Visit https://ebookluna.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

(eBook PDF) Check-in Check-Out: Managing Hotel

Operations 10th Edition

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-check-in-check-
out-managing-hotel-operations-10th-edition/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookluna.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

(eBook PDF) Hotel Operations Management 3rd Edition by

David K. Hayes

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-hotel-operations-
management-3rd-edition-by-david-k-hayes-2/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Hotel Operations Management 3rd Edition by

David K. Hayes

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-hotel-operations-
management-3rd-edition-by-david-k-hayes/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Operations Management: Managing Global Supply

Chains

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-operations-management-
managing-global-supply-chains/

ebookluna.com

Emerging market bank lending and credit risk control :

evolving strategies to mitigate credit risk, optimize
lending portfolios, and check delinquent loans 1st Edition
Onyiriuba - eBook PDF
https://ebookluna.com/download/emerging-market-bank-lending-and-
credit-risk-control-evolving-strategies-to-mitigate-credit-risk-
optimize-lending-portfolios-and-check-delinquent-loans-ebook-pdf/
ebookluna.com
Progress in Heterocyclic Chemistry Volume 29 1st Edition -
eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/progress-in-heterocyclic-chemistry-
ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Managing Operations Across the Supply Chain

3rd

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-managing-operations-across-
the-supply-chain-3rd/

ebookluna.com

(eBook PDF) Translational Medicine in CNS Drug

Development, Volume 29

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-translational-medicine-in-cns-
drug-development-volume-29/

ebookluna.com

Managing Operations Across the Supply Chain, 4th Edition

(eBook PDF)

https://ebookluna.com/product/managing-operations-across-the-supply-
chain-4th-edition-ebook-pdf/

ebookluna.com

(Original PDF) Managing Supply Chain and Operations: An

Integrative Approach 2nd Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/original-pdf-managing-supply-chain-and-
operations-an-integrative-approach-2nd-edition/

ebookluna.com
 Check-In
Tenth Edition

Check-Out

Vallen
Vallen
Managing Hotel Operations

Check-In Check-Out
Gary K. Vallen
Jerome J. Vallen

Managing Hotel Operations

ISBN-13: 978-0-13-430350-5
Tenth Edition
ISBN-10: 0-13-430350-4
 Contents  vii

The Folio: The Group Account Receivable 324 Debit Cards and Smart Cards 373
Master Accounts 324 Debit Cards 373
How Master Accounts are Structured 327 Smart Cards 375
Split Billing 327 Still Other Cards 376
Understanding Charges and Credits 328 Other City-Ledger Categories 377
Assets 329 Master Accounts 377
Sales or Incomes 331 Groups, Packages, and Company-
Posting to the Folio (The Account Sponsored Functions 378
Receivable) 332 Individual “Direct Bill” City-Ledger
Overview of the Billing Procedure 332 Receivables 379
Preparing the Folio 333 The Original City-Ledger Accounts 379
Presenting the Bill 333 Travel Agents (TAs) 379
Communicating the Charges 334 Banquet Charges 380
Recording Charges to Accounts Late Charges 381
Receivable 335 Delinquent Accounts 382
Understanding the Posting Line 335 Executive Accounts 382
Reference Numbers 337 Due Bills 382
Posting Room Charges 339 Frequent (Preferred) Guest Loyalty Programs 384
Recording Credits to Accounts Receivable 341 Managing Cash and Credit 385
Three Methods of Settling Accounts 341 Managing Cash 385
Settling with Allowances 341 Counterfeit Currency 385
Settling with Transfers 345 Managing Checks 387
Summary 352 Three Quickies 387
Resources and Challenges 352 Simple Deterrents 389
Traveler’s Checks 389
Interesting Tidbits 352
Managing Credit 390
Challenges 353
A Cost/Benefit Decision 390
Problems 353 Collecting, Billing, and Dunning 391
Answers to True/False Quiz 355 Minimizing Chargebacks 392
Summary 393
11 CASH OR CREDIT: THE CITY LEDGER 356 Resources and Challenges 394
Interesting Tidbits 394
Cash 356
Challenges 394
Cash Paid-Outs 356
Tips to Employees 356 Problems 394
Cash Loans 358 Answers to True/False Quiz 395
Refunds at Check-Out 360
House Expenses 360
PART 5 Technology 397
Cash Receipts 360
House Receipts
The Cashier’s Daily Report
361
361
12 THE NIGHT AUDIT 399
The Bank 362 The Auditor and The Audit 399
Net Receipts 363 Point-of-Sale System Interfaces 399
Over or Short 363 The Night Auditor 402
The Turn-In 364 Work Shift 402
Due Back 364 General Duties 402
Other Related Issues 366 Overview of the Audit 404
Tour Package Coupons 366 Reconciling Accounts Receivable 404
Foreign Currency 367 The Closeout Hour 404
Credit and the City Ledger 369 Posting Room Charges 405
Review of the City Ledger 369 Posting Room Charges Electronically 405
Credit Cards 369 Room Charges Not Posted During the
Kinds of Credit Cards 370 Night Audit 406
How the System Works 371 Revenue Verification 406

A01_VALL3505_10_SE_FM.indd 7 13/04/17 11:11 AM

 viii  Contents
Reconciling Using A Property Fire-Safety Systems 455
Management System 407 Fire-Suppression Sprinkler Systems 457
Interfacing Different Systems 407 Minibars 457
Turnkey Systems 408 Traditional (Nonautomated) Minibars 457
Verifying Basic Data 410 Semiautomated Systems 459
Closing Routine 410 Microprocessor-Based Automated
Zip-Out Check Out 412 Systems 459
PMS Posting Errors 415 In-room Safes 462
Reports from the Night Audit 415 Credit-Card Access 462
Exception Reports 416 PIN-Based Entry 462
Downtime Reports 417 Biometric Safes 464
Credit Reports 417 Communication Systems 464
Reservation Reports 418 A Brief History of Telephone Service 464
Rooms Management Reports 421 Internet Access 465
Rooms Status Reports 422 Dial-Up Access 465
Accounts Receivable Reports 424 High-Speed Hard-Wired Access 466
Reports to the Manager 426 High-Speed Wireless Access 466
Room Count, House Count, and Room Income 426 Tiered Bandwidth 467
Room Statistics 429 Cloud Computing 467
The Housekeeper’s Report 430 Cyber Attacks 467
Summary 432 EMV-Enabled Credit Card 467
Resources and Challenges 432 Honey Pots 468
Key Card Identity Theft 468
Interesting Tidbits 432
Hotel Database Theft 468
Challenges 433 Future of Hotel Telephones 468
Problems 433 Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VoIP) 468
Answers to True/False Quiz 434 Wake-Up Systems 470
Manual Wake-Up Systems 470
Semiautomatic Systems 471
13 HOTEL TECHNOLOGY 435 Fully Automated and Interactive TV-Based
Wake-Up Systems 471
Technology in the Guest Room: Historical View 436
Voice Mail 471
A Look Back 436
Where’s My Phone? 471
Costs and Benefits 438
Other Technologies 472
Technology in the Room: The New Generation 439
In-room Entertainment Systems 472
Locking Systems 439
Property-by-Property Custom
Traditional Mortise Locks 439
Programming 472
Mechanical Locking Systems 441
Streaming on Demand 473
Electronic Locking Systems (ELS) 442
At the Desk 473
Key Cards 444
Wearable Computers 474
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 446
Standardization: From HITIS
RFID Locks 446
and Beyond 474
Other RFID Uses 447
Biometric Locking Systems 447 Summary 475
Smartphone Applications 447 Resources and Challenges 475
Just Google It 448 Interesting Tidbits 476
Guest-Room Lock Apps 448 Challenges 476
Other Hospitality Industry Smartphone Apps 448
Problems 476
Energy Management and Climate
Control Systems 450 Answers to True/False Quiz 477
PTACs 451 Glossary 478
Network-Controlled Energy
Management Systems 451 Index 490

A01_VALL3505_10_SE_FM.indd 8 18/04/17 3:36 PM

 PREFACE
Now in its tenth edition, Check-In Check-Out is providing hospitality industry education to
a new generation of students. It is nice to know this thriving industry is heading towards new
levels of revenue, customer service, and quality accommodations. The challenging economy we
faced in the years 2008 to 2011—with its declining occupancies and falling room rates—has
given way to a new lodging industry renaissance. The future is bright.
Evidence of the industry’s new-found energy can be found in the merging mega-chains
(e.g., Marriott and Starwood) as well as through the evolution of technology both inside and
outside of the hotel room. Traditional brands have become less traditional, launching bou-
tique and urban collections. Innkeeping has become more of an international business as U.S.
chains compete with foreign-owned operators both at home and abroad. And the influence of
the sharing-economy, with a growing dependence on products like Airbnb, can no longer be
ignored. This edition contains new material about these moves and about the many innova-
tions that hoteliers are undertaking. These changes are critical information for anyone who
wants to be (or already is) managing hotel operations.
Rapid changes within the industry require a text that keeps pace. Check-In Check-Out
does just that, with a myriad of enhancements and improvements added to a textbook which
maintains a very rapid revision cycle (every four years). This new edition has been fully restruc-
tured with leading-edge information and current resources. Readers will find the text rich
in detail about best practices and future directions. Small wonder that Check-In Check-Out
remains a mainstay with both industry professionals and students alike!
The lodging industry is a competitive business in which brand names play a critical role.
Many names, including the names of well-known chains and their spin-offs, and many of their
practices are cited throughout the text. All of the company names mentioned throughout the
text are registered trademarks! Please read registered trademark® whenever a company name—
whether a lodging company or a company from a different industry—is cited.
As always, the authors seek input that will assure the accuracy of future editions. Please
send ideas, comments, and suggestions to the authors:
Dr. Gary Vallen, Professor, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, and Dr. Jerry
Vallen, Professor and Dean Emeritus, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.

ix

A01_VALL3505_10_SE_FM.indd 9 13/04/17 3:41 PM

 ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Coauthored texts are not unusual unless the authors are father and son. Jerry Vallen, the father,
launched the book in 1974. Gary Vallen, the son, pursued several degrees and a professional
career before becoming a joint author of the fourth edition.
Dr. Gary K. Vallen is Professor in the School of Hotel and Restaurant Management at Northern
Arizona University. He joined that program in 1988 as one of its founding faculty, bringing
years of industry experience to the classroom. Part of his resumé includes vice president and
AGM of a hotel/casino, hotel sales manager, financial and operational analysis, AGM for a
corporation of private clubs, and hundreds of industry consulting projects.
Dr. Vallen received his undergraduate degree in hotel administration at the University
of Nevada, Las Vegas. Despite the long hours of industry, he simultaneously worked and
earned an MBA at the University of Nevada, Reno. His doctorate degree (with an emphasis in
hospitality education from Northern Arizona University) was earned after he began teaching.
In addition to Check-In, Check-Out, Dr. Vallen coauthored An Introduction to Hospitality
Management, edited two editions of a textbook entitled A Host of Opportunities, and has
published over three dozen refereed articles and conference proceedings. He is on the editorial
boards of five professional journals.
Professor Vallen operates Gary Vallen Hospitality Consultants (www.GaryVallenHospitality
Consultants.com), which specializes in industry research and analysis such as; demographic
and economic impact studies at festivals, fairs, rodeos, and ski slopes; secret-shopper evalu-
ations for individual and chain-affiliated hotels; feasibility studies and related assistance to
regional Native American tribes, including the Hopi and Navajo. He is also well known for his
rural tourism expertise. Some of his work has been presented at the U.S. Supreme Court and
heard on National Public Radio’s Marketplace.
Dr. Jerome J. Vallen was the founding Dean of the College of Hotel Administration, University
of Nevada, Las Vegas, and served in that capacity for 22 years. He is now Professor Emeritus/
Dean Emeritus. Jerry Vallen returned to the classroom for a short period before taking an
assignment as founding dean of the Australian International Hotel School, Canberra.
After earning a baccalaureate degree at Cornell, he entered the hotel industry, carrying
with him the food experience gained from the family’s small chain of four restaurants. For
several years, he taught and worked in industry. Dr. Vallen earned a master’s degree in educa-
tional administration (St. Lawrence University) and a doctoral degree from Cornell’s School
of Hotel Administration.
He has coauthored a book on hotel management and edited a work on the legal basis
for obtaining a gaming license in Nevada. Professor Vallen has served as a consulting editor
for textbook publishers; a traveling consultant to the U.S. Department of Commerce that has
carried him to over three dozen countries; an outside examiner for the University of the West
Indies; president of a consulting company; member of the board of several private companies
and public entities; and president and chairman of the Council on Hotel, Restaurant and Insti-
tutional Education (CHRIE). He and his wife, Florence, prepared a history of UNLV’s College
of Hotel Administration entitled; “The Right Place.”
Such diverse groups as the University Alumni Association, the Educational Foundation of
the National Restaurant Association, and the Educational Institute of the American Hotel &
Lodging Association have honored him. So has CHRIE, with its prestigious H.B. Meek Award.
Jerome Vallen has been cited in the Congressional Record and named among the 100 most
important Las Vegans of the 20th century.

A01_VALL3505_10_SE_FM.indd 10 13/04/17 11:11 AM

 Part 1
The Hotel Industry

Chapter 1 The Traditional Hotel Industry

Chapter 2 The Modern Hotel Industry
Chapter 3 The Structures of the Hotel Industry

M01A_VALL3505_10_SE_P01.indd 1 27/12/16 5:19 PM

This page intentionally left blank
 CHAPTER 1
The Traditional Hotel Industry

Innkeeping (hotel management) has a long tradition. But, as we shall see throughout
the text, the “traditional” hotel industry is in flux. Today’s issues and challenges would
not be familiar to the operators of even a generation ago. The skill set of the modern
hotel manager blends art and science (see Exhibit 3-2), and that makes membership
both exciting and demanding.
No one really knows when innkeeping moved from a personal accommodation pro-
vided to traveling friends and acquaintances to a less restrictive, more egalitarian one.
It all started ages ago when wanderers and single travelers sought security and accom-
modations in trees and caves first, then in castles and churches, then in homes and
estates, then in inns and hotels. Greater political and economic freedoms eventually
swelled the numbers. “For my part, I travel not to go anywhere, but to go.”1 Soon, the
courtesy of friendly hosts had to give way to commercial enterprise. The hotel indus-
try was born carrying this culture of hospitality. So hospitality and hotels are related
concepts, deriving from the same Latin root. However, “hotel,” from the French “hôtel
garni,” meaning furnished house, didn’t appear until the 18th century.

Understanding the Hotel Business

The Service Culture
The hotel industry has flourished by keeping pace with the changing environment that
marks human progress. So hotelkeeping matured far ahead of the growing list of service
industries that emerged in the 20th century. It will likely close the 21st century as part of
the age of technology. Later chapters account for just that. Such an operational shift will
translate into new kinds of, but far less personal, services!

A Cyclical Industry
Hotelkeeping is a cyclical industry that closely follows economic phases. Wide swings carry
innkeeping between peaks of exceptional profits and troughs of outright distress. This roller
coaster has been most evident over the past half century. The whole travel industry was
brought to its knees by the oil embargo of 1973. Innkeeping then cycled from bankruptcy
to recovery. A decade later, the early 1980s brought a second cycle when the federal gov-
ernment changed the income tax laws on real estate. (Remember, hotels are pieces of real
estate above all else.) Dominant companies bought distressed properties, and hotel profits
reappeared by the close of the 1990s. Just as the recovery was consolidating came the trag-
edy of 9/11, the World Trade Center destruction (2001). Travel and tourism bottomed out
anew. That recovery cycle faltered in 2008 when a dramatic downturn in the U.S. economy

1
Robert Louis Stevenson, 1878.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 3 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 4  Part 1 ▸ The Hotel Industry

halted travel once again. Business began an upward crawl anew from late 2010. Prosperity
returned by 2015; hotels—both profits and physical buildings—were going up once again.
It happened just as predicted in the 2012 edition of this text. Hotel properties rebound
quickly because income (room rates) can be easily adjusted to changing economics.
Hoteliers stop building during downturns. Three years is the typical span between
planning and opening a hotel. It’s longer if there are special financing, zoning, or envi-
ronmental issues. Over half of announced projects are never built. Trump International in
Chicago took four years to build. Just renovating the Pierre in New York took 18 months.
When occupancy and profits boom, the competition begins to rev up new properties. So
new rooms frequently open—three years later—just as the cycle peaks. That increased
supply exaggerates the next downward dip. Supply and demand play their traditional
roles in hotel economics as they do for general business. Overbuilding (excess supply)
exaggerates the downturns far more often than does the insufficient demand (fewer cus-
tomers) of cyclical dips. The trend is exacerbated when civic pride provides financial
incentives (tax breaks and low-cost loans) to subsidize small, local projects that would be
uneconomical otherwise.

How Hotels Count and Measure

Within the cycles, new rooms are built and old rooms are removed. One can never say for
certain how many hotels or hotel rooms are available at a given time. Governmental agen-
cies (Bureau of the Census) and trade associations (American Hotel & Lodging Association,
AH&LA) track and report the numbers. Other participants include the World Tourism
Organization (WTO) and the International Hotel and Restaurant Association (IH&RA).
Private participants include Smith Travel Research and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Rarely do
the figures agree; some are not even close.
The Census Bureau reports hotels in its SC Series once every decade. By then the num-
bers aren’t very reliable. The last count in 2010, for example, was made during a horrific
downturn when many hotels had closed. Still, estimates are possible. The number approx-
imates 55,000 hotels in the United States with some 5,000,000 hotel rooms. (That’s about
35–40% of the world’s total rooms.) Dividing the figures shows that the typical hotel has
;90 rooms about half of which are small, nonchain affiliated. Figures get skewed, how-
ever, because convention hotels (large hotels), which number only about 2% of all U.S.
properties, contain about 12% of the nation’s total rooms. Old hotels close and new ones
are built so the net growth in rooms is about 1% annually in the United States.
Hotels are valued on a per-room cost, either the cost per room to build or the resale
price per room—called the per-key cost. Valuing each room at, say, $250,000, U.S.
hotels are worth nearly $1.5 trillion. (A theoretical musing of $250,000 per room con-
trasts sharply with an actual deal in 2014 when $1.2 million per room was paid for the
Standard Hotel in New York City’s meat-packing district. But, of course, New York City
differs; it stands alone.)
Other parts of the globe, Asia and South America, for example, have also had robust
growth and increased travel from tourism, the Olympics, and international trade. Growth
like this changes the world’s balance. Combined, Europe and the United States no longer
account for what was once two-thirds of the world’s total rooms.

Occupancy
Occupancy, a measure of supply and demand, gauges the industry’s economic health. Robust
demand encourages construction. Falling demand seals the fate of old hotels. Worn-out
rooms are kept during boom periods, when there’s a shortage. They fall to the wrecker’s ball
or are converted when they are competitive no longer. Many were renovated into dormitory
rooms when American universities were in their boom years. In the 1990s, condo conversion
was the hot move. Luxury residential units were more valuable than luxury hotel units. The
famed Plaza in New York City carried out one of the most publicized of these conversions.
Its final count from the original 800 rooms: residential condo units, 152; guest rooms, 282.
The downturn that began in 2008 put an end to condo conversions. The movement has not
regained traction because room occupancy improved and renovation costs rose.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 4 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 Chapter 1 ▸ The Traditional Hotel Industry   5
At any given time, the number of rooms available for sale reflects the mathematics of
the old and the new. During the upward cycle, more guests are buying, but fewer rooms
are available. Room rates go up. Just the opposite in a downward cycle: fewer buyers
and more rooms—built during “the good times.” Rates fall. Hoteliers measure this cus-
tomer demand by the number of rooms occupied, also called the number of rooms sold.
Hoteliers count this figure every night.
Hoteliers also know the number of rooms in their hotels. Although the number of
rooms is just an estimate worldwide, hotel managers know theirs accurately. Whether for
the world, the region or the individual hotel, that number is called the number of rooms
available for sale.
The relationship (or ratio) between the number of rooms sold (demand) and the num-
ber of rooms available (supply) measures the property’s health. It is a closely watched
value that asks, “How well did we sell rooms relative to the number of rooms that could
have been sold?” That big mouthful has a shortcut called the percentage of occupancy, or
occupancy percentage or, often, just occupancy.
The occupancy calculation is a simple division. The number of rooms available for
sale is divided into the number of rooms sold (see Exhibit 1-1):
Number of Rooms Sold
= A Percentage of Occupancy
Number of Rooms Available for Sale

Given
Number of rooms available for sale 640
Number of rooms in the hotel 643
Number of rooms sold last night 520
Income from room sales $149,920
Employees on staff 461
Number of guests last night 600
Computations
Percentage of occupancy:
Number of Rooms Sold Last Night 520
= 81.25%
Number of Rooms Available 640
ADR—Average daily rate (Sales per Occupied Room):
Room Sales (in Dollars or Other Currency) $149,920
= $288.31
Number of Rooms Sold 520
REVPAR—Sales per available room:
Room Sales (in Dollars or Other Currency) $149,920
= $234.25
Number of Rooms Available 640
Mathematical Check:
ADR * Occupancy = RevPar $288.31 * 0.8125 = $234.25

Number of Employees Per Guest Room:

Number of Employees 461
= 0.72
Number of Rooms Available 640
Percentage of Double Occupancy:
Number of Guests - Number of Rooms Sold 600- 520
= 15.4%
Number of Rooms Sold 520

EXHIBIT 1-1
Except for the number of employees, these values originate in the night audit (Chapter 12). Standardization
enables hoteliers to compare individual properties to industry-wide statistics. Some locations outside
of the United States favor bed-occupancy percentages (Number of Beds Sold , Number of Beds
Available) over room occupancy values. Bed (or guest or sleeper) occupancy of 50% approximates room
occupancy of 70%.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 5 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 Visit https://ebookluna.com
now to explore a diverse
collection of ebooks available
in formats like PDF, EPUB, and
MOBI, compatible with all
devices. Don’t miss the chance
to enjoy exciting offers and
quickly download high-quality
materials in just a few simple
steps!
 6  Part 1 ▸ The Hotel Industry

Occupancy can be computed by one hotel for one night, one month, or one year.
Citywide, regional (the Northeast, for example), and national occupancies are tracked
by many agencies. Among them are hotel chains, convention bureaus and state tourism
offices.
Values become less accurate as the count moves from the individual property to a
worldwide number. Nevertheless, everyone is engrossed by occupancy figures. More so
when estimates suggest that a mere 1% rise in chain occupancy (i.e., “chain” occupancy:
thousands of rooms, see Exhibit 2-3) represents millions of dollars of improved profits.

Sales per Occupied Room

Occupancy measures quantity, the hotel’s share of the market. Sales per occupied room—
also called average daily rate [ADR]—measures quality. Its formula (see Exhibit 1-1) is:
Total Dollar Room Sales
= ADR (A Dollar Value Per Room Sold)
Number of Rooms Sold
The health of the industry is reflected in both occupancy and price. Price, ADR, ($)
increases as occupancy (%) increases. The more rooms sold—the greater the demand—
the higher the room rate. That’s because lower-priced rooms sell first. Conversely, as
occupancy falls, so does the ADR. Supply and demand are at work.

Revpar (Revenue per Available Room)

RevPar is an old industry standby that once was called average rate per available room.
RevPar (or REVPAR) measures management’s ability to keep rates high even as occupancy
declines. Hoteliers are fond of saying, “hotels fill from the bottom up.” Guests elect lower
rates when an empty house allows it. Superior managers strive to keep rates high even as
occupancy dips within the cycle. Management does this using yield management, discussed
in Chapter 9. REVPAR reflects the revenue (sales) relative to the total rooms available
for sale. In contrast, ADR reflects the revenue relative to the number of rooms actually
sold. (Rooms sales and room revenue are interchangeable terms.) Exhibit 1-1 illustrates the
computations.
Total Dollar Room Sales
= RevPar (Measured in Dollars and Cents)
Number of Rooms Available for Sale
Both of the above values are easily misstated. Total Room Sales must not include
taxes nor the values of free breakfasts or free parking. Similarly, the Number of Rooms
Available must include vacant rooms, but not those permanently assigned to other uses
such as offices or storage. Obviously, REVPAR rises steadily over time as inflation raises
the room rates.
RevPar does not reflect management’s ability to control costs or produce sales in
other departments. But for rooms-only hotels (no bars, no laundries, no restaurants),
RevPar is an especially good measure. For others it is a measure of us against our compet-
itors. For hostels, it’s Revenue Per available Bed.

Double Occupancy
Exhibit 1-1 continues with the occupancy calculations. Spoken simply as “double occu-
pancy,” this value is really a “percentage of double occupancy.”
Number of Guests - Number of Rooms Occupied
= Percentage of Double Occupancy
Number of Rooms Occupied
Multiple occupancy is a better term than double occupancy because more than two
guests may be housed in one room. If the number of guests is greater than two, the for-
mula falters. Assume, for example, two rooms occupied with three persons in one room
and one person in the other. The calculation would be 4 (guests) - 2 (rooms) , 2 (rooms)
= 1 or 100% double occupancy. In fact, it is only 50%, one room in two.
Double occupancy’s impact on room revenue is much clearer. Additional charges
(a double rate) is usually levied when families, skiers, and tour groups double-up.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 6 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 Chapter 1 ▸ The Traditional Hotel Industry   7
Casino/hotels want bodies on the casino floor, so they rarely charge double-occupancy rates.
High double occupancy is associated with resort properties, giving them a higher ADR.
Another statistical fudge occurs when comps (complimentary—free rooms) are
counted as occupied. The occupancy percentage increases but ADR decreases because
there are no dollars earned. Similarly, averages for the entire industry are slanted when
large hotels are counted along with hotels of 50 rooms or less.

Break-Even Point
To break even is to have neither profit nor loss. Inflows from revenues match exactly out-
flows from costs. Hotels have large fixed costs including interest on debt payments, licenses,
taxes, and fixed salaries and wages. Reducing fixed costs drops the level of occupancy
needed to break even. Similarly, increasing sales from food, beverage, spa, etc. reduces the
pressure on room sales. Increasing the RevPar also contributes provided the percentage of
occupancy is maintained despite the rate increase.
Break-even points are important, because there is no profit until that point is reached.
Once the point is reached, profits accumulate quickly. Each sales dollar before the break-
even point is used to pay off debt; pay utilities; pay the staff. Thereafter, each dollar con-
tributes to profits.
Break-even points are expressed in occupancy percentages. That value has been declining
over the past decades. Better hotel design and better financing have held down both variable
and fixed costs. Changes in market mix and higher room rates have sometimes improved
revenues, the other component of break even. Different times and different circumstances
(rising debt and shrinking revenues) will boost the occupancy needed to break even.

Special Characteristics of the Hotel Business

Several special characteristics limit management’s flexibility. Some are lodging-only issues
and some are also found in other industries.

Perishability
Vacant rooms are perishable. The industry’s mantra is “an unsold room tonight can never
be sold again.” Unlike a can of fruit which inventories on the grocer’s shelf, hotel rooms are
time restricted. No way to take last night’s empty room to meet an overflow tonight. Like
empty airline, theater or arena seats, unsold hotel rooms cannot be stored, cannot be saved,
cannot be used anew.

Location
Ellsworth Statler, who sold his Statler chain to Hilton, has been credited with “Location,
location, location” as the three most important aspects of [hotel] real estate. Good loca-
tions are not easy to acquire. Changing neighborhoods and shifting demographics some-
times doom a hotel whose original location was good. Unlike an airline seat, there is no
way to move the hotel room. A fixed location in an uneven neighborhood requires astute
management and a heavy dependence on marketing and sales.

Fixed Supply
Just as the hotel’s location is fixed, so is its supply of rooms. Airlines adjust to demand by
adding or removing flights. Not so with hotels. What you see is what you must manage.

High Operating Costs

Unlike manufacturing which offsets high labor costs with large capital investments, hotels are
both capital and labor intensive. The result is, in the jargon of the trade, a large nut. Large
built-in costs continue regardless of occupancy levels. Innkeeping’s break-even hurdle is high.

Seasonality
Throwing away the key is a traditional practice when a new hotel opens. Hotels never
close; that’s the significance. Yet hotelkeeping is a very seasonal business. Cyclical

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 7 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 8  Part 1 ▸ The Hotel Industry

Day of the Week Nightly Occupy %

Monday 78
Tuesday 89
Wednesday 87
Thursday 80
Friday 41
Saturday 47
Sunday 54
476,7 days per week
= 68% average weekly occupancy

EXHIBIT 1-2
The difficulty of achieving a national occupancy in the mid-70% range is highlighted by the typical
cycle of weekly occupancy for commercial hotels. The challenge is convincing guest groups, whose
members work all week, to hold conventions on the weekends. (Smith Travel Research, among
others, tracks and reports U.S. occupancy figures.)

dips hit commercial hotels every seven days as they struggle to offset poor weekend
occupancy. The federal holiday law that extended weekends into Mondays certainly
didn’t help.
Occupancy computations must account for the weekend phenomenon. Especially
since the business traveler—the very person not registered during the weekend—still
accounts for the bulk of the industry’s business. Given the usual profile of the commer-
cial, urban hotel (see Exhibit 1-2), national occupancy in the 70–80% range remains
an elusive goal. Annual cycles compound the problem. Commercial occupancy falls off
between Thanksgiving and New Years and from May Day to Labor Day.
Resorts have an opposite pattern: Busy weekends, slower midweeks. The slack
months of the commercial hotel are the very season of the resort hotel. At one time,
resorts opened Memorial Day and closed Labor Day. Winter resorts (December
15–March 15) fared no better. Bad weather could devastate both 100-day seasons.
Both summer and winter resorts have extended seasons with groups, conferences,
and special events. Most remain open year-round. Commercial hotels that operate on the
four-day season may be worse off than the seasonal hotels. At least the latter have high
double occupancy.

Traditional Classifications
Lodging is an industry of rapid transformation. The inns of old evolved from private homes
located along the traveler’s route. Today’s hotel is often a point of destination even as it
serves its traditional role of accommodating those in transit. Yesterday’s tavern offered
meals with the family. Dining today is a created experience in design, décor, and menu.
Early inns were indistinguishable from their neighbor’s homes. Today’s edifice is a sharp
contrast in style and packaging (see Exhibit 1-3).
The industry still delivers the basic accommodations of shelter, food and hospitality.
It’s the means of delivery that has changed. These variations have been marked by shift-
ing terminology: hostel, tavern, public house, inn, guest house, hotel, resort, motel, motor
lodge, motor inn, bed and breakfast, timeshare, condominium. The industry’s trade asso-
ciation has undergone similar shifts in identity. The American Hotel Association became
the American Hotel & Motel Association; and then the American Hotel and Lodging
Association. “Motel” has been replaced in the professional vocabulary with new hotel
types—and there are many, as we shall see throughout the text.
Changes notwithstanding, several traditional classifications have withstood the test
of time. They are size, class, type, and plan. These are not definitive, objective measures.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 8 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 Chapter 1 ▸ The Traditional Hotel Industry   9

EXHIBIT 1-3
In sharp contrast to early inns, which were the homes of the innkeeper and his family, the architecture
of modern hotels contributes to their éclat.
Joyt/Fotolia.

Nor are they self-exclusive. Hotels fall into all categories or into just some. Each category
impacts differently on how managers manage. Hence, comes the text’s subtitle, Managing
Hotel Operations.

Size
The number of rooms available for sale, the very same figure used in occupancy compu-
tations (see Exhibit 1-1), is the standard measure of size. Measures such as the number of
employees or gross dollar sales are used less frequently. Counting available rooms is not as
certain a gauge as one would first believe. More rooms may be advertised than are actually
available. Older hotels have rooms that are no longer saleable. Newer properties lose guest
rooms to unplanned offices and storage. As a rule, the older the hotel, the fewer rooms
available relative to the original room count.
Hotels are grouped by size for financial reporting, for the U.S. Census and for trade
association dues. Traditionally, large hotels are 300 rooms or more, medium hotels are
100–300 rooms, and small hotels are less than 100 rooms. Recognize that these desig-
nations are somewhat arbitrary. Yet, most of the AH&LA’s membership is less than 100
rooms. The USA’s Small Business Administration (SBA) offers these small hotel builders
“7(a) 504 loans.” Periodically, the SBA redefines small by setting new dollar values. The
current limit for a “small” hotel is revenue of no more than $30,000,000! An 80-room
hotel with 70% occupancy and an ADR of $100 would easily qualify for such a loan. It
would generate only $2,044,000 annually (80 rooms * 70% occupancy * $100 ADR *
365 days = $2,044,000); far below the SBA’s ceiling.
Visualizing small-and medium-sized hotels as the lodging industry is difficult when one
thinks of famous hotels such as the Waldorf Astoria in New York City with 1,413 rooms
or the New Otani in Tokyo, 1,479 rooms (see Exhibit 1-4). Small hotels are more common
in Europe where they have been traditionally family owned and operated. But the shift to
chains and franchised hotel names has accelerated in both Europe and Asia. There are well
over 100 brands worldwide and that is changing the international structure of the business.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 9 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 10  Part 1 ▸ The Hotel Industry

Hotel Number of Roomsa Location

Venetian/ Palazzo b
7,100 Las Vegas
MGM Grand/Mansion/Signatureb 6,850 Las Vegas
First World Hotel 6,100 Genting Highlands, Malaysia
Disney All Star resort 5,500 Orlando
Izmailovo Gamma Delta 5,000 Moscow
Wynn/Encoreb 4,750 Las Vegas
Luxor 4,400 Las Vegas
Mandalay Bay/Delano Hotelb 4,350 Las Vegas
Ambassador City 4,200 Jomtien Beach, Thailand
Excalibur 4,050 Las Vegas
Aria 4,000 Las Vegas
Bellagio 4,000 Las Vegas
Caesars Palace 3,900 Las Vegas
Sheraton Macau 3,900 Macau
Circus Circus 3,700 Las Vegas
Planet Hollywood (nee: Aladdin) 3,700 Las Vegas
Shinagawa Prince 3,700 Tokyo
Flamingo 3,550 Las Vegas
Atlantis 3,400 Paradise Island
Hilton Hawaiian Village 3,400 Honolulu
Las Vegas Hilton 3,200 Las Vegas
Disney 3,050 Lake Buena Vista
Mirage 3,050 Las Vegas
Opryland Hotel 3,000 Nashville
Monte Carlo 3,000 Las Vegas
Venetian 3,000 Macau
Cosmopolitan 3,000 Las Vegas
aRoom numbers have been rounded to 50.
bBuilt and marketed as separate hotels.

EXHIBIT 1-4
Megahotels, once exclusive to Las Vegas, are now worldwide. Still, many of these behemoths rely on
gaming for their financial success.

Mom-and-Pop Motels
The term “motel” (motor + hotel) was coined after World War II when Americans took to the
highways and the new freeway system. The concept was refined by Kemmon’s Wilson who
created the Holiday Inn chain. Motels replaced the very limited facilities known as tourist
courts (see Exhibit 1-5). Many motels—the term has now fallen from favor—were family
owned and operated, hence the term “mom-and-pop.” There were some 60,000 mom-and-
pop motels along the highways after World War II (1950s). Rising construction costs and
difficult financing headed a list of hurdles that such small entrepreneurs could not overcome.
(Support from the SBA, mentioned earlier, didn’t appear until a decade later, 1953.) Mom-
and-pops did not purchase in quantity; they were unable to advertise widely; and they
competed against the better management talent that were employed by the (new) chain/
franchise competitors. Positively: They could be built on just two acres of land.

Class
The class of hotel is sensed as often as it is measured, but two yardsticks quantify the
appraisal. They are price (ADR) and rating systems.

Average Daily Rate

Delivering class, elegance, and service costs money. Larger rooms, upgraded furnishings,
and extra employees incur larger financing costs, depreciation, energy usage, wages and
more. So too do better levels of maintenance, 24-hour room service, saunas, and similar

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 10 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 Chapter 1 ▸ The Traditional Hotel Industry   11

EXHIBIT 1-5
Tourist courts (camps) morphed into the motor hotel made popular by Kemmons Wilson’s Holiday
Inns and made possible by the federal interstate road system backed by legislation under the Eisen-
hower administration (post World War II).

extras. All must be recovered by higher rates. It is more than just a generalization that: The
better the class of hotel the higher the rate.
Driven by inflation, ADR has been increasing industry-wide for decades. So a higher
room rate over time is not the measure. The critical value is a higher rate relative to compe-
tition. “Location, location, location,” a quote from the famed Ellsworth Statler, also plays a
role. Hotels in small towns are different than their big-city counterparts. A $75 rate in Los
Angeles conjures up a totally different class of lodging than does that same rate in a small
rural town. However, at a given time and with concern for size, type, and location, ADR is a
fair measure of class. So rates help further classify the nation’s hotels (see Exhibit 1-6).

Average Daily Room Rate Helps Classify the Industry’s Hotels

Classification $ Nightly Rate ; Hotel Examples

Deluxe 900 Four Seasons

Ritz Carlton
Upper Upscale 750 Sofitel
Le Meriden
Upscale 525 Marriott
Hyatt
Mid-price with Restaurants 175 Sheraton Four Points
Hilton Garden Inn
Mid-price without 140 Hampton Inns
Restaurants
La Quinta
Economy 90 Red Roof Inns
Super 8
Budget 75 EconoLodge
Motel 6

EXHIBIT 1-6
Average daily rate (ADR) helps classify the wide range of hotel accommodations, which range from
bare-minimum budget facilities to full-service, deluxe properties.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 11 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 12  Part 1 ▸ The Hotel Industry

Full-Service to Limited Service

Hotels are as diverse as the traveling public that fills them. Responding to varied needs, the
industry has created different accommodations from full-service high-rises to squat road-
side inns. One group offers nothing more than a clean room and a good mattress. Guests
do not need swimming pools, closets or lobbies goes that argument. This hotelier offers lim-
ited service at minimum price. It does so with new language: Limited service is now “select
service” or better still, “focused service.”
One hundred eighty degrees away is the full-service, upscale property. This hotel has
superior facilities and a full complement of services. Limited services mean lobby vending
machines or a nearby restaurant servicing several properties in the area. Full-service has
a menu of dining options and a range of extras: lounges, room service, newspapers to
the room, exercise facilities, and electronic support. Expense-account travelers patronize
full-service properties although something less costly may do when their family travels.
Between the two lies the bulk of facilities. Services are added as competition demands
and costs allow. Services are pared as markets shift and acceptable self-service equipment
appears. Chapters 2 and 3 introduce some newer in-between-type hotels.

Number of Employees
Class as measured by full-service or limited service refers as much to staff size as to phys-
ical amenities. Thus, the number of employees per guest room is another measure of class
(see Exhibit 1-1).
Number of Employees on Staff
= Number of Employees per Guest Room
Number of Rooms Available for Sale
Budget properties, those without amenities such as restaurants, bars or room service,
operate with as few as 0.25 (one-fourth) employee per guest room. An 80-room budget
might have as few as 20 staffers. There’s a limit to how small the staff can shrink. If the
property wants the legal benefits of being a hotel, common law requires it to be open 24
hours daily. Now add in staff days-off, plus a minimum housekeeping crew, night secu-
rity, someone for repairs and maintenance and the total staff grows.
The Marina Bay Sands (Singapore) opened 2,500 rooms in 2010 with 20,000 employ-
ees; an unprecedented ratio of eight employees per guest room! The staff has been whit-
tled down since—and that is the usual arrangement with new hotel openings. Because a
basic staff is needed, a hotel of 60 rooms might have almost the same number of employ-
ees as one of, say, 100 rooms. Each property needs a minimum number at the desk, a
manager, a head housekeeper, an accountant, and someone in maintenance. Each must
provide for vacations and sickness. Housekeeping is staffed differently. If a housekeeper
cleans 15 occupied rooms per shift, every additional 15 rooms require an extra employee
and eventually a supervisor. Hotels minimize that number by only using and paying for
call-in housekeepers when volume dictates.
The in-between class of hotels uses an in-between number of employees. That ratio
runs from 0.5 (one-half) an employee per room to a ratio as high as 1:1. Depending on
the level of service offered, a 300-room hotel could have as few as 125 employees to as
many as 250. Some will be part-time.
Full-service hotels offer a variety of departments (bells, restaurants, turn-down ser-
vice, marketing, pools). Still more staff is needed for properties with theaters, acres of
grounds, casinos, and 24-hour room service. The employee–rooms ratio may jump to 1.5.
So a 1,000 hotel/casino in full operation 24 hours could have 1,250–1,500 staffers. No
wonder so many localities with low labor usage—think Detroit, for example—have voted
for local casinos.
Asian hotels have had the largest ratio because labor has been less costly. The Bangkok
Shangri-La, for example, has a ratio of about 1.5:1. Hong Kong’s Peninsula Hotel oper-
ates with 655 employees for its 300 rooms. That’s better than 2:1. The Singapore Sands
had a nearly 4:1 ratio: 10,000 on staff for 2,560 rooms when it first opened. (And no
wonder! Singapore’s few hotel/casinos have generated more earnings than all of Las Vegas’
hotel/casinos combined.)

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 12 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 Chapter 1 ▸ The Traditional Hotel Industry   13
Worldwide, the workforce is huge. The United States alone has some 2 million hotel
workers. The privately funded World Tourism and Travel Council (WTTC) estimates 225
million employees in the world’s tourism—not just hotels—industry. Tourism accounts
for almost 13% of Europe’s total labor force. The WTTC estimates travel and tourism
employs more persons than auto, mining, and finance combined.

Rating Systems
Room rates provide good guidance to the class of hotel even when formal rating systems
exist. Some rating systems have been publicized; some have not. Some are government-run;
some are not. Most are standardized within the single country, but not across borders.
Members of the World Tourism Organization have done much to standardize their systems
by adopting the WTO’s five recommended classes. Deluxe or luxury class is at the top.
First class, which is not top-of-the-line despite its name, comes next. Tourist class, some-
times called economy or second class, is actually third in line. Third and fourth classes
(really the fourth and fifth ranks) usually have no private baths, no centralized heat, not
even carpeting. International travelers avoid third- and fourth-class facilities. They also
know to discount the deluxe category of many Caribbean properties. Experienced travelers
limit stays in Africa and the Middle East to deluxe properties only.
Worldwide Worldwide there are some 100 rating systems. Almost all of them rank by
using stars, but coffee pots, alphabets, and even feathers have been used. Britain uses ticks
for its holiday parks (upscale RV [recreational vehicle] parks).
Europe’s system is the most developed. Its four- and five-star hotels have restaurants
and bars. Hotel garni means no restaurant but a continental breakfast is usually served.
That’s the usage in England as well as on the Continent and both correspond to the U.S.
phrase, “breakfast included.”
The Swiss and Mexican Hotel Associations are unique because they are self-­rating
private organizations. The Swiss use the WTO’s five classifications plus a luxury class
termed Gran Tourism or Gran Especial. The Irish Tourist Board takes a different
approach, listing the facilities available (elevator, air conditioning, laundry) rather than
grading them. Directories of the European Community do the same and also classify by
location: seaside/countryside; small town/large city. European auto clubs go further by
distinguishing privately owned from government-run accommodations.
Spain has standardized the ratings on its paradors (stopping places) despite a wide
range of facilities and furnishings. About one-third of this government-operated chain is
at a four-star level.
In 2008, Italy adopted a one-to-five-star plan leaving enforcement to individual
regions. Room size is one criterion: A minimum 15 square meters (155 square feet) for
four- and five-star properties.2 A staff of foreign-language speakers is among the standards.
Japanese traditional inns, ryokans, are rated according to their rooms and baths
and—of all things to Western values—gardens. Two meals are offered and often taken
in the uncluttered guest room that opens onto these gardens. The Japanese Travel
Bureau lists about 1,000 ryokans for international guests. Ryokans, great for tour-
ists, are not favored by Japanese nationals who prefer shukubos—rooms in Buddhist
temples.
Korea has its own version of traditional, budget-priced lodging, yogwans. Most have
standard hotel accommodations. Upscale yogwans have jang or chang tacked on at the
end of their names. Many hanoks (traditional Korean houses) have been converted into
boutique hotels.
The United Kingdom has the largest variety of rating systems. Among them are the
National Tourism Board (NTB), the Automobile Association (AA), the Royal Automobile
Club (RAC), and commercial enterprises including the well-known Michelin. Some rate
by stars, others use pavilions or crowns. Each classification is further divided by grades or
percentages. For example, the AA might grade a property as Four Star, 65%.

2
See Chapter 3 for square foot and square meter equivalencies.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 13 20/04/17 5:15 PM

 14  Part 1 ▸ The Hotel Industry

The U.S. System Unlike the United Kingdom’s mix of private and governmental sys-
tems, the United States relies solely on private enterprise. The American Automobile As-
sociation (AAA) has been one of two major participants. Mobil (present day Forbes) was
started in the motor-lodge era of the late 1950s as a subsidiary of Mobil Oil. Now, both
face several competitors. Michelin, popular in Europe, now has U.S. guidebooks. Zagat
started with restaurant guides and then added hotels. J.D. Powers, the consumer goods
rating system, has also entered the market. Many websites (Expedia, for one) carry evalua-
tions as do a wide range of publications. Social networks probably do the best job because
previous guests “tell it like it is!” on websites for all to read.
There are bed-and-breakfast guides, magazine guides, regional guides, even one by
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). None are
government affiliated. All are crowding the traditional star system of Forbes and the dia-
mond ratings of AAA (see Exhibit 1-7).
Historically, a good Forbes listing boosted occupancy by 20% or so. Similarly, as
much as 40% of room sales in small hotels has been attributed to an AAA listing. Both

★★★★★
Every rating has cleanliness, maintenance, service (staff), furnishings, and physical appointments as
its base. Ratings must also consider regional differences. A historic inn of New England cannot be
compared to a dude ranch in the Southwest or an urban-center highrise. Each star-level must incorpo-
rate the best standards of the previous level.
★
One-star establishments should be clean and comfortable offering minimal services at minimal price.
Rates should be comparable to local competitors with similar accommodations. Service must be cour-
teous but may not be available around the clock. There is no restaurant. Furniture and linens must be in
good condition, but will not be luxurious. Housekeeping and maintenance should set a good standard.
★★
Two-star accommodations must meet the standards of one-star facilities and include some, but not
necessarily all, of the following: Better-quality furniture, larger bedrooms, color TV in all rooms, direct-
dial phones, and, perhaps, a swimming pool. Luxury will usually be lacking, but cleanliness, mainte-
nance, and comfort remain essential. The desk is open around the clock.
★★★
Three-star properties include all of the facilities and services mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.
Additonal service personnel will be apparent. Food service, especially at breakfast, is required. So is a
swimming pool. Upgardes in the bath should be apparent. Internet access available. Electronic locking
and security systems are in place. Three-star establishment should offer a pleasant travel experience.
★★★★
Four-star and five-star properties make up less than 2% of the ratings! They must be outstanding in
every respect. Bedrooms should be extra large; furniture of high quality; all of the essential and extra
services (dining, lounges, spas, laundry) should be offered at a stepped-up level. Personnel must be
well trained, courteous, groomed, and anxious to please. Rates will reflect these superior standards. A
stay in a four-star property should be memorable. No place will be awarded four or five stars if there is
a pattern of complaints from customers, regardless of the luxury offered.
★★★★★
There are very few five-star-award facilities. Those that reach this pinnacle go beyond comfort and
service to deserve the description “one of the best in the country.” Superior restaurants are required,
although they may not be rated as highly as the accommodations. Twice-daily maid service is standard;
linens should be no less than 250 count. Rooms will be large and accommodations and toiletries in the bath
extra special. Lobbies will be places of beauty, often furnished in antiques. Grounds surrounding the building
will be meticulously groomed and landscaped. Guest will feel pampered.

EXHIBIT 1-7
There are no universal standards for rating hotels although stars and diamonds are traditional. Some
systems are established by governments or semi-public agencies and some are privately rated as
they are in the United States. The authors’ guidelines help define the ratings.

M01B_VALL3505_10_SE_C01.indd 14 20/04/17 5:15 PM

Other documents randomly have
different content
retained its true and uncorrupted form, all those names of pride,
which in succeeding times have been insolently usurped by the
Roman see, were altogether unknown: nothing was heard of a
supreme pontiff or a sole head of the Church upon earth. And if the
bishop of Rome had been presumptuous enough to make any such
assumption, there were judicious men who would immediately have
repressed his folly. Jerome, being a Roman presbyter, was not
reluctant to assert the dignity of his Church as far as matter of fact
and the state of the times admitted; yet we see how he also reduces
it to an equality with others. “If it be a question of authority,” he
says, “the world is greater than a city. Why do you allege to me the
custom of a single city? Why do you set up a few instances, which
have given rise to pride, against the laws of the Church? Wherever
there is a bishop, whether at Rome, at Eugubium, at Constantinople,
or at Rhegium, he is of the same dignity and of the same priesthood.
The power of riches, or the abasement of poverty, makes no bishop
superior or inferior to another.”
IV. Respecting the title of universal bishop, the first contention arose
in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the ambition of John,
bishop of Constantinople. For he wanted to make himself universal
bishop—an attempt which had never been made by any one before.
In that controversy Gregory does not plead against this as the
assumption of a right which belonged to himself, but resolutely
protests against it altogether, as a profane and sacrilegious
application, and even as the forerunner of Antichrist. He says, “If he
who is called universal falls, the foundation of the whole Church
sinks at once.” In another place: “It is a most melancholy thing to
hear with any patience, that our brother and companion in the
episcopal office should look down with contempt on all others, and
be called sole bishop. But what does this pride of his indicate, but
that the times of Antichrist are already at hand? For indeed he
imitates him, who, despising the society of angels, endeavoured to
usurp supreme power to himself.” In another place, writing to
Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of Antioch, he
says, “None of my predecessors would ever use this profane word.
For if one patriarch be called universal, the name of patriarch is
taken away from all the rest. But far be it from any Christian heart to
wish to arrogate to himself any thing that would in the least degree
diminish the honour of his brethren. To consent to that execrable
term is no other than to destroy the faith. Our obligation to preserve
the unity of the faith is one thing, and to repress the haughtiness of
pride is another. But I confidently assert, that whoever calls himself
universal bishop, or desires to be so called, in such aggrandizement
is the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly sets up himself
above all others.” Again, to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch: “I have
said that the bishop of Constantinople can have no peace with us,
unless he would correct the haughtiness of that superstitious and
proud title which has been invented by the first apostate; and to say
nothing of the injury done to your dignity, if one bishop be called
universal, when he falls, the whole Church sinks at once.” But his
assertion that this honour was offered to Leo in the Council of
Chalcedon has not the least appearance of truth. For there is not a
word of this in the acts of that council. And Leo himself, who in
many of his epistles censures the decree passed there in favour of
the see of Constantinople, would certainly not have passed over this
argument, which would have been the most plausible of all, if that
honour had really been offered to him, and he had refused it; and,
having otherwise an immoderate thirst for honour, he would not
readily have omitted a circumstance so much to his praise. Gregory
was mistaken, therefore, in supposing that title to have been given
to the see of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon. I forbear to remark
how ridiculous it is for him to assert that the holy council conferred
such a title, which he at the same time declares was profane,
execrable, abominable, proud, and sacrilegious, and even invented
by the devil, and published by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he
adds that his predecessor refused it, lest, by the dignity given to one
individual, all other bishops should be deprived of the honour due to
them. In another place he says, “No one has ever wished to be
called by such a name; no one has arrogated to himself this
presumptuous title; lest, by assuming to himself the exclusive dignity
of supreme bishop, he might seem to deny the episcopal honour to
all his brethren.”
V. I come now to the jurisdiction which the Roman pontiff asserts
that he indisputably holds over all churches. I know what violent
contentions there were in ancient times on this subject. For there
has never been a period when the Roman see did not aspire to some
authority over other Churches. And it will not be unsuitable to the
present occasion to investigate the means by which it gradually rose
to some power. I am not yet speaking of that unbounded empire
which it has more recently usurped; that I shall defer to its proper
place. But here it will be necessary to point out in a few words in
what manner and by what methods it formerly exalted itself, so as to
assume any jurisdiction over other Churches. When the Eastern
Churches were disturbed and divided by the factions of the Arians, in
the reign of Constantius and Constans, sons of Constantine the
Great, and Athanasius, the principal defender of the orthodox faith,
was driven from his see, that calamity constrained him to go to
Rome, in order that, by the authority of the Roman see, he might in
some degree repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm the
faithful, who were in extreme distress. He was honourably received
by Julius, then bishop of Rome, and prevailed on the bishops of the
West to undertake the defence of his cause. Thus the pious in the
Eastern Churches, finding themselves in great want of foreign aid,
and seeing that their principal succour was to be obtained from the
Church of Rome, readily ascribed to it all the authority that they
possibly could. But all this amounted to nothing more than that
communion with it was held in high estimation, and it was
accounted ignominious to be excommunicated from it. This dignity
was afterwards considerably augmented by men of wicked and
abandoned lives; for to escape the punishments which they
deserved, they resorted thither as to a common asylum. Therefore,
if a priest was condemned by his bishop, or a bishop by the synod of
his province, they immediately appealed to Rome. And the bishops
of Rome received such appeals with culpable eagerness, considering
it as a kind of extraordinary power to interfere in the concerns of
distant Churches. Thus when Eutyches was condemned by
Flavianus, patriarch of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that he
had been treated with injustice. Leo, without any delay, but with
equal temerity and expedition, undertook the patronage of a bad
cause, issued bitter invectives against Flavianus, as if he had
condemned an innocent man without hearing his defence, and by
this ambitious conduct he for some time afforded considerable
support to the impiety of Eutyches. It appears that similar
circumstances frequently happened in Africa. For as soon as any
wicked man was convicted before the ordinary tribunal, he flew to
Rome, and brought various false accusations against his superiors;
and the see of Rome was always ready to interpose. This
presumption constrained the African bishops to pass a decree that
no one should appeal beyond the sea on pain of excommunication.
VI. But however this might be, let us examine what jurisdiction or
power the Roman see then possessed. Now, ecclesiastical power
consists in these four things—the ordination of bishops, the calling of
councils, the hearing of appeals, or jurisdiction, and corrective
admonitions, or censures. All the ancient councils command bishops
to be ordained by their own metropolitans; and they never direct the
bishop of Rome to be called to this office except in his own province.
By degrees, however, a custom was introduced for all the bishops of
Italy to go to Rome to be consecrated, except the metropolitans,
who did not suffer themselves to be subjected to this bondage. But
when any metropolitan was to be ordained, the bishop of Rome sent
one of his priests to assist at the ceremony, but not to preside.
There is an example of this in an epistle of Gregory, respecting the
consecration of Constantius, archbishop of Milan, after the death of
Laurentius. I do not suppose, however, that this was a very ancient
practice. It is probable that at first they sent legates to each other,
from a principle of respect and affection, to witness the ordination,
and testify their mutual communion; and that what was originally
voluntary, was afterwards considered as necessary. However this
may be, it is evident that in ancient times the bishop of Rome did
not possess the power of consecrating bishops, except in his own
province, that is, in the Churches dependent upon his see; as is
declared by one of the canons of the Council of Nice. Consecration
was followed by the sending of a synodical epistle; and in this the
bishop of Rome had no superiority over others. It was the custom of
the patriarchs, immediately after their consecration, to make a
solemn declaration of their faith in a written communication to their
brethren, professing their adherence to the doctrine of the holy and
orthodox councils. Thus, by making a confession of their faith, they
mutually approved themselves to each other. If the bishop of Rome
had received such a confession from others, and not given it to other
bishops in his turn, this would have been an instance of
acknowledged superiority; but, as he was under the same obligation
to give it as to require it, and was subject to the common law, it was
certainly a token of equality, and not of dominion. We have
examples of this in the epistles of Gregory to Anastasius and
Cyriacus of Constantinople, and to all the patriarchs together.
VII. Next follow admonitions or censures, which, as the bishops of
Rome formerly employed them towards others, they also received
from others in their turn. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, sharply reproved
Victor, bishop of Rome, for having raised a pernicious dissension in
the Church on subjects of no importance. Victor submitted to the
reproof without any opposition. It was a liberty at that time
commonly used by the holy bishops to exercise the privilege of
brethren towards the bishop of Rome, by admonishing and reproving
him whenever he committed any fault. He, in like manner, when
occasion required, admonished others of their duty, and reproved
them for their faults. For Cyprian, when he exhorts Stephen, bishop
of Rome, to admonish the bishops of France, argues not from any
superior authority, but from the common rights which priests enjoy
among each other. If Stephen had then possessed any authority over
France, would not Cyprian have said, You should chastise them,
because they are subject to you? But he expresses himself in a very
different manner. “This fraternal union,” says he, “by which we are
connected together, requires us to administer to each other mutual
admonition.” And we see with what severity of language, though
otherwise a man of a mild disposition, he censures even Stephen
himself, when he considered him assuming too much consequence.
In this respect, also, there is yet no appearance of the bishop of
Rome having been invested with any jurisdiction over those who
were not of his province.
VIII. With respect to the calling of councils, it was the duty of every
metropolitan, at stated seasons, to summon a provincial synod.
There the bishop of Rome had no authority. But a universal council
could only be called by the emperor. For if any one of the bishops
had attempted this, not only he would not have been obeyed by
those who were out of his province, but such an attempt would have
led to immediate confusion. Therefore the emperor sent a summons
to attend to all of them alike. Socrates, indeed, in his Ecclesiastical
History, states that Julius, bishop of Rome, expostulated with the
Eastern bishops, for not having invited him to the Council of Antioch;
whereas the canons had forbidden that any thing should be decreed
without the knowledge of the bishop of Rome. But who does not see
that this is to be understood of those decrees which bind the
universal Church? Now, it is no wonder if there was so much respect
paid to the antiquity and eminence of the city, and to the dignity of
the see, as to determine that no general decree respecting religion
should be passed in the absence of the bishop of Rome, unless he
refused to be present. But what is this towards dominion over the
whole Church? For we do not deny that the bishop of Rome was one
of the principal, but we will not admit, what the Romanists now
contend, that he had the authority over all.
IX. There remains the fourth kind of ecclesiastical power, which
consists in appeals. It is evident that he possesses supreme
authority, to whose tribunal appeals are made. Many often appealed
to the bishop of Rome; and he also attempted to assume the
cognizance of causes; but he always became an object of derision
whenever he exceeded his proper limits. I shall say nothing of the
East, or of Greece; but it appears that the bishops of France
strenuously resisted him, when he discovered an inclination to usurp
authority over them. In Africa, this subject occasioned a long
controversy. For when the Council of Milevum, at which Augustine
was present, had denounced excommunication against all who
should appeal beyond the sea, the bishop of Rome endeavoured to
get this decree rescinded. He sent legates to state that this privilege
had been given to him by the Council of Nice. The legates produced
certain acts which they alleged to be the acts of the Council of Nice,
and which they had brought from the archives of their Church. They
were resisted by the Africans, who denied that the bishop of Rome
ought to be credited in his own cause. They therefore determined to
send to Constantinople, and other cities of Greece, to obtain copies
liable to less suspicion. It was found that these copies contained no
such passages as the Roman legates had pretended. So the decree
was confirmed, which had taken the supreme cognizance of appeals
from the bishop of Rome. This transaction discovered the scandalous
impudence of the Roman pontiff. For when he had fraudulently
substituted the council of Sardis for that of Nice, he was
disgracefully detected in a manifest falsehood. But still greater
wickedness and effrontery were betrayed by those who added to the
acts of the council a forged epistle, in which a bishop of Carthage
condemns the arrogance of his predecessor, Aurelius, for having
dared to withdraw himself from obedience to the apostolic see,
presents the submission of himself and his Church, and humbly
supplicates for pardon. These are the glorious monuments of
antiquity upon which the majesty of the Roman see is founded;
while, under the pretext of antiquity, they advance such puerile
falsehoods, as require not the least penetration to detect. “Aurelius,”
says this famous epistle, “elated with diabolical audacity and
obstinacy, was a rebel against Christ and St. Peter, and therefore
deserved to be anathematized.” But what said Augustine? What said
all the fathers who were present at the Council of Milevum? But
what necessity is there for spending many words to refute that
stupid fabrication, which even the Romanists themselves, if they
have any modesty left, cannot look at without being exceedingly
ashamed? So Gratian, the compiler of the decretal,—whether from
wickedness or ignorance I know not,—after having recited that
canon, that those who appealed beyond the sea should be
excommunicated, adds this exception, unless they appeal to the see
of Rome. What can be done with such men, who are so destitute of
common sense as to make that one case an exception to a law, to
guard against which every one sees that the law was made? For the
council, in condemning appeals beyond the sea, only prohibited any
one from appealing to Rome; and this admirable expositor excepts
Rome from the general prohibition!
X. But to put an end at once to this question, a single transaction,
related by Augustine, will be sufficient to show what kind of
jurisdiction was anciently possessed by the bishop of Rome.
Donatus, bishop of Casæ Nigræ, had accused Cæcilianus, bishop of
Carthage. The accused was condemned without a hearing; for,
knowing that the bishops had conspired against him, he would not
appear. The matter was then brought before the Emperor
Constantine. With a view to have the cause decided by an
ecclesiastical judgment, he referred the cognizance of it to
Melchiades, bishop of Rome, with whom he associated some other
bishops from Italy, France, and Spain. If it was part of the ordinary
jurisdiction of the see of Rome to hear an appeal in an ecclesiastical
cause, why did Melchiades suffer any colleagues to be appointed
with him at the pleasure of the Emperor? and, moreover, why did he
himself undertake the business rather at the command of the
Emperor than from his own authority? But let us hear what took
place afterwards. Cæcilianus was victorious. Donatus of Casæ Nigræ
was convicted of calumny. He appealed. Constantine referred the
appeal to the bishop of Arles. He sat in judgment on the decision of
the bishop of Rome. If the Roman see possessed the supreme
jurisdiction, subject to no appeal, how did Melchiades submit to such
an insult, as for the bishop of Arles to be preferred before him? And
who was the Emperor that did this? It was Constantine the Great, of
whom they boast that he not only devoted all his attention, but
employed almost all the power of his empire, to exalt the dignity of
their see. We see, then, how very far the bishop of Rome was at
that time from that supreme dominion which he pretends to have
been given him by Christ over all Churches, and which he falsely
boasts of having exercised in all ages with the consent of the whole
world.
XI. I know what numerous epistles, and rescripts, and edicts, there
are, in which the pontiffs have confidently advanced the most
extravagant claims respecting this power. But it is also known to
every person, possessed of the least sense or learning, that most
things contained in them are so extremely absurd, that it is easy to
discover at the first glance from what source they have proceeded.
For what man of sound judgment, and in his sober senses, can
suppose that Anacletus was the author of that curious interpretation,
which Gratian quotes under his name—that Cephas means a head?
There are many such fooleries collected together by Gratian without
any judgment, which the Romanists in the present day employ
against us in defence of their see; and such phantoms with which
they used to delude the ignorant in the darkest times, they still
persist in bringing forward amidst all the light of the present age.
But I have no intention to devote much labour to the refutation of
such things, which manifestly refute themselves by their extreme
absurdity. I confess that there are also genuine epistles of the
ancient pontiffs, in which they extol the majesty of their see by the
most magnificent titles. Such are some epistles of Leo; who, though
he was a man of learning and eloquence, had likewise an
immoderate thirst for glory and dominion; but whether the Churches
at that time gave credit to his testimony when he thus exalted
himself, is a subject of inquiry. Now, it appears that many were
offended at his ambition, and resisted his claims. In one epistle he
deputes the bishop of Thessalonica to act as his representative in
Greece and other adjacent countries; in another he delegates the
bishop of Arles, or some other bishop, to be his vicar in France. So
he appoints Hormisdas, bishop of Seville, his vicar in Spain. But in all
cases he mentions, by way of exception, that he makes such
appointments on condition that they shall in no respect infringe the
ancient privileges of the metropolitans. But Leo himself declares this
to be one of their privileges, that if any difficulty should arise, the
metropolitan was to be consulted in the first place. These
delegations, therefore, were accompanied with this condition—that
there was to be no interference with any bishop in his ordinary
jurisdiction, with any metropolitan in hearing appeals, or with any
provincial synod in the regulation of the Churches. Now, what was
this but to abstain from all jurisdiction, and only to interpose for the
settlement of disputes, as far as was consistent with the law and
nature of ecclesiastical communion?
XII. In the time of Gregory, this ancient custom had already
undergone a considerable change. For when the empire was
convulsed and torn asunder, when France and Spain were afflicted
with repeated and numerous wars and distresses, Illyricum laid
waste, Italy harassed, and Africa almost ruined with incessant
calamities,—in order to preserve the unity of the faith amidst such a
violent convulsion of civil affairs, or at least to prevent its total
destruction, all the bishops round about connected themselves more
closely with the bishop of Rome. The consequence was, that the
power as well as the dignity of that see was greatly increased. I am
not much concerned, however, respecting the methods by which this
was effected. It is at least evident, that it was greater at that period
than in the preceding ages. And even then it was very far from an
unlimited dominion, for one man to govern all others according to
his own pleasure. But the see of Rome was held in such reverence,
that its authority would repress and correct the refractory and
obstinate, who could not be confined to their duty by the other
bishops. For Gregory embraces every opportunity of protesting, that
he as faithfully maintained the rights of others, as he required them
to maintain his. “Nor under the influence of ambition,” says he, “do I
withhold from any one that which is his right; but I desire to honour
my brethren in all things.”—There is not a sentence in his writings
which contains a prouder boast of the majesty of his primacy than
the following: “I know no bishop who is not subject to the apostolic
see, when he is found in fault.” But he immediately adds, “Where
there is no fault to require subjection, all are equal by right of
humility.” He attributes to himself the authority to correct those who
have transgressed; if all do their duty, he places himself on an
equality with them. But he assumed this authority to himself, and
they who were willing consented to it, while others, who
disapproved of it, were at liberty to oppose it with impunity; and
this, it is notorious, was the conduct of the majority. Besides, it is to
be remarked, that he is there speaking of the primate of
Constantinople, who had been condemned by a provincial synod,
and had disregarded the united judgment of the assembly. His
colleagues complained to the emperor of his obstinacy. The emperor
appointed Gregory to decide the cause. We see, then, that he made
no attempt to interfere with the ordinary jurisdiction; and that the
very thing which he does for the assistance of others, he does only
at the command of the emperor.
XIII. This, therefore, was all the power which was then possessed by
the bishop of Rome,—to oppose rebellious and refractory persons, in
cases which required some extraordinary remedy, and that in order
to assist, not to hinder, other bishops. Therefore he assumes to
himself no more power over others than he grants to all others over
himself, when he professes that he is ready to be reproved by all,
and to be corrected by all. So in another epistle he commands the
bishop of Aquileia to come to Rome to plead his cause in a
controversy which had arisen between him and his neighbours,
respecting an article of faith; nevertheless he gives this command,
not from his own authority, but in consequence of the mandate of
the emperor. Nor does he announce himself as the sole judge, but
promises to assemble a synod to judge of the whole affair. But
though there was still such moderation, that the power of the
Roman see had its certain limits, which it was not permitted to
exceed, and the bishop of Rome himself no more presided over
others than he was subject to them, yet it appears how very
displeasing this situation was to Gregory. For he frequently
complains, that under the name of being a bishop, he was forced
back to the world, and that he was more involved in secular cares
than ever he had been while he was a layman; so that in that
honour he was oppressed with the tumult of worldly business. In
another passage he says, “Such a vast burden of occupations
presses me down, that my mind is incapacitated for any elevation
towards things above. I am tossed about with numerous causes, like
so many waves; and after my former seasons of retirement and
tranquillity, I am disquieted with the tempests of a tumultuous life;
so that I may truly say, I am come into the depth of the sea, and the
tempest has drowned me.” Judge, then, what he would have said, if
he had fallen upon these times. If he did not fulfil the office of a
pastor, yet he was employed in it. He refrained from all interference
in the civil government, and acknowledged himself to be subject to
the emperor in common with others. He never intruded into the care
of other Churches, except when he was constrained by necessity.
And yet he considered himself to be in a labyrinth, because he could
not wholly devote himself to the exclusive duties of a bishop.
XIV. The bishop of Constantinople, as we have already stated, was at
that time engaged in a contest with the bishop of Rome, respecting
the primacy. For after the seat of the empire was fixed at
Constantinople, the majesty of the government seemed to require
that Church to be the next in dignity to the Church of Rome. And
indeed at the beginning nothing contributed more to establish the
primacy in the Church of Rome than the circumstance of that city
being then the capital of the empire. Gratian recites a rescript under
the name of Pope Lucinus, in which he says that the distinction of
cities appointed to be the residence of metropolitans and primates,
was regulated by no other rule than the nature of the civil
government previously established in them. There is another similar
rescript, also, under the name of Pope Clement, in which he says,
that patriarchs had been appointed in those cities which had
anciently been the stations of arch-flamens. This statement, though
erroneous, approaches to the truth. For it is certain, that in order to
make as little change as possible, the provinces were divided
according to the existing state of things, and that primates and
metropolitans were placed in those cities which had precedence of
the rest in dignity and power. Therefore, in the Council of Turin, it
was decreed, that those which were the chief cities of the respective
provinces in the civil government, should be the principal sees of
bishops; and that if the honour of the civil government should
happen to be transferred from one city to another, the seat of the
metropolitan should be removed to the same place. But Innocent,
the Roman pontiff, seeing the ancient dignity of his city beginning to
decline, after the translation of the seat of the empire to
Constantinople, and trembling for the honour of his see, enacted a
contrary law; in which he denies the necessity of a change of the
ecclesiastical capitals, in consequence of a change of the imperial
capitals. But the authority of a council ought to be preferred to the
sentence of an individual, and we may justly suspect Innocent
himself in his own cause. He proves by his decree, however, that the
original regulation had been for the seats of metropolitans to be
disposed according to the civil rank of the respective cities.
XV. According to this ancient ordinance, it was decreed in the first
Council of Constantinople, that the bishop of that city should have
the next rank and dignity to the bishop of Rome, because that was a
new Rome. But when a similar decree was passed long after in the
Council of Chalcedon, Leo strenuously opposed it. And he not only
took the liberty of pouring contempt on what had been decided by
upwards of six hundred bishops, but likewise heavily reproached
them with having taken from other sees the honour which they had
ventured to confer on the Church of Constantinople. Now, what
could incite him to disturb the world for so insignificant a cause, but
mere ambition? He says, that what had once been determined by
the Council of Nice, ought to have been maintained inviolable. As if
the Christian faith were endangered by the preference of one Church
to another, or as if the patriarchates had been distributed by the
Council of Nice with any other view than the preservation of external
order. Now, we know that external order admits, and even requires,
various changes, according to the various circumstances of different
periods. It is a futile pretence, therefore, of Leo, that the honour,
which the authority of the Nicene council had given to the see of
Alexandria, ought not to be conferred on that of Constantinople. For
common sense dictates, that this was such a decree as might be
abolished according to the state of the times. And besides, the
repeal met with no opposition from the bishops of the East, who
were most interested in the matter. Proterius, who had been
appointed bishop of Alexandria instead of Dioscorus, was present; as
were other patriarchs, whose dignity was lessened by this measure.
It was for them to oppose it, and not Leo, who retained his original
station unaltered. When they all suffered it to pass without any
objection, and even assented to it, and the bishop of Rome was the
only one who resisted it, it is easy to judge by what motive he was
influenced. He foresaw, what actually came to pass not long after,
that as the glory of Rome was declining, Constantinople would not
be content with the second place, but would contend for the
primacy. Yet all his clamour was unavailing; the decree of the council
was confirmed. Therefore his successors, seeing themselves
vanquished, peaceably refrained from such obstinacy; for they
decreed that he should be accounted the second patriarch.
XVI. But a little while after, John, who presided over the Church of
Constantinople while Gregory was bishop of Rome, had the
arrogance to assume the title of universal patriarch. Gregory, not
afraid of defending his see in a good cause, resolutely opposed this
assumption. And certainly it betrayed intolerable pride and folly in
John to wish to make the limits of his bishopric the same with those
of the empire. Now, Gregory did not claim to himself what he denied
to another; but execrated the title, by whomsoever it might be
usurped, as wicked and impious. In one of his epistles he expresses
his displeasure with Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, for having
complimented him with such a title. “Behold,” says he, “in the
preface of the epistle which you have directed to myself, who have
forbidden it, you have taken care to introduce that appellation of
pride, by calling me universal pope. Which I entreat that your
holiness will not do any more; because all that you give to another
beyond what is reasonable, is deducted from yourself. I consider
nothing an honour to me, by which I see the honour of my brethren
diminished. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church,
and the perfect vigour of my brethren. If your holiness calls me
universal pope, this is denying that you have any share in that which
is wholly attributed to me.” Gregory’s was a good and honourable
cause; but John, being supported by the favour of Mauritius the
emperor, could not be diverted from his purpose; and Cyriacus, his
successor, was equally inflexible.
XVII. At length Phocas, who ascended the throne after the murder
of Mauritius, being more favourable to the Romans,—for what
reason I know not, unless because he had been crowned at Rome
without any difficulty,—granted to Boniface the Third what Gregory
had never demanded,—that Rome should be the head of all
Churches. Thus the controversy was decided. Yet this grant of the
emperor could not have been so much to the advantage of the see
of Rome, if it had not been followed by other things. For Greece and
all Asia soon after separated from its communion. France reverenced
it only so far as not to carry its obedience beyond its inclinations;
nor was it reduced to entire subjection, till Pepin had usurped the
crown. For after Zachary, the Roman pontiff, had assisted Pepin in
the commission of treason and robbery, in deposing his lawful
sovereign, and taking possession of the throne, he was rewarded by
having the see of Rome invested with jurisdiction over the Gallican
Churches. As robbers are accustomed to divide their common booty,
so those worthy persons concerted together, that Pepin should have
the temporal and civil sovereignty after the deposition of the rightful
monarch, and that Zachary should be made the head over all
bishops, and enjoy the spiritual power. At first this was feeble, as is
generally the case with new establishments; but it was afterwards
confirmed by the authority of Charlemagne, and almost from a
similar cause; for he also was indebted to the Roman pontiff, for his
exertions in raising him to the dignity of emperor. Now, though it is
probable that the Churches, before that time, had in general been
greatly disfigured, it is evident that in France and Germany the
ancient form of the Church was then entirely obliterated. The
archives of the parliament of Paris still contain brief registers of
those times, which, in relating ecclesiastical events, make frequent
mention of the treaties both of Pepin and Charlemagne with the
Roman pontiff; from which it may be concluded that an alteration
was then made in the ancient state of the Church.
XVIII. From that time, as things daily became worse and worse, the
tyranny of the Roman see was gradually established and increased,
and that partly through the ignorance, and partly through the
indolence, of the bishops. For while the Roman pontiff was usurping
every thing to himself, and proceeding from one assumption to
another, without any limits, in defiance of law and justice, the
bishops did not exert themselves with the zeal which became them
to repress his cupidity, and where there was no want of inclination,
they were destitute of real learning and knowledge, so that they
were not at all equal to such an important undertaking. We see,
therefore, what a horrible profanation of every thing sacred, and
what a total disorganization of the Church there was at Rome in the
days of Bernard. He complains that the ambitious, the avaricious,
the simoniacal, the sacrilegious, the adulterous, the incestuous, and
all who were chargeable with the most atrocious crimes, from every
part of the world, resorted to Rome, in order to procure or to retain
ecclesiastical honours by the apostolical authority; and that fraud,
circumvention, and violence, were generally practised. He says, that
the judicial process which was then pursued was execrable, and not
only unbecoming of the Church, but disgraceful to any civil court. He
exclaims, that the Church is full of ambitious men, and that there is
not one who is any more afraid of perpetrating the most flagitious
crimes, than robbers in their den when they are distributing the
plunder which they have seized on the highway. “Few,” he says,
“regard the mouth of the legislator; they all look at his hands, and
that not without cause, for those hands transact all that is done by
the pope. What a business it is, that they are bought with the spoils
of the Church, who say to you, Well done, well done! The life of the
poor is sown in the streets of the rich; silver glitters in the mire;
people run to it from all parts; it is borne away, not by the poorest,
but by the strongest, or perhaps by him who runs fastest. This
custom, or rather this mortal corruption, commenced not with you; I
wish it may end with you. In these circumstances you, a pastor, are
proceeding, covered with abundant and costly attire. If I might dare
to use the expression, these are rather the pastors of devils than of
sheep. Did Peter act in this manner? Was Paul guilty of such trifling?
Your court has been accustomed to receive men good, more than to
make them so. For the wicked are not improved in it, but the good
are corrupted.” The abuses of appeals which he relates, no pious
person can read without the greatest horror. At length, respecting
the insatiable cupidity of the see of Rome in the usurpation of
jurisdiction, he concludes in the following manner: “I speak the
murmur and common complaint of the Churches. They exclaim that
they are divided and dismembered. There are few or none of them
who do not either bewail or dread this plague. Do you inquire what
plague? Abbots are torn away from their bishops, bishops from their
archbishops. It is wonderful if this can be excused. By such conduct
you prove that you have a plenitude of power, but not of justice. You
act thus because you can, but the question is whether you ought.
You are appointed to preserve to all their respective honour and
rank, and not to envy them.” These few passages I have thought
proper to recite, out of a great many, partly that the readers may
see how sadly the Church had then declined, and partly that they
may know into what sorrow and lamentation all good men were
plunged by this calamity.
XIX. But though we should grant to the Roman pontiff in the present
day the same eminence and extent of jurisdiction which this see
possessed in the middle ages, as in the times of Leo and Gregory,
what is that to the Papacy in its present state? I am not yet referring
to the temporal and secular power, which we shall afterwards
examine in its proper place; but the spiritual government itself of
which they boast, what resemblance has it to the condition of those
times? For the Romanists designate the pope no otherwise than as
the supreme head of the Church on earth, and universal bishop of
the whole world. And the pontiffs themselves, when they speak of
their authority, pronounce with great superciliousness, that they
have the power to command, and that to others is only left the
necessity to obey; that all their decrees are to be received as if they
were confirmed by the voice of St. Peter; that for want of their
presence, provincial synods have no authority; that they have the
power to ordain priests and deacons for all the Churches, and to
summon to their see those who have been elsewhere ordained. In
the Decretal of Gratian there are innumerable pretensions of this
kind, which I forbear to recite, lest I should be too tedious to my
readers. But the sum of them all comes to this; that the Roman
pontiff alone has the supreme cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes,
whether in judging and determining doctrines, in enacting laws, in
regulating discipline, or in exercising jurisdiction. It would also be
tedious and superfluous to enumerate the privileges which they
assume to themselves in reservations, as they call them. But what is
the most intolerable of all, they leave no judgment on earth to curb
or restrain their cupidity, if they abuse such unlimited power. “It
cannot be lawful,” they say, “for any one to reject the judgment of
this see, on account of the primacy of the Roman Church.” Again:
“The judge shall not be judged, either by the emperor or by kings,
or by all the clergy, or by the people.” This is arrogance beyond all
bounds, for one man to constitute himself judge of all, and to refuse
to submit to the judgment of any. But what if he exercise tyranny
over the people of God, if he divide and desolate the kingdom of
Christ, if he disturb and overturn the whole Church, if he pervert the
pastoral office into a system of robbery? Even though he should go
to the greatest extremes of profligacy and mischief, he denies that
he is at all accountable for his conduct. For these are the very words
of the pontiffs: “God has been pleased to decide the causes of other
men by the judgment of men, but the prelate of this see he has,
without all question, reserved to his own judgment.” Again, “The
actions of our subjects are judged by us; but ours by God alone.”
XX. And that such edicts might have the more weight, they have
falsely substituted the names of ancient pontiffs, as if things had
been so regulated from the beginning; whereas it is very certain,
that every thing, which attributes to the Roman pontiff more than
we have stated to have been given him by the ancient councils, is a
novel and recent fabrication. They have even gone to such a pitch of
impudence as to publish a rescript, under the name of Anastasius,
patriarch of Constantinople, which declares that it had been
ordained by the ancient canons, that nothing should be done even in
the remotest provinces, without being first reported to the Roman
see. Beside the notorious falsehood of this, what man will think it
credible, that such a eulogium of the Roman see proceeded from the
adversary and rival of its honour and dignity? But it was necessary
that these Antichrists should be carried to such an extreme of
madness and blindness, that their iniquity may be evident to all men
of sound understanding, who only choose to open their eyes. But
the Decretal Epistles, complied by Gregory the Ninth, as well as the
Constitutions of Clement the Fifth, and the Decrees of Martin, still
more openly and expressly betray, in every page, the inhuman
ferocity and tyranny of barbarous kings. But these are the oracles
from which the Romanists wish their Papacy to be appreciated.
Hence proceeded those famous axioms, which at the present day
are universally received by them as oracles: That the pope cannot
err; that the pope is superior to all councils; that the pope is the
universal bishop of all Churches, and supreme head of the Church
upon earth. I pass over the far greater absurdities, which foolish
canonists maintain in their schools; which, however, the Roman
theologians not only assent to, but even applaud, in order to flatter
their idol.
XXI. I shall not treat them with all the severity which they deserve.
To this consummate insolence, another person would oppose the
declaration of Cyprian among the bishops at the Council of Carthage,
of which he was president: “No one of us calls himself bishop of
bishops, or, by tyrannical fear, constrains his colleagues to the
necessity of obeying him.” He would object what was decreed at
Carthage some time after, “That no one should be called prince of
priests, or first bishop.” He would collect many testimonies from
histories, many canons of councils, and various passages from the
writings of the fathers, by which the Roman pontiff would be
reduced to the rank of other bishops. I pass over these things,
however, that I may not appear to lay too much stress upon them.
But let the most able advocates of the Roman see answer me, with
what face they can dare to defend the title of universal bishop,
which they find to have been so often anathematized by Gregory. If
the testimony of Gregory be entitled to any credit, they cannot make
their pontiff universal bishop without thereby declaring him to be
Antichrist. Nor was the title of head any more in use at that time; for
in one of his epistles he says, “Peter is the principal member in the
body; John, Andrew, and James, were heads of particular people.
Yet they are all members of the Church under one head. Even the
saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under
grace, are all placed among the members, and no one ever wished
himself to be called universal.” The arrogant pretensions of the
pontiff to the power of commanding are very inconsistent with an
observation made by Gregory in another passage. For when
Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, had represented himself as
commanded by him, he replies in the following manner:—“I beseech
you, let me not hear the word command mentioned again; for I
know what I am, and what you are. In station, you are my brethren;
in holiness, you are my fathers. Therefore I gave no command, but
intended to suggest to you such things as appeared to be useful.” By
extending his jurisdiction, as he does, without any limits, the pope
does a grievous and atrocious injury, not only to other bishops, but
to all other Churches, which he distracts and divides by such
conduct, in order to establish his own see upon their ruins. But when
he exempts himself from all the judgments of others, and
determines to reign in such a tyrannical manner as to have no law
but his own pleasure, this is certainly so unbecoming, and foreign
from the order of the Church, that it is altogether intolerable, and
incapable of any defence. For it is utterly repugnant, not only to
every sentiment of piety, but even of humanity.
XXII. But that I may not be obliged to pursue and discuss every
particular point, I again appeal to those of my contemporaries, who
would be considered as the most able and faithful advocates of the
Roman see, whether they are not ashamed to defend the present
state of the Papacy, which is evidently a hundred times more corrupt
than it was in the times of Gregory and Bernard, but which even
then so exceedingly displeased those holy men. Gregory every
where complains, that he was excessively distracted with
occupations unsuitable to his office; that under the name of being a
bishop, he was carried back to the world; that he was involved in
secular cares, to a greater extent than he could remember to have
been while he was a layman; that he was oppressed with the tumult
of worldly business, so that his mind was incapacitated for any
elevation towards things above; that he was tossed about with
numerous causes like so many waves, and disquieted with the
tempests of a tumultuous life, so that he might justly say, “I am
come into the depth of the sea.” Amidst these worldly avocations,
however, he could still instruct the people by public preaching, give
private admonition and reproof to those who required it, regulate his
Church, give advice to his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty;
beside these things, he had some time left for writing; yet he
deplores his calamity, in being plunged into the depth of the sea. If
the administration of that age was a sea, what must be said of the
Papacy in its present state? For what resemblance is there between
them? Here we find no sermons preached, no attention to discipline,
no concern for the Churches, no spiritual function performed; in a
word, nothing but the world. Yet this labyrinth is praised, as though
nothing could be found better constituted, or better administered.
What complaints are poured out by Bernard, what lamentations does
he utter, when he beholds the vices of his times? What would he say,
then, if he could behold this our iron, or, if possible, worse than iron
age? What impudence is it, not only pertinaciously to defend as
sacred and Divine what all the holy fathers have reprobated with one
voice, but also to abuse their testimony in vindication of the Papacy,
which it is evident was utterly unknown to them! In the time of
Bernard, however, I confess the corruption was so great that there
was no great difference between that age and the present; but
those who adduce any plea for the existing state of things from the
time of Leo, Gregory, and others in that middle period, must be
destitute of all shame. This conduct resembles that of any one, who,
to vindicate the monarchy of the Roman emperors, should commend
the ancient state of the Roman government; which would be no
other than borrowing the praises of liberty to adorn a system of
tyranny.
XXIII. Lastly, though all these things were conceded to them, they
would be called to a new controversy, when we deny that there
exists at Rome a Church in which such privileges can reside, or a
bishop capable of exercising these dignified prerogatives. Supposing,
therefore, all these things to be true, which, however, we have
already refuted,—that, by the voice of Christ, Peter had been
constituted head of the universal Church; that the honour vested in
him he had committed to the Roman see; that this had been
established by the authority of the ancient Church, and confirmed by
long usage; that all men, with one consent, had invariably
acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman pontiff; that he had
been the judge in all causes and of all men, and had been subject to
the judgment of none;—though they should have all these
concessions, and any more that they wished, yet I reply in one
word, that none of them would be of any avail, unless there be at
Rome a Church and a bishop. They must of necessity allow, that
Rome cannot be the mother of Churches, unless it be itself a
Church, and that he cannot be the prince of bishops, who is not a
bishop himself. Do they wish, then, to make Rome the apostolic see?
Let them show me a true and legitimate apostleship. Do they wish to
have the supreme pontiff? Let them show me a bishop. But where
will they show us any form or appearance of a Church? They
mention it, indeed, and have it frequently in their mouths. But the
Church is known by certain marks, and a bishopric is a name of
office. I am not now speaking of the people, but of the government
itself, which ought always to appear in the Church. Where is the
ministry, such as Christ’s institution requires? Let us remember what
has already been said of the office of presbyters and bishops. If we
bring the office of cardinals to that rule, we shall confess that they
have no resemblance to presbyters. And I should wish to know what
resemblance the pontiff himself bears to a bishop. The first duty of
the episcopal office is to instruct the people from the word of God;
the second duty, closely connected with the first, is to administer the
sacraments; the third is to admonish, exhort, and reprove those who
offend, and to regulate the people by holy discipline. Which of these
duties does he perform? Which of them does he even pretend to
perform? Let them tell me, then, upon what principle they require
him to be considered as a bishop, who never, even in appearance,
with his little finger touches the least portion of the duty.
XXIV. The case of a bishop is different from that of a king, who still
retains the honour and title of a king, though he execute none of the
royal functions. But in judging of a bishop, regard is to be paid to
the commission of Christ, which ought always to continue in force in
the Church. Let the Romanists, therefore, furnish me with a solution
of this difficulty. I deny that their pontiff is the chief of bishops,
because he is not a bishop himself. Now, they must prove this
second member of my position to be false, if they will obtain the
victory in the first. But what must be the conclusion, if he not only
has no characteristic of a bishop, but every thing contrary to it? But
here where shall I begin? with his doctrine, or his conduct? What
shall I say? What shall I omit? Where shall I stop? I will make this
assertion—that as the world is at present filled with so many corrupt
and impious doctrines, loaded with such various kinds of
superstitions, blinded with such numerous errors, and immerged in
such profound idolatry,—there is not one of these evils which has
not originated from the see of Rome, or at least been confirmed by
it. Nor is there any other cause for the violent rage of the pontiffs
against the revived doctrine of the gospel, and for their exertion of
all their power to crush it, and their instigation of all kings and
princes to persecute it, but that they see that their whole kingdom
will decline and fall to the ground, where the primitive gospel of
Christ shall be received. Leo was cruel; Clement was sanguinary;
Paul is ferocious. But it is not so much that nature has impelled them
to impugn the truth, as that this was the only way to defend their
power. As they cannot be safe, therefore, without ruining Christ,
they labour in this cause as if it were in the defence of their religion,
their habitations, their lives. What, then, shall we consider that as
the apostolic see, where we behold nothing but a horrible apostasy?
Shall he be regarded as the vicar of Christ, who, by his furious
exertions in persecuting the gospel, unequivocally declares himself
to be Antichrist? Shall he be deemed Peter’s successor, who rages
with fire and sword to demolish all that Peter built? Shall we
acknowledge him to be head of the Church, who, after severing the
Church from Christ, its only true Head, divides and tears it in pieces?
Though it be admitted that Rome was once the mother of all
Churches, yet from the time when it began to be the seat of
Antichrist, it has ceased to be what it was before.
XXV. Some persons think us too severe and censorious, when we call
the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do
not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against
Paul himself, after whom we speak, and whose language we adopt.
And lest any one should object, that we improperly pervert to the
Roman pontiff those words of Paul, which belong to a different
subject, I shall briefly show that they are not capable of any other
interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy. Paul says,
that Antichrist “sitteth in the temple of God.”[893] In another place,
also, the Holy Spirit, describing his image in the person of Antiochus,
declares that his kingdom will consist in “speaking great words,” or
blasphemies, “against the Most High.”[894] Hence we conclude, that it
is rather a tyranny over the souls of men, than over their bodies,
which is erected in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. And
in the next place, that this tyranny is one which does not abolish the
name of Christ or of his Church, but rather abuses the authority of
Christ, and conceals itself under the character of the Church, as
under a mask. Now, though all the heresies and schisms which have
existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet
when Paul predicts an approaching apostasy, he signifies by this
description that that seat of abomination shall then be erected,
when a universal defection shall have seized the Church,
notwithstanding many members, dispersed in different places,
persevere in the unity of the faith. But when he adds, that even in
his days “the mystery of iniquity” did “already work”[895] in secret
what it was afterwards to effect in a more public manner, he gives
us to understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by
one man, nor to terminate with one man. Now, when he designates
Antichrist by this character,—that he would rob God of his honour in
order to assume it to himself,—this is the principal indication which
we ought to follow in our inquiries after Antichrist, especially where
such pride proceeds to a public desolation of the Church. As it is
evident therefore that the Roman pontiff has impudently transferred
to himself some of the peculiar and exclusive prerogatives of God
and Christ, it cannot be doubted that he is the captain and leader of
this impious and abominable kingdom.
XXVI. Now, let the Romanists go and object antiquity against us; as
if, in such a subversion of every thing, the honour of the see could
remain, where no see exists. Eusebius relates that God, in order to
make way for his vengeance, removed the Church from Jerusalem to
Pella. What we are informed did happen once, may have happened
oftener. Therefore to attach the honour of the primacy to any
particular place, so that he who is in fact the most inveterate enemy
of Christ, the greatest adversary of the gospel, the desolater and
destroyer of the Church, the most cruel murderer and butcher of all
the saints, must nevertheless be accounted the vicar of Christ, the
successor of Peter, the chief prelate of the Church, merely because
he occupies what was anciently the first see, is a thing extremely
ridiculous and absurd. I forbear to remark the immense difference
between the pope’s chancery, and a well regulated administration of
the Church; though this one thing is sufficient to remove every
difficulty on this subject. For no man in his sound senses will include
the episcopal office in lead and in bulls, much less in that school of
frauds and chicaneries, in which the pope’s spiritual government
consists. It has justly been remarked, therefore, that the Roman
Church which is boasted of, has long ago been converted into a
secular court, which is all that is now to be seen at Rome. Nor am I
here accusing the vices of individuals, but proving that the Papacy
itself is diametrically opposite to the legitimate order of the Church.
XXVII. But if we proceed to persons, it is well known what kind of
men we shall find sustaining the character of vicars of Christ. Julius,
and Leo, and Clement, and Paul, will be pillars of the Christian faith,
and the principal oracles of religion, who never knew any thing of
Christ, except what they had learned in the school of Lucian. But
why do I enumerate three or four pontiffs, as though it were
doubtful what kind of religion the pontiffs and the whole college of
cardinals have professed long ago, and profess in the present day?
For of the secret theology which prevails among them, the first
article is, that there is no God; the second, that all that is written
and preached concerning Jesus Christ is falsehood and imposture;
the third, that the doctrine of a future life, and that of the final
resurrection, are mere fables. This opinion, I confess, is not
entertained by all, and is expressed by few of them; yet it long ago
began to be the ordinary religion of the pontiffs. Though this is
notorious to all who are acquainted with Rome, yet the Roman
theologians persist in boasting that the possibility of error in the
pope has been prevented by the privilege of Christ, because he said
to Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.”[896] What can
they gain by such impudent mockery, except it be to convince the
whole world of their having arrived at such an extreme of
presumption, that they neither fear God nor regard men?
XXVIII. But let us suppose the impiety of those pontiffs, whom I
have mentioned, to be concealed, because they have not published
it by sermons or by writings, but only betrayed it in their chambers
and at their tables, or at least within the walls of their palaces. But if
they wish to establish this privilege to which they pretend, they must
expunge from the number of the pontiffs John the Twenty-second,
who publicly maintained that souls are mortal, and that they perish
together with the bodies till the day of resurrection. And to show
that the whole see, with its principal pillars, was then entirely
overturned, not one of the cardinals resisted this capital error; but
the university of Paris urged the king of France to compel the pope
to a retraction. The king interdicted his subjects from all communion
with him, unless he should speedily repent; and he caused this to be
proclaimed, in the usual manner, by a herald. Compelled by
necessity, the pontiff abjured his error. This example renders it
unnecessary for me to dispute any longer against the assertion of
our adversaries, that the see of Rome and its pontiffs cannot err
respecting the faith, because Christ said to Peter, “I have prayed for
thee, that thy faith fail not.” John certainly fell from the true faith in
so disgraceful a manner, that he might furnish to posterity a signal
proof, that those who succeed Peter in his bishopric are not all
Peters. The argument itself, however, is too puerile to need any
answer. For if they are determined to apply to Peter’s successors
every thing that was said to Peter, it will follow that they are all
Satans, because the Lord also said to Peter, “Get thee behind me,
Satan; thou art an offence unto me.”[897] It will be as easy for us to
retort this passage against them, as it is for them to object the other
against us.
XXIX. But it affords me no pleasure to contend with them in such
fooleries, and therefore I return from the digression. To confine
Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Church, to one particular place,
so that whoever presides there, even though he be a devil, must,
nevertheless, be deemed the vicar of Christ, and the head of the
Church, because that place was formerly the see of Peter, I maintain
to be not only impious and dishonourable to Christ, but altogether
absurd and repugnant to common sense. The Roman pontiffs for a
long time have either been totally indifferent to religion, or have
shown themselves its greatest enemies. They are no more made the
vicars of Christ, therefore, by the see which they occupy, than an
idol is to be taken for God, because it is placed in his temple. Now, if
a judgment is to be formed on their conduct, let the pontiffs answer
for themselves in what part of it they can at all be recognized as
bishops. In the first place, the mode of life generally pursued at
Rome, not only without any opposition from them, but with their
connivance, and even tacit approbation, is altogether disgraceful to
bishops, whose duty it is to restrain the licentiousness of the people
by a rigid discipline. I will not, however, be so severe against them
as to charge them with the faults of other persons. But while both
themselves and their families, with almost the whole college of
cardinals, and the whole host of their clergy, are so abandoned to all
kinds of debauchery, impurity, and obscenity, and to every species of
enormity and crime, that they resemble monsters rather than men,
they prove themselves to have no just claim to the character of
bishops. They need not be afraid, however, that I shall proceed to a
further disclosure of their turpitude. For it is unpleasant to meddle
with such abominable pollution, and it is necessary to spare chaste
ears. Besides, I conceive, I have more than sufficiently proved what
I intended, that even if Rome had anciently been the head of all
Churches, yet at the present day she is not worthy of being
accounted one of the smallest toes of the Church’s feet.
XXX. With respect to the cardinals, as they are called, I know not
how it has come to pass that they have so suddenly risen to such
high dignity. In the time of Gregory, this title was exclusively applied
to bishops; for whenever he mentions cardinals, he speaks of them
not only as belonging to the Church of Rome, but to any other
Churches; so that, in short, a cardinal priest is no other than a
bishop. I find no such title at all in the writers of any preceding age;
and at that time, I observe, they were far inferior to bishops, to
whom they are now so far superior. This passage of Augustine is well
known: “Though, according to the titles of honour which have long
been used in the Church, a bishop is superior to a presbyter, yet
Augustine is in many things inferior to Jerome.” He clearly makes not
the least distinction between a presbyter of the Roman Church and
those of other Churches, but places them all alike below the bishops.
And this order was so long observed, that in the Council of Carthage,
when two legates attended from the Roman see, one a bishop, the
other a presbyter, the presbyter was obliged to take the lowest seat.
But not to go too far into antiquity for examples, we have the acts of
a council held under Gregory at Rome, at which the presbyters sat in
the lowest place, and subscribed separately; and the deacons were
not allowed to subscribe at all. And, indeed, the priests had no other
office at that time, than to attend and assist the bishop in the
ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments. Now,
their condition is so changed, that they are become the cousins of
kings and emperors. And there is no doubt but they rose by degrees,
together with their head, till they reached their present high dignity.
This also I have thought proper to suggest by the way in a few
words, that the reader may more fully understand, that the Roman
see, in its present circumstances, is widely different from its ancient
state, under the pretext of which it is now maintained and defended.
But whatever they may have been in former times, since they have
now no true and legitimate office in the Church, and only retain a
mere name and useless mask of one, and since every thing
belonging to them is quite contrary to it, it was necessary that what
Gregory often forebodes should actually befall them: “I say it with
tears, I denounce it with groans, that since the sacerdotal order is
fallen within, it will not long be able to stand without.” Or rather it
was necessary that what Malachi declares of similar characters
should be fulfilled in them: “Ye are departed out of the way; ye have
caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant
of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made you
contemptible and base before all the people.”[898] I now leave it to all
pious persons to consider the nature of the lofty fabric of the Roman
hierarchy, to which the Papists, with nefarious impudence, and
without any hesitation, sacrifice even the word of God itself, which
ought to have been held venerable and sacred by heaven and earth,
by men and angels.
 CHAPTER VIII.
THE POWER OF THE CHURCH RESPECTING
ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND ITS LICENTIOUS
PERVERSION, UNDER THE PAPACY, TO THE
CORRUPTION OF ALL PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

The next subject is the power of the Church, which is to be

considered as residing, partly in the respective bishops, partly in
councils, and those either provincial or general. I speak only of the
spiritual power which belongs to the Church. Now, it consists either
in doctrine, in legislation, or jurisdiction. The subject of doctrine
contains two parts—the authority to establish doctrines, and the
explication of them. Before we enter on the particular discussion of
each of these points, we would apprize the pious readers, that
whatever is asserted respecting the power of the Church, they
should be mindful to refer to the end for which Paul declares it to
have been given, namely, “to edification, and not to destruction;”[899]
and all who make a legitimate use of it, consider themselves as
nothing more than “servants of Christ,”[900] and the people’s
“servants for Jesus’ sake.”[901] Now, the only way to edify the Church
is, for the ministers themselves to study to preserve to Jesus Christ
his rightful authority, which can no longer be secure than while he is
left in possession of what he has received from the Father, that is, to
be the sole Master in the Church.[902] For of him alone, and of no
other, is it said, “Hear ye him.”[903] The power of the Church,
therefore, is not to be depreciated, yet it must be circumscribed by
certain limits, that it may not be extended in every direction,
according to the caprice of men. It will, therefore, be highly useful to
observe how it is described by the prophets and apostles. For if we
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookluna.com