THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY SUBVERTED BY THE PAPAL TYRANNY.
Now, it is proper to exhibit the system of ecclesiastical government at
present maintained by the see of Rome, and all its dependencies, with a
full view of that hierarchy which is perpetually in their mouths, and to
compare it with the description we have given of the primitive and
ancient Church. This comparison will show what kind of a Church there is
among those who fiercely arrogate this exclusive title, in order to
oppress, or rather to overwhelm us. Now, it is best to begin with the
vocation, that we may see who and what kind of men are called to the
ministry, and how they are introduced to it. We shall then consider how
faithfully they discharge their duty. We shall give the first place to
the bishops; and I wish it might be to their honour to hold the first
rank in this disquisition. But the subject itself will not permit me to
touch on this argument ever so slightly, without involving their deepest
disgrace. I shall remember, however, the nature of the work in which I
am now engaged, and shall not suffer my discourse, which ought to be
confined to simple doctrine, to exceed its proper bounds. But let some
one of those who have not lost all shame, answer me; What kind of
bishops are now generally chosen? To examine into their learning, is too
obsolete; and if any regard be paid to it, they choose some lawyer, who
understands pleading in a court, better than preaching in a Church. It
is evident, that for a hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred that has
been chosen, had any knowledge of the Holy Scripture. I say nothing of
the preceding ages; not that they were much better, but because our
business is only with the present Church. If we inquire into their
morals, we shall find that there have been few or none who would not
have been judged unworthy by the ancient canons. He who has not been a
drunkard, has been a fornicator; and he who has been free from both
these vices, has been either a gambler or a hunter, or dissolute in some
part of his life. For the old canons exclude a man from the episcopal
office for smaller vices than these. But the greatest absurdity of all
is, that even boys, scarcely ten years of age, have by the permission of
the pope been made bishops. And to such lengths of impudence and
stupidity have they proceeded, as not to be afraid of that extreme and
monstrous enormity, which is altogether repugnant to the common sense of
nature. Hence it appears how solemn and conscientious must have been
their elections, which were marked with such extreme negligence.
II. All the right of the people to choose has been entirely taken away.
Their suffrages, assent, subscriptions, and every thing of this kind,
have disappeared. All the power is transferred to the canons. They
confer the bishopric on whom they please, and then produce him before
the people, but to be adored, not to be examined. Leo, on the contrary,
exclaims that no reason permits this, and pronounces it to be a violent
imposition. When Cyprian declares it to be of Divine right, that an
election should not be made without the consent of the people, he shows
that a different method is repugnant to the word of God. The decrees of
various councils most severely prohibit it to be done in any other way,
and if it be done, command it to be void. If these things be true, there
is now no canonical election remaining in all the Papacy, either
according to Divine or ecclesiastical right. Now, though there were no
other evil, how will they be able to excuse themselves for having thus
deprived the Church of her right? But they say, the corruption of the
times required, that as the people and magistrates, in the choice of
bishops, were rather carried away by antipathies and partialities than
governed by an honest and correct judgment, the decision of this
business should be intrusted to a few. Let it be admitted that this was
an extreme remedy for a disease under desperate circumstances. Yet as
the medicine has been found more injurious than the disease itself, why
is there no remedy provided against this new malady? They reply, The
canons themselves have been particularly directed what course they ought
to pursue in an election. But do we doubt, that the people formerly
understood themselves to be bound by the most sacred laws, when they saw
the word of God proposed as their rule, whenever they assembled for the
election of a bishop? For that one declaration of God, in which he
describes the true character of a bishop, ought to have more weight than
millions of canons. Yet, corrupted by a most sinful disposition, they
paid no regard to law or equity. So in the present day, though there are
the best written laws, yet they remain buried in paper. At the same
time, it has been the general practice, and, as if it were founded in
reason, has obtained the general approbation, that drunkards,
fornicators, and gamblers, have been promoted to this honour. I do not
say enough. Bishoprics are the rewards of adulterers and panders. For
when they are given to hunters and fowlers, the business must be
considered as well managed. To attempt any excuse of such flagitious
proceedings is abominable. The people, I say, had a most excellent
canon, in the direction of the word of God, that “a bishop must be
blameless, apt to teach, no striker,” &c.[854] Why, then, was the right
of election transferred from the people to the canons? They reply,
Because the word of God was not attended to, amidst the tumults and
factions of the people. And why should it not now be again transferred
from them, who not only violate all laws, but, casting off all shame,
mingle and confound heaven and earth together, by their lust, avarice,
and ambition?
III. But it is a false pretence when they say, that the present practice
was introduced as a remedy. We read that in the early times, cities were
frequently thrown into confusion at the election of their bishops; yet
no one ever dared to think of depriving the citizens of their right. For
they had other ways, either of guarding against these evils, or of
correcting them when they occurred. But I will state the real truth of
the case. When the people began to be negligent about choosing, and,
considering this care as less suitable to themselves, left it to the
presbyters, the latter abused this occasion to usurp a tyrannical power,
which they afterwards confirmed to themselves by new canons. Their form
of ordination is no other than a mere mockery. For the appearance of
examination which they display in it, is so frivolous and jejune, that
it is even destitute of all plausibility. The power of nominating
bishops, therefore, which some princes have obtained by stipulation with
the Roman pontiff, has caused no new injury to the Church, because the
election has only been taken from the canons, who had seized, or rather
stolen, it without any just claim. It is certainly a most disgraceful
example, that courtiers are made bishops, and sent from the court to
seize upon the Churches; and it ought to be the concern of all pious
princes to refrain from such an abuse. For it is an impious robbery of
the Church, whenever a bishop is imposed upon any people, who have not
desired, or at least freely approved of him. But the disorderly custom
which has long prevailed in the Churches, has given occasion to princes
to assume the presentation of bishops to themselves. For they would
rather have this at their own disposal, than in the hands of those who
had no more right to it, and by whom it was not less abused.
IV. This is the goodly calling, in consequence of which bishops boast of
being successors of the apostles. The power of creating presbyters, they
say, belongs exclusively to them. But this is a gross corruption of the
ancient institution; for by their ordination they create, not presbyters
to rule and feed the people, but priests to offer sacrifice. So when
they consecrate deacons, they have nothing to do with their true and
proper office, but only ordain them to certain ceremonies about the
chalice and patine. In the Council of Chalcedon, on the contrary, it was
decreed, that there should be no absolute ordinations, that is, without
some place being at the same time assigned to the persons ordained,
where they were to exercise their office. This decree was highly useful,
for two reasons—first, that the Churches might not be burdened with an
unnecessary charge, and the money which ought to be distributed to the
poor consumed upon idle men; secondly, that the persons ordained might
consider themselves not as promoted to an honour, but as intrusted with
an office to the discharge of which they were bound by a solemn
engagement. But the Romish doctors, who think their belly ought to be
all their care, even in matters of religion, first explain the requisite
title to consist in an income sufficient for their support, whether
arising from their own patrimony or from a benefice. Therefore, when
they ordain a deacon or a presbyter, without giving themselves any
concern where he is to officiate, they readily admit him, if he be only
rich enough to maintain himself. But who can admit this, that the title
which the decree of the council requires is a competent annual income?
And because the more recent canons condemned the bishops to maintain
those whom they had ordained without a sufficient title, in order to
prevent their too great facility in the admission of candidates, they
have even contrived a way to evade this penalty. For the person ordained
mentions any title whatever, and promises that he will be content with
it. By this engagement he is debarred from an action for maintenance. I
say nothing of a thousand frauds practised in this business; as when
some falsely exhibit empty titles of benefices, from which they could
not derive five pence a year; others, under a secret stipulation, borrow
benefices which they promise to return immediately, but which, in many
instances, are never returned; and other similar mysteries.
V. But even though these grosser abuses were removed, is it not always
absurd to ordain a presbyter without assigning him any station? For they
ordain no one, but to offer sacrifice. Now, the legitimate ordination of
a presbyter consists in a call to the government of the Church, and that
of a deacon to the collection of the alms. They adorn their procedure,
indeed, with many pompous ceremonies, that its appearance may gain the
veneration of the simple; but with judicious persons, what can be gained
by those appearances unaccompanied by any solidity or truth? For they
use ceremonies either derived from Judaism, or invented among
themselves, from which it would be better to refrain. But as to any real
examination, the consent of the people, and other necessary things, they
are not mentioned. The shadow they retain of these things, I consider
not worthy of notice. By shadow, I mean those ridiculous gesticulations,
used as a dull and foolish imitation of antiquity. The bishops have
their vicars, to inquire before an ordination, into the learning of the
candidates. But in what manner? They interrogate them, whether they can
read their masses; whether they know how to decline some common noun
that may occur in reading, or to conjugate a verb, or to tell the
meaning of a word; for it is not necessary for them to know how to give
the sense of a verse. And yet none are rejected from the priesthood, who
are deficient even in these puerile elements, provided they bring some
present or recommendation to favour. In the same spirit it is, that when
the persons to be ordained present themselves at the altar, some one
inquires three times, in a language not understood, whether they are
worthy of that honour. One (who never saw them before, but, that no part
of the process might be wanting, acts his part in the farce) answers,
They are worthy. What accusation is there against these venerable
fathers, but that by sporting with such manifest sacrileges they are
guilty of unblushing mockery of God and men? But because they have been
long in possession of it, they suppose it is now become right. For
whoever ventures to open his mouth against these glaring and atrocious
enormities, they hurry him away to execution, as if he had committed a
capital crime. Would they do this if they believed that there was any
God?
VI. Now, how much better do they conduct themselves in the collation of
benefices?—a thing formerly connected with ordination, but now entirely
separated from it. The ways in which this business is managed, are
various. For the bishops are not the only persons who confer benefices,
and in those the collation of which is ascribed to them, they do not
always possess the full power, but while they retain the name of the
collation for the sake of honour, the presentation belongs to others.
Besides these, there are nominations from the colleges, resignations
either absolute or made for the sake of exchange, commendatory
rescripts, preventions, and the like. But they all conduct themselves in
such a manner, that no one can reproach another for any thing. I
maintain that scarcely one benefice in a hundred, in all the Papacy, is
at present conferred without simony, according to the definition which
the ancients gave of that crime. I do not say that they all purchase
with ready money; but show me one in twenty who obtains a benefice
without any indirect recommendation. Some are promoted by relationship,
others by alliance, others by the influence of parents, others gain
favour by their services. In short, the end for which sacerdotal offices
are conferred, is not to provide for the Churches, but for the persons
to whom they are given. And therefore they call them _benefices_, a name
by which they sufficiently declare that they view them in no other light
than as donatives of princes, by which they either conciliate the favour
of their soldiers, or reward their services. I forbear to remark that
these rewards are conferred upon barbers, cooks, muleteers, and other
dregs of the people. And, in the present day, scarcely any litigations
make more noise in the courts of justice than those respecting
benefices; so that they may be considered as a mere prey thrown out for
dogs to hunt after. Is it tolerable even to hear the name of _pastors_
given to men who have forced themselves into the possession of a Church,
as into an enemy’s farm; who have obtained it by a legal process; who
have purchased it with money; who have gained it by dishonourable
services; who, while infants just beginning to lisp, succeeded to it as
an inheritance transmitted by their uncles and cousins, and sometimes
even by fathers to their illegitimate children?
VII. Would the licentiousness of the people, however corrupt and
lawless, ever have proceeded to such a length? But it is still more
monstrous that one man—I say nothing of his qualifications, only a man
not capable of governing himself—should preside over the government of
five or six Churches. We may now see, in the courts of princes, young
men who hold one archbishopric, two bishoprics, and three abbeys. It is
a common thing for canons to be loaded with five, six, or seven
benefices, of which they take not the least care, except in receiving
the revenues. I will not object that this is every where condemned by
the word of God, which has long ceased to have the least weight with
them. I will not object that various councils have made many very severe
decrees against such disorder; for these also, whenever they please,
they fearlessly treat with contempt. But I maintain, that both these
things are execrable enormities, utterly repugnant to God, to nature,
and to the government of the Church—that one robber should engross
several Churches at once, and that the name of _pastor_ should be given
to one who could not be present with his flock, even if he would; and
yet, such is their impudence, they cover these abominable impurities
with the name of the Church, in order to exempt them from all censure.
And, moreover, that inviolable succession, to the merit of which they
boast that the Church owes its perpetual preservation, is included in
these iniquities.
VIII. Now, let us see how faithfully they exercise their office, which
is the second mark by which we are to judge of a legitimate pastor. Of
the priests whom they create, some are _monks_, others are called
_seculars_. The former of these classes was unknown to the ancient
Church, and to hold such a place in the Church was so incompatible with
the monastic profession, that anciently, when any one was chosen from a
monastery to be one of the clergy, he ceased to be a monk. And even
Gregory, in whose time there was much corruption, yet suffered not this
confusion to take place. For he enjoined, that they who became abbots
should be divested of their clerical character; for that no one could be
a monk and a clergyman at the same time, because the one would be an
impediment to the other. Now, if I inquire how that man can duly
discharge his office, whom the canons declare to be unfit for it, what
answer will they make? I suppose they will cite those abortive decrees
of Innocent and Boniface, by which monks are admitted to the honour and
authority of the priesthood, so that they may still remain in their
monasteries. But what reason is there, that any illiterate ass, as soon
as he has once occupied the see of Rome, should by one diminutive word
overturn all the usages of antiquity? But of this we shall say more
hereafter. Suffice it at present to remark, that during the purer times
of the Church, it was deemed a great absurdity for a monk to hold the
office of a priest. For Jerome denies that he performed the office of a
priest while he lived among the monks; but represents himself as one of
the people who ought to be governed by the priests. But if we grant them
this point, how do they execute their office? There are some of the
mendicants, and a few of the others, who preach. All the rest of the
monks either chant or mutter over masses in their cloisters, as if it
were the design of Jesus Christ that presbyters should be appointed for
this purpose, or as if the nature of their office admitted of it. While
the Scripture clearly testifies that it is the duty of a presbyter to
govern his own Church,[855] is it not an impious profanation to transfer
to another object, or rather to make a total change in, God’s sacred
institution? For when they are ordained monks, they are expressly
forbidden to do things which the Lord enjoins upon all presbyters. This
direction is given to them: Let a monk be content in his cloister, and
not presume to administer the sacraments, or to execute any other branch
of public duty. Let them deny, if they can, that it is a glaring mockery
of God, to create a presbyter in order that he may refrain from
discharging his true and genuine office, and to give a man the name, who
cannot possess the thing.
IX. I proceed to the seculars; of whom some are called _beneficiaries_,
that is, they have benefices by which they are maintained; others hire
themselves to labour by the day, in saying mass or singing, and live on
the wages which they gain from these employments. Benefices are either
attended with cure of souls, as bishoprics and parishes; or they are the
stipends of delicate men, who gain a livelihood by chanting, as
prebends, canonries, dignities, chaplainships, and the like. But in the
confusion which has been introduced, abbeys and priories are conferred
not only on secular priests, but also on boys, by privilege, that is, by
common and ordinary custom. As to the mercenaries, who seek their daily
sustenance, how could they act otherwise than they do, that is, to offer
themselves to hire in a mean and shameful manner; especially among such
a vast multitude as now swarms in the world? Therefore, when they are
ashamed of open begging, or think they should gain but little by that
practice, they run about like hungry dogs, and by their importunity, as
by barking, extort from reluctant hands some morsels to put into their
mouths. Here if I should endeavour to describe what a great disgrace it
is to the Church, that the office and dignity of the presbytery has been
so degraded, there would be no end. My readers, therefore, have no
reason to expect from me a long discourse, corresponding to such a
flagitious enormity. I only assert, in few words, that if it be the duty
of a presbyter, as the word of God prescribes, and the ancient canons
require, to feed the Church and administer the spiritual kingdom of
Christ,[856] all those priests who have no work or wages, except in
making merchandise of masses, not only fail of executing their office,
but have no legitimate office to execute. For there is no place assigned
to them to teach; they have no people to govern. In short, nothing
remains to them but the altar upon which to offer up Christ in
sacrifice; and this is not sacrificing to God, but to demons, as we
shall see in another place.
X. Here I touch not on the external vices, but only on the intestine
evil which is deeply rooted in their institution, and cannot be
separated from it. I shall add a remark, which will sound harshly in
their ears, but because it is true, it must be expressed—that canons,
deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who are supported by sinecures, are
to be considered in the same light. For what service can they perform
for the Church? They have discarded the preaching of the word, the
superintendence of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments,
as employments attended with too much labour and trouble. What have they
remaining, then, to boast of as true presbyters? They have chanting and
the pomp of ceremonies. But what is all this to the purpose? If they
plead custom, usage, prescription of long continuance, I will confront
them with the decision of Christ, where he has given us a description of
true presbyters, and what qualifications ought to be possessed by those
who wish to be considered as such. If they cannot bear so hard a law as
to submit themselves to the rule of Christ, let them at least allow this
cause to be decided by the authority of the primitive Church. But their
condition will not be at all better, if we judge of their state by the
ancient canons. Those who have degenerated into canons, ought to be
presbyters, as they were in former times, to govern the Church in common
with the bishop, and to be his colleagues in the pastoral office. These
_chapter dignities_, as they call them, have nothing to do with the
government of the Church; much less have the chaplainships, and the
other dregs of similar offices. In what estimation, then, shall we hold
them all? It is certain that the word of Christ and the practice of the
ancient Church agree in excluding them from the honour of the
presbytery. They contend, however, that they are presbyters; but the
mask must be torn off. Then we shall find, that their whole profession
is most foreign and remote from the office of presbyters, which is
described to us by the apostles, and which was required in the primitive
Church. All such orders, therefore, by whatever titles they may be
distinguished, since they are of modern invention, or at least are not
supported by the institution of God, or the ancient usage of the Church,
ought to have no place in a description of the spiritual government,
which the Church has received, consecrated by the mouth of the Lord
himself. Or, if they wish me to use plainer language, since chaplains,
canons, deans, provosts, and other idlers of this description, do not
even with their little fingers touch a particle of that duty which is
necessarily required in presbyters, it is not to be endured that they
should falsely usurp the honour, and thus violate the sacred institution
of Jesus Christ.
XI. There remain the bishops and the rectors of parishes, who would
afford me great pleasure if they exerted themselves to support their
office. For we would readily admit to them, that they have a pious and
honourable office, provided they discharged it. But when they wish to be
considered as pastors, notwithstanding they desert the churches
committed to them, and transfer the care of them to others, they act
just as if the office of a pastor consisted in doing nothing. If a
usurer, who never stirred his foot out of the city, should profess
himself a ploughman or vinedresser,—if a soldier, who had spent all his
time in the camp and in the field of battle, and had never seen a court
of justice or books, should offer himself as a lawyer,—who could endure
such gross absurdities? But these men act in a manner still more absurd,
who wish to be accounted and called legitimate pastors of the Church,
and yet are not willing to be so in reality. For how few of them are
there, who execute the government of their Churches even in appearance!
Many of them all their lifetime devour the revenues of Churches, which
they never approach even to look at them. Others either go themselves,
or send an agent once every year, that nothing may be lost by farming
them out. When this abuse first intruded itself, they who wished to
enjoy this kind of vacation from duty, exempted themselves by special
privileges. Now, it is a rare case for any one to reside in his own
Church; for they consider their Churches as no other than farms, over
which they place their vicars, as bailiffs or stewards. But it is
repugnant to common sense, that a man should be pastor of a flock, who
never saw one of the sheep.
XII. It appears that some seeds of this evil had sprung up in the time
of Gregory, and that the rectors of Churches began to be negligent in
preaching and teaching; for he heavily complains of it in the following
passages: “The world is full of priests; but yet there are few labourers
found in the harvest; because we undertake the sacerdotal office, but
perform not the work of the office.” Again: “Because they have no bowels
of charity, they wish to be considered as lords; they do not acknowledge
themselves to be fathers. They change the place of humility into an
aggrandizement of dominion.” Again: “But, O ye pastors, what are we
doing, who receive the wages and are not labourers? We have fallen into
extraneous employments; we undertake one thing, and perform another. We
relinquish the office of preaching; and it is our misfortune, I
conceive, that we are called bishops, since we hold a title of honour,
but not of virtue.” Since he uses such severity of language against
those who were only chargeable with a want of sufficient assiduity, or
diligence, in their office, what would he have said, if he had seen
scarcely any, or very few of the bishops, and among the rest hardly one
in a hundred, ascend a pulpit once in their lives? For things are come
to such a pitch of frenzy, that it is generally esteemed beneath the
dignity of a bishop to deliver a sermon to a congregation. In the time
of Bernard there had been some declension; but we see how sharply he
reproves and inveighs against the whole body of the clergy, who, it is
probable, however, were far less corrupt in that age than they are in
the present.
XIII. Now, if any one will closely observe and strictly examine this
whole form of ecclesiastical government, which exists at the present day
under the Papacy, he will find it a nest of the most lawless and
ferocious banditti in the world. Every thing in it is clearly so
dissimilar and repugnant to the institution of Christ, so degenerated
from the ancient regulations and usages of the Church, so at variance
with nature and reason, that no greater injury can be done to Christ,
than by pleading his name in defence of such a disorderly government. We
(they say) are the pillars of the Church, the prelates of religion, the
vicars of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because we have succeeded
to the power and authority of the apostles. They are perpetually
vaunting of these fooleries, as if they were talking to blocks of wood;
but whenever they repeat these boasts, I will ask them in return, what
they have in common with the apostles. For the question is not
respecting any hereditary honour, which may be given to men while they
are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so carefully
avoid. So, when we assert that their kingdom is the tyranny of
Antichrist, they immediately reply, that it is that venerable hierarchy,
which has been so often commended by great and holy men. As though the
holy fathers, when they praised the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or
spiritual government, as it had been delivered to them by the hands of
the apostles, ever dreamed of this chaos of deformity and desolation,
where the bishops for the most part are illiterate asses, unacquainted
with the first and plainest rudiments of the faith, or, in some
instances, are children just out of leading-strings; and if any be more
learned,—which, however, is a rare case,—they consider a bishopric to be
nothing but a title of splendour and magnificence; where the rectors of
Churches think no more of feeding the flock, than a shoemaker does of
ploughing; where all things are confounded with a dispersion worse than
that of Babel, so that there can no longer be seen any clear vestige of
the administration practised in the time of the fathers.
XIV. What if we proceed to inquire into their manners? “Where is that
light of the world,” which Christ requires? where that “salt of the
earth?”[857] where that sanctity, which might serve as a perpetual
example to others? There is no class of men in the present day more
infamous for profusion, delicacy, luxury, and profligacy of every kind;
no class of men contains more apt or expert masters of every species of
imposture, fraud, treachery, and perfidy; nowhere can be found equal
cunning or audacity in the commission of crime. I say nothing of their
pride, haughtiness, rapacity, and cruelty; I say nothing of the
abandoned licentiousness of every part of their lives;—enormities which
the world is so wearied with bearing, that there is no room for the
least apprehension lest I should be charged with excessive exaggeration.
One thing I assert, which it is not in their power to deny—that there is
scarcely one of the bishops, and not one in a hundred of the parochial
clergy, who, if sentence were to be passed upon his conduct according to
the ancient canons, would not be excommunicated, or, at the very least,
deposed from his office. That ancient discipline, which required a more
accurate investigation to be made into the conduct of the clergy, has so
long been obsolete, that I may be considered as making an incredible
assertion; but such is the fact. Now, let all, who fight under the
standards and auspices of the Roman see, go and boast of their
sacerdotal order. It is evident that the order which they have is not
derived from Christ, from his apostles, from the fathers, or from the
ancient Church.
XV. Now, let the deacons come forward, with that most sacred
distribution which they have of the property of the Church. They do not
at present, however, create their deacons for any such purpose; for they
enjoin them nothing but to serve at the altar, to say or chant the
gospel, and do I know not what trifles. Nothing of the alms, nothing of
the care of the poor, nothing of the whole function which they executed
in primitive times. I speak of the institution itself. For if we advert
to the fact, it is now become no office at all, but only a step towards
the priesthood. In one circumstance, those who act the part of a deacon
at the mass, exhibit a useless and frivolous resemblance of antiquity,
in receiving the offerings before the consecration. Now, it was the
ancient custom, that before the communion of the supper, the faithful
kissed each other, and then offered their alms at the altar; thus they
expressed their charity, first by a sign, and then by active
beneficence. The deacon, who was steward for the poor, received what was
given, in order to distribute it. Of the alms given at present, no more
reaches the poor than if they were thrown into the sea. This false
appearance of deaconship, therefore, is a mockery of the Church. It
contains nothing resembling the apostolic institution, or the ancient
usage. Even the distribution of the property they have turned into
another channel; and have ordered it in such a way, that it is
impossible to imagine any thing more disorderly. For as robbers, after
having murdered some ill-fated travellers, divide the plunder among
themselves, so these men, after having extinguished the light of God’s
word, and, as it were, cut the throat of the Church, have concluded that
whatever had been dedicated to sacred uses, was abandoned to plunder and
rapine. They have therefore made a division of it, and every one has
seized as large a share as he could.
XVI. Here, all the ancient usages which we have described, have not only
been disturbed, but entirely expunged and abolished The principal part
of this plunder was seized by the bishops and the presbyters of cities,
who, being enriched by it, were converted into canons. That the
partition was made in confusion is evident from the contentions which
prevail among them, even to this day, about their respective limits.
But, however it may be managed, they have taken care that not a penny of
all the property of the Church should reach the poor, who were at least
entitled to half of it. For the canons expressly allot them one fourth
part, and assign another fourth part to the bishops, to be laid out in
hospitality and other offices of charity. I say nothing of what the
clergy ought to do with their portion, and to what use they ought to
apply it. The residue, which is appropriated to the reparation of
temples, edifices, and other expenses, it has been sufficiently shown,
ought to be at the service of the poor in time of necessity. If they had
a single spark of the fear of God in their hearts, could they bear this
reflection of conscience, that every thing they eat, and drink, and
wear, is the fruit of robbery, and even of sacrilege? But though they
are little affected with the judgment of God, they should at least
consider that those, whom they wish to persuade into a belief of their
possession of such an excellent and well regulated system in their
Church as they are accustomed to boast, are men endued with sense and
reason. Let them answer me, in a word, whether deaconship be a license
for theft and robbery? If they deny this, they will also be obliged to
confess, that they have no such office left; seeing that among them the
whole administration of the revenues of the Church has been openly
perverted into a system of sacrilegious depredation.
XVII. But here they advance a most plausible plea. They allege that the
dignity of the Church is becomingly sustained by this magnificence. And
such is the impudence of some of their faction, that they dare to boast
in express terms, that this princely state of the priesthood constitutes
the only fulfilment of those predictions in which the ancient prophets
describe the splendour of the kingdom of Christ. It is not in vain, they
say, that God has made the following promises to his Church: “The kings
of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba
and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before
him.”[858] “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy
beautiful garments, O Jerusalem.”[859] “All they from Sheba shall come;
they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises
of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto
thee.”[860] If I should dwell long on a refutation of this presumption,
I fear I should expose myself to the charge of folly. Therefore I am not
inclined to spend my words in vain. But I ask, if any Jew were to abuse
these passages in the same manner, what reply would they make to him?
There is no doubt but they would reprove his stupidity, in transferring
to the flesh and the world things which are spiritually spoken of the
spiritual kingdom of the Messiah. For we know that, under the image of
earthly things, the prophets have represented to us the heavenly glory
of God, which ought to shine in the Church. For of those external
blessings which their words express, the Church never had less abundance
than in the days of the apostles; and yet it is acknowledged by all that
the kingdom of Christ, then flourished in its greatest vigour. What,
then, it will be asked, is the meaning of these passages? I reply, that
every thing precious, high, and excellent, ought to be in subjection to
the Lord. In regard to the express declaration, that kings shall submit
their sceptres to Christ, cast their crowns at his feet, and consecrate
their wealth to the Church, when (they will say) was it more truly and
fully exemplified, than when Theodosius, casting off the purple robes,
and relinquishing the ensigns of imperial majesty, submitted himself,
like one of the common people, to do solemn penance before God and the
Church? than when he and other such pious princes devoted their cares
and exertions to the preservation of pure doctrine in the Church, and to
the support and protection of sound teachers? But how far the priests of
that age were from rioting in superfluous riches, a single expression of
the Council of Aquileia, at which Ambrose presided, sufficiently
declares. “Poverty is honourable in the priests of the Lord.” It is true
that the bishops at that time had some wealth, which they might have
employed to display the honour of the Church, if they had considered
them as the Church’s real ornaments. But knowing that there was nothing
more inconsistent with the office of pastors, than to display and to
pride themselves on the luxury of their tables, the splendour of their
apparel, a large retinue, and magnificent palaces, they followed and
maintained the humility and modesty, and even the poverty which Christ
has consecrated in all his ministers.
XVIII. But not to dwell too long on this point, let us again collect
into a brief summary, how very much the present dispensation, or rather
dissipation, of the property of the Church, differs from that true
office of deacons, which the word of God commends to us, and which the
ancient Church observed. That portion which is employed in the ornaments
of temples, I assert, is grossly misapplied, if it be not regulated by
that moderation which the nature of sacred things requires, and which
the apostles and holy fathers have prescribed both by precept and by
examples. But what is there seen like this, in the temples at the
present day? Whatever is conformable, I do not say to that primitive
frugality, but to any honourable mediocrity, is rejected. Nothing
pleases, but what savours of the profusion and corruption of the present
times. At the same time they are so far from feeling any just concern
for the living temples, that they would suffer thousands of the poor to
perish with hunger, rather than convert the smallest chalice or silver
pitcher into money, to relieve their wants. And, not of myself to
pronounce any thing more severe, I would only request my pious readers
to indulge this one reflection. If it could happen that Exuperius,—that
bishop of Toulouse whom we have mentioned,—if Acacius, if Ambrose, or
any other such,—should be raised from the dead, what would they say? In
such extreme necessity of the poor, they surely would not approve of the
riches of the Church being applied to another use, and that an
unnecessary one. I forbear to remark, that these purposes for which they
are employed, even if there were no poor, are in many respects
injurious, but of no utility whatever. But I will not appeal to the
authority of men. The property has been dedicated to Christ, and
therefore ought to be dispensed according to his will. It will be
useless for them to allege, that this portion has been employed for
Christ, which they have squandered in a manner inconsistent with his
command. To confess the truth, however, there is not much of the
ordinary revenue of the Church lost in these expenses. For there are no
bishoprics so opulent, no abbeys so rich, in short, no benefices so
numerous or ample, as to satisfy the voraciousness of the priests.
Wishing to spare themselves, therefore, they induce the people, from
superstitious motives, to take what ought to be bestowed upon the poor,
and apply it to the building of temples, the erection of statues, the
purchase of chalices and shrines for relics, and the provision of costly
vestments. This is the gulf which swallows up all the daily alms.
XIX. Of the revenue which they derive from lands and possessions, what
can I say more than I have already said, and which is evident to the
observation of all men? We see with what fidelity the principal portion
is disposed of by those who are called bishops and abbots. What folly is
it to seek here for any ecclesiastical order! Was it reasonable that
they, whose life ought to be an eminent example of frugality, modesty,
temperance, and humility, should emulate the pomp of princes, in the
number of their attendants, the splendour of their palaces, the elegance
of their apparel, and the luxury of their tables? And how very
inconsistent it was with the office of those whom the eternal and
inviolable decree of God forbids to be greedy of filthy lucre,[861] and
commands to be content with simple fare, not only to lay their hands
upon towns and castles, but to seize on the largest provinces, and even
to assume the reins of empire! If they despise the word of God, what
reply will they make to those ancient decrees of councils, by which it
is ordained that a bishop shall have a small house near the Church, a
frugal table, and humble furniture? What will they say to that sentence
of the Council of Aquileia, which declares poverty to be honourable in
the priests of the Lord? For the direction given by Jerome to Nepotian,
that poor persons and strangers, and Christ among them, should be
familiar guests at his table, they will perhaps reject as too austere.
But they will be ashamed to contradict what he immediately
subjoins—“that it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the poor, and
the disgrace of all priests to seek to enrich themselves.” Yet they
cannot receive this, but they must all condemn themselves to ignominy.
But it is not necessary to pursue them with any further severity at
present, as it was only my intention to show, that the legitimate office
of deacon has long been entirely abolished among them, to prevent their
continuing to pride themselves on this title, for the purpose of
recommending their Church. And this design, I think, I have fully
accomplished.
Footnote 854:
1 Tim. iii. 2-7.
Footnote 855:
Acts xx. 28.
Footnote 856:
1 Cor. iv. 1.
Footnote 857:
Matt. v. 13, 14.
Footnote 858:
Psalm lxxii. 10, 11.
Footnote 859:
Isaiah iii. 1.
Footnote 860:
Isaiah lx. 6, 7.
Footnote 861:
Titus i. 7.