Chapter 5. That the Old Form of Government Is Utterly Overthrown by the Tyranny of the Papacy

Now it is good to set before men's eyes the order of governing the Church, that the see of Rome and all the champions thereof do keep at this day, and the whole image of that Hierarchy which they continually have in their mouth, and to compare it with that order of the first and old Church which we have described: that by the comparison it may appear what manner of Church they have, which use this only title to charge or rather to overwhelm us. But it is best to begin at calling, that we see both who, and what manner of men, and by what order they be called to this ministry. And then afterward we shall consider how faithfully they execute their office. We will give the first place to bishops: to whom I would to God this might be an honor, to have the first place in this discourse. But the matter itself does not suffer me, once to touch this thing be it never so lightly, without their great shame. And yet I will remember, in what kind of writing I am now occupied: and will not suffer my talk, which ought to be framed only to simple doctrine, to flow abroad beyond due bounds. But let someone of them that have not utterly lost all shame, answer me, what manner of bishops are at this day commonly chosen. Truly it is now grown too much out of use, to have any examination had of their learning: but if there be had any respect of learning, they choose some lawyer that can rather brawl in a court, than preach in a Church. This is certain, that these hundred years there has scarcely been every hundredth man chosen that understood anything of holy doctrine. I do not therefore spare the former ages, for that they were much better, but because we have now only the present Church in question. If judgment be had of their manners, we shall find that there have been few or almost none, whom the old Canons would not have judged unworthy. He that was not a drunkard was a whoremonger: he that was also clean from this wickedness, was either a dicer, or a hunter, or dissolute in some part of his life. For there be lighter faults, which by the old Canons do exclude a man from being a bishop. But this is a most great absurdity, that very children scarcely ten years old, are by the Pope's grant made bishops. They are grown to such shamelessness, and senseless dullness, that they dreaded not that extreme, indeed monstrous wicked doing, which is utterly abhorring from the very sense of nature. Hereby appears how religious their elections were, where the negligence was so careless.

Now in election, all that right of the people is taken away. Their desires, their assentings, their subscriptions, and all such things are vanished: the whole power is transferred to the Canons only. They bestow the Bishopric upon whom they will, and afterward bring him forth into the sight of the people, but to be worshipped, not to be examined. But Leo cries on the other side, that no reason suffers it, and he pronounces that it is a violent imposition. Cyprian, when he testifies that it proceeds from the law of God that it should not be done but by the consent of the people, shows that the contrary manner is repugnant to the word of God. The decrees of so many Synods do most severely forbid it to be otherwise done: and if it be done, they command it to be void. If these things be true, there now remains in the papacy no canonical election, neither by God's law nor by the ecclesiastical law. But although there were no other evil, yet how shall they be able to excuse this that they have so spoiled the Church of her right? But (say they) the corruption of times so required, that because in appointing of bishops, hatreds and affections more prevailed with the people and the magistrates, than right and sound judgment, therefore the rule thereof should be given to a few. Admit indeed that this were the extreme remedy of a mischief in desperate case. But since the medicine itself has appeared more hurtful than the very disease, why is not this new evil also remedied? But (say they) it is exactly prescribed to the Canons, what they ought to follow in the election. But do we doubt, but that the people in old time did understand that they were bound to most holy laws, when they saw that they had a rule set them by the word of God, when they came together to choose a bishop? For that only voice of God, whereby he describes the true image of a bishop ought worthily to be of more value than infinite thousands of Canons. But nevertheless the people, corrupted with a most evil affection, had no regard of the law or of equity. So at this day though there be very good laws written, yet they remain buried in papers. Yet for the most part it is used in men's manners, yes and allowed as though it were done by good reason, that drunkards, whoremongers, dicers, are commonly promoted to this honor: (it is but little that I say) that Bishoprics are the rewards of adulteries and bawdries. For when they are given but to hunters and falconers, it is to be thought to be well bestowed. Any way to excuse so heinous indignity, it is too wicked. The people (say I) had in old time a very good Canon, to whom God's word prescribed, that a bishop ought to be unreproachable, a teacher, no fighter, etc. Why therefore is the charge of choosing removed from the people to these men? Because supposedly the word of God was not heard among the tumults and seditious partakings of the people. And why should it not at this day be removed again from these men, which not only do break all laws, but casting away all shame, do wantonly, covetously, ambitiously, mingle and confound God's and men's matters together?

But they lie, when they say, that this was devised as a remedy. We often read that in old times churches were in tumults at the choosing of bishops: yet never any man dared think of taking away the authority from the people. For they had other ways whereby they might either prevent these faults, or amend them if they were already committed. But I will tell what it is. When the people began to be negligent in making the elections, and did cast that care upon the priests as little belonging to them, they abused this occasion to usurp a tyranny to themselves, which afterward they established by new canons set forth. As for their ordering, it is nothing else but a mere mockery. For the show of examination that they there set out is so vain and empty, that it lacks even all color. Therefore whereas in some places princes have by covenant obtained of the bishops of Rome, that they themselves might name bishops, therein the church suffered no new loss: because the election was taken away, only from the canons, which had by no right violently taken it, or indeed stolen it. Truly this is a most foul example, that out of the court are sent bishops to possess churches: and it should be the work of godly princes to abstain from such corruption. For it is a wicked despoiling of the church, when there is thrust to any people a bishop, whom they have not desired, or at least with free voice allowed. But that disorderly manner which has long ago been in the churches, gave occasion to princes to take the presentation of bishops into their own hands. For they had rather that it should be their gift, than those men's, to whom it nothing more belonged, and who did no less wrongfully abuse it.

