God, that "a bishop must be blameless, apt to teach, no striker," &c. (i) 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

- ..

VOL. III.

(i) Tim. iii. 2-7.
M

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 instructed 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 they are 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 farthings 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, who before an ordination inquire 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. Beside 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 shew 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