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 Thoulouse whom we have mentioned, if Acatius, 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, (9) 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 farther severity at present, as it was only my intention to shew, 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.

(2) Titus i. 7.

VOL. III.

CHAPTER VI.

The Primacy of the Roman See.

HITHERTO we have treated of those ecclesiastical orders which existed in the government of the ancient Church, but which afterwards, in process of time being corrupted and gradually more and more perverted, now in the papal Church merely retain their names, while in reality they are nothing but masks. And this we have done, that by the comparison the pious reader might judge what sort of a Church the Romanists have, for the sake of which they represent us as guilty of schism, because we have separated from it. But the head and summit of the whole establishment, that is, the Primacy of the Roman see, by which they endeavour to prove that the Catholic Church is exclusively theirs, we have not yet touched on; because it originated, neither in the institution of Christ, nor in the usage of the ancient Church, as did the other offices, which we have shewn were handed down from antiquity, but since, through the corruption of the times, have degenerated and even assumed altogether a new form. And yet they endeavour to persuade the world, that the principal and almost only bond of the unity of the Church is adherence to the see of Rome, and preseverence in obedience to it. This is the foundation on which they principally rest, when they wish to deny us all claim to the Church, and to arrogate it to themselves; that they retain the head, on which the unity of the Church depends, and without which it must be torn asunder and crumble to pieces. For their notion is, that the Church is like a mutilated and headless body, unless it be subject to the Roman see as its head. Therefore when they dispute respecting their hierarchy, they always commence with this axiom, that the Roman pontiff, as the vicar of Christ who is head of the Church, presides over the universal Church in his stead, and that the Church cannot be well constituted, unless that see holds the primacy above all

others. Wherefore it is necessary to discuss this subject also, that nothing belonging to the good government of the Church may be omitted.

II. Let the question, therefore, be stated thus: Whether it be necessary to the true system of what they call the hierarchy or government of the Church, that one see should have the pre-eminence above all the rest in dignity and power, so as to be the head of the whole body? Now we subject the Church to very unreasonable laws, if we impose this necessity upon it without the word of God. Therefore, if our adversaries wish to gain their cause, it is necessary for them, in the first place, to shew, that this economy was instituted by Christ. For this purpose they allege the highpriesthood ordained in the law, and the supreme jurisdiction of the high-priest which God appointed at Jerusalem. But it is easy to give an answer to this, or indeed various answers, if they would not be satisfied with one. In the first place, there is no reason for extending to the whole world, what was useful in a single nation; on the contrary, the case of a single nation, and that of the whole world, are widely different. Because the Jews were surrounded on all sides with idolaters, God, in order to prevent their being distracted by a variety of religions, fixed the seat of his worship in the centre of the country, and there he set over them one principal priest, to whom they were all to be subject, for the better preservation of unity among them. Now, when the true religion has been diffused over the whole world, who does not perceive it to be utterly absurd to assign the government of the east and west to one man? It is just-if it were contended, that the whole world ought to be governed by one magistrate, because there is only one in a small district. But there is another reason why this ought not to be made a precedent for imitation. Every one knows that the Jewish high-priest was a type of Christ; now that the priesthood has been transferred, that right must also be transferred. To whom then is it transferred? Certainly not to the pope, as he impudently presumes to boast, when he assumes this title to himself; but to Christ, who exercises that office alone without vicar or successor, and resigns the honour to no other. For

this priesthood, which was prefigured in the law, consists not only in preaching or doctrine, but in the propitiation of God, which Christ effected in his death, and in that intercession which he is now making with the Father.

III. There is no reason, therefore, why they should confine us to this example, as if it were a law perpetually binding, whereas we see it was only of temporary duration. From the New Testament they have nothing to adduce in support of their opinion, but that it was said to one, "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church.” (r) Again, "Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep." (s) But to render these substantial proofs, it is necessary for them first to shew that he who is commanded to feed the flock of Christ, is invested with authority over all Churches, and that binding and loosing are no other than governing the whole world. But as Peter had received the command from the Lord to feed the Church, so he exhorts all other presbyters to do the same. (t) Hence it is easy to infer, that this charge of Christ conferred nothing peculiar upon Peter beyond others, or that Peter communicated to others the right which he had received. But, not to dispute to no purpose, we have in another place, from the mouth of Christ himself, a clear explanation of what he intends by binding and loosing, namely, "remitting and retaining sins." (v) The manner of binding and loosing is shewn by the whole tenour of Scripture, and particularly by Paul, when he says that the ministers of the gospel have received a commission to reconcile men to God, (w) and that they have authority to inflict punishment on those who shall reject this favour. (x)

IV. How grossly they pervert those passages which make mention of binding and loosing, I have hinted before, and shall hereafter have to state more at large. At present it is worth while to see what they can extract from that celebrated answer of Christ to Peter. He promised him "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." He said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven." (y) If we can agree respecting the word keys and the manner of binding,

(r) Matt. xvi. 18. (w) 2 Cor. v. 18.

(s) John xxi. 16.
(x) 2 Cor. x. 6.

(t) 1 Peter v. 2. (v) John xx. 23. (y) Matt. xvi. 19.