Behold, here is a noble calling, by reason of which the bishops boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles. But they say that the authority to create priests belongs to them only. But in this they most wickedly corrupt the old institution: because they do not by their ordering create priests to rule and feed the people, but sacrificers to sacrifice. Likewise when they consecrate deacons, they do nothing of their true and proper office, but they ordain them only to certain ceremonies about the chalice and the paten. But in the Synod at Chalcedon, it is contrariwise decreed, that the ordinations should not be absolutely given, that is to say, but that a place should be therewith assigned to them that are ordained, where they shall exercise their office. This decree is for two causes very profitable. First, that the church should not be burdened with superfluous charges: nor that that should be spent upon idle men which should be given to the poor: secondly, that they which are ordained, should think that they are not promoted to an honor, but that there is an office committed to them, to the execution of which they are bound by solemn protestation. But the Romish masters (which think that there is nothing in religion to be cared for, but their belly) first do expound title to be the revenue that may suffice to sustain them, whether it be by their own livelihood or by benefice. Therefore when they ordain a deacon or a priest, without taking care where they ought to minister, they give them the order, if they are rich enough to find themselves. But what man can admit this, that the title which the decree of the Council requires, should be the yearly revenue for their sustenance? But now because the later canons condemned the bishops with penalty to find them whom they had ordained without sufficient title, by this means to restrain their too much easy admitting: there has been also a subtlety devised to evade this penalty. For he that is ordained, naming any title whatever it be, promises that he will be content therewith: by this shift he is driven from his action for his finding. I pass over a thousand frauds that are used in this: that when some do falsely name vain titles of benefices, whereupon they cannot make five shillings by year: others under secret covenant do borrow benefices, which they promise that they will promptly restore again, but sometimes they restore not at all. And such other mysteries.

But although these grosser abuses were taken away, is not this always an absurdity, to appoint a priest to whom you assign no place? Also they ordain no man but to sacrifice. But the true ordinance of a priest is, to be called to the government of the church: and a deacon to be called to the gathering of the alms: they do indeed with great pomp shadow their doing, that in the very show it may have a reverence among the simple. But among men that have their sound wit, what can these disguisings avail, if there be no sound substance or truth underneath them? For they use ceremonies about it, either fetched out of Jewish sources, or feigned of themselves: which it were better to forbear. But of true examination, (for I care nothing for that shadow which they retain) of the people's consent, and of other things necessary, they make no mention. I call a shadow their foolish gesturings fit to be laughed at, framed to a foolish and cold counterfeiting of antiquity. The bishops have their deputies who before the ordaining may inquire of their learning. But what? Whether they can read their masses: whether they can decline a common noun, that they shall light upon in reading, or conjugate a verb, or know the signification of one word, for it is not necessary that they be learned enough to construe a verse. And yet they are not put back from priesthood, which fail even in the childish rudiments, so that they bring any money or commendation of favor. Of like sort it is, that when they are brought to the altar to be ordained, it is asked three times in a tongue not understood, whether they are worthy of that honor. One answers (who never saw them: but because nothing should be lacking from the form, he has the part in the play) They are worthy. What may a man blame in these reverend fathers, but that with mocking in so open sacrileges, they do without shame laugh to scorn both God and men? But because they are in long possession thereof, they think that now it is lawful for them. For whoever dares once open his mouth against these so evident and so heinous wicked doings, he is forthwith hauled by them to punishment of death, as though it were one that had in old time disclosed abroad the holy mysteries of Ceres. Would they do this if they thought that there were any God?

Now how much do they behave themselves better in bestowing of benefices: which thing was once joined with the ordering, but now it is altogether separate? There is among them a diverse manner. For the bishops only do not confer benefices: and in those of which they are said to have the conferring, they have not the full right: but others have the presentation, and they retain only the title of collation for honor's sake. There are also nominations out of schools, and resignations, either simple, or made for cause of exchange, commendatory writings, preventions, and whatever is of that sort. But they also behave themselves so that none of them can reproach another with anything. So I affirm, that scarcely every hundredth benefice is bestowed at this day in the [reconstructed: papacy] without simony, as the old writers defined simony. I do not say that they all buy them with ready money: but show me one of twenty that comes to a benefice without some side commendation. Some either kindred or alliance promotes, and some the authority of their parents: some by doing of pleasures do get themselves favor. Finally benefices are given to this end, not to provide for the Churches, but for them that receive them. Therefore they call them benefices, by which word they do sufficiently declare, that they make no other account of them, but as the beneficial gifts of princes, whereby they either get the favor of their soldiers or reward their services. I omit how these rewards are bestowed upon barbers, cooks, mule keepers, and such dreggish men. And now judicial courts ring of no matters more, than about benefices: so that a man may say that they are nothing else but a prey cast before dogs to hunt after. Is this tolerable even to be heard of, that they should be called pastors, which have broken into the possession of a Church as into a farm of their enemy? That have gotten it by brawling in the law? That have bought it for money? That have deserved it by filthy services? Which being children yet scarcely able to speak, have received it, as by inheