears the sword for the vengeance of evildoers but the praise of the good; the latter have the keys for the exclusion of persons to be excommunicated and the reconciliation of penitents. Therefore, by this example subjects are proved to be worthy of reproof by prelates, not prelates by subjects.

§ 7. Likewise, Daniel, exercising no lawful power, convicted the judges constituted by the people of false testimony and condemned them after conviction. It is established, therefore, that persons possessing no power can refute those raised to dignities. § 8. The response to these arguments is as follows. Miracles—and especially those of the Old Testament—are to be admired, not drawn into an example for our action. For many things were then granted which are now entirely prohibited. For Samuel then cut Agag, the very fat king of Amalek, into pieces; now it is lawful for no ecclesiastical person to conduct a judgment of blood. Phinehas then killed a Jew coupling with a Midianite woman, and it was reckoned to him as justice; today this would turn to the destruction of a priest's office. Therefore, by the example of Daniel, subjects would claim for themselves against prelates not only the power to accuse or refute but even to judge, if that which is permitted by no authority whatsoever were allowed to be assumed as an argument for our action. Rather, from this deed it is given to be understood that in the last times God would stir up the spirit of a younger boy, namely the one of whom it is said through the Prophet, “A child is born to us,” and again, “Behold my child,” who would convict and condemn the judges of iniquity—namely, the scribes and Pharisees—when they accused Susanna, that is, the Church, with false crimes and pronounced her guilty of adultery because she followed Christ.

§ 9. Likewise, Jerome relates in the book On Illustrious Men that Pope Damasus, accused of adultery by his subjects, purged himself with forty-two bishops. § 10. Likewise, Pope Symmachus, despoiled of his dignity in a Roman synod, is decreed first to be returned to his former status so that he might then come to the case and, if it thus appeared right, answer the allegations of the accusers. The matter appeared worthy to the greatest number of priests and deserved to take effect; and, when it was afterwards being arranged how he was to be accused, the aforesaid Pope came forward to plead the case, but was impeded by his rivals. Likewise Pope Gregory says concerning himself:

If anyone wishes to refute us concerning these matters or contends that we act outside authority, let him come to the Apostolic See, so that there before the confession of blessed Peter he may justly contend with me, and one of us may there receive his sentence. GRATIAN. From all these things it is gathered that subjects can reprove and accuse their prelates. But, just as was said of Christ when he said to the Jews, “If I have spoken badly, etc.,” so it is to be understood concerning these persons: by their example they gave prelates the capacity to receive subjects in an accusation against themselves, but did not compel them.

Paul, bishop of the city of Dioclea, is accused by his subjects concerning a fall of the flesh, convicted, and deposed, and another is substituted in his place. Whether this was done by dispensation of the accused or by rigor of law can be considered from Gregory's Register, to Bishop John [of First Justiniana], chapter CCXVII, where he says:

Nemesion, the bearer of these presents, coming to us, reported that Paul, bishop of the city of Dioclea, having fallen, among other evils, into a carnal crime, was accused and convicted by his own clerics and deposed by an episcopal sentence. Afterwards, coming with the aid of secular persons, he entered the episcopate in the manner of a robber and, after taking away the property of the church, expelled from it the most beloved Nemesion, bearer of these presents, who had been substituted for him, and almost brought him to the highest injury and death. Therefore let Your Fraternity take care to learn all these things, and compel him to return, with every delay or excuse ceasing, whatever he took away from the church. But if he has said that he took nothing from the church but his own property—although it was grave and unjust that he did not seek this from you or from his metropolitan but presumed to act by rash daring—nevertheless, if he took anything of his own, it ought to be established under the examination of Your Fraternity whether this is true. But that also is to be diligently investigated: whether he badly dissipated anything from the property of the church, so that he may be compelled in every way, from that which he now took away, to restore it and make satisfaction.

GRATIAN. By this statement Gregory does not avenge himself against the accusers or the persons who deposed him, but proceeds further against the deposed man, so that, if he should attempt again to aspire to the episcopate, he may be repelled in every way and thrust into a monastery to perform perpetual penance. Therefore, since Gregory repels in every way one aspiring to the episcopate and subjects him to grave penance, it is evident that he was accused and convicted by his subjects not through Gregory's dispensation but through the censure of the canons. And, so that we may now proceed not by examples but by laws, it must be seen what Gregory writes to Innocent and the other Bishops of Sardinia, [book VII, indiction 2, letter 8], saying thus:

Do not presume to set aside your metropolitan in any matter, except if—which we do not wish—it happens that you have some cause against him, so that on account of this you ought to seek the judgment of the Apostolic See.

Likewise to all the Bishops of the Council of Byzacena, [book X, letter 37]. Just as, he says, it is praiseworthy and discerning to show reverence and honor to one's superiors, so it belongs to rectitude and fear of God not to set aside through any dissimulation whatever things in them need correction, lest disease invade the whole body—which God forbid—if weakness has not been cured in the head. For certain things concerning your primate Clementius have been reported to us which, since they are so grave that they ought in no way to pass unexamined, cause us to exhort Your Fraternity to investigate in many ways with all solicitude and vigor of truth the things alleged; and, if they are as they have been heard, let them be cut away by canonical vengeance. § 1. We admonish, moreover, that neither regard for any person, nor favor, nor any enticement soften any of you away from the things reported to us or shake you from the truth; rather, gird yourselves priestly for the investigation of truth on account of God. For if anyone has presumed to be sluggish or negligent in this, let him know that before God he is a participant in the stated crimes, since he is not moved by zeal for God to examine minutely the causes of a nefarious deed. GRATIAN. If anyone contends that these are special cases and that a general rule ought not to be gathered from them, let him hear what Gelasius says in chapter XXVII, writing thus to all clerics of whatever order:

Accordingly, let no cleric trust that he will be immune from apostolic offense if, in those things which apostolic authority has declared are to be followed salutarily, he has seen a bishop, priest, or deacon transgressing and has not immediately taken care to report it to the ears of the Roman Pontiff, provided that competent proofs are furnished, so that vengeance upon the transgressor may become a prohibition against transgressing for others. But otherwise every pontiff will in every way be an overthrower of his own order and honor if he has thought these things should be suppressed from any cleric or from the hearing of the whole Church.

Likewise. If you see your pontiff admit anything involving harm to the church, or among those things prohibited by our precept, immediately signify it to our ears by a report, so that we may determine what ought to be done.

Likewise from the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 21]. We decree that clerics or laymen indiscriminately accusing bishops or clerics and without proof are not to be received into an accusation unless the reputation of their standing is first examined.

Likewise from a Roman Synod. If any bishop, deacon, or any cleric has been accused before bishops—for this ought not to be done elsewhere—by any person, whoever that man may be, whether of exalted honor or of another dignity, who has undertaken this kind of blameworthy contention, let him know that he ought to bring forward things to be stated with proofs and things to be shown with documentary evidence.

Likewise Pope Damasus to Archbishop Stephen, [letter III, c. 3]. As ancient authority hands down, those who ought not and cannot be advanced to the same honor cannot charge priests with a crime or testify against them.

Likewise Pope Hyginus, [letter I]. Charges against elders shall not be made through others but through the very persons who allege the crimes, provided nevertheless that they have appeared worthy and irreproachable and have shown by public records that they are free from all suspicion and enmity and possess irreproachable faith and lead an irreproachable manner of life. GRATIAN. It is therefore gathered from all these authorities that subjects are to be admitted in the accusation of prelates. Now it must be seen whether monks are to be heard in the accusation of bishops. Pope Hadrian, [in the chapters, c. 31], appears to remove them from accusation, saying thus:

It was resolved to obstruct the plea of accusing priests and testifying against them for those whom we know to be dead not by human declarations but by divine ones, because a deadly voice ought rather to be prohibited than heard. GRATIAN. Likewise, in the Council of Chalcedon, [c. 4], it is prescribed that monks shall not presume to handle ecclesiastical actions.

Likewise Pope Pelagius II, [to the Bishops of Italy]. Let no monk undertake such things anywhere or presume to disturb secular or ecclesiastical business, because their voice is dead in such matters. GRATIAN. But it is one thing which is assumed from a presumption of rashness, another which is conducted from a necessity of charity. For monks cannot accuse bishops from presumption; from charity they can. Hence it is also prescribed in the canons that the chamberlains of a bishop shall be either religious clerics or chosen monks, so that they may be able to give testimony concerning his life. GRATIAN. Part VII. § 1. Likewise, that statement of Pope Eleutherius, [in the letter to the provinces of Gaul], is said generally to all:

To neglect to disturb the depraved when you can is nothing other than to foster them. Nor is one free from the scruple of hidden association who ceases to oppose a manifest crime. Likewise Jerome writes concerning himself as well as other monks in the first prologue of the Library, saying:

For holy rusticity benefits only itself; and as much as it builds the Church of Christ by the merit of its life, so much does it harm it if it does not resist those who destroy.

Likewise Gregory. Subjects are to be admonished not to be subject more than is expedient, lest, when they strive to subject themselves to men more than is necessary, they be compelled to venerate their vices. The same, presiding over a general synod, said, [c. 2]:

Since the life of a shepherd ought to be an example to the disciples, clerics very often do not know what the life of their pontiff is like in private, although secular boys know it. Concerning this matter, we establish by the present decree that certain chosen persons from the clerics or even from the monks shall serve in the ministry of the pontifical chamber, so that one who is in the position of governance may have such witnesses as see his true manner of life in private and take from assiduous observation an example of advancement. Likewise to Virgil, Bishop of Arles, [book IX, letter 49]:

It has reached us that our brother and fellow bishop Serenus of Marseille has altogether depraved men in his company, to such a degree indeed that he has as a familiar a certain priest who, after a fall, is said still to wallow in his iniquities. This is to be investigated minutely by you; and if it has been established thus, let it be your care to correct him in our place in such a manner that one who receives such a man may learn not to foster him with familiarity but rather to restrain him with vengeance, and that the one who is received may learn to wash away sins with tears, not to heap up iniquity with uncleannesses.

Likewise Pope Paschal. Let bishops devote themselves to reading and prayer, and always have with them priests and deacons or other clerics of good testimony, so that, according to the Apostle and the institutes of the holy Fathers, they may be able to be found irreproachable. GRATIAN. Likewise John the Baptist, although he led the eremitical life, refuted with harsh rebuke the scribes and Pharisees, priests and Levites of the Jews, who came to him. § 1. Likewise it is determined from the canons: “Those who are able to ascend to the same grade can accuse priests.” Therefore, since monks can praiseworthily attain to the grade of the priesthood, it is evident that they too can freely accuse priests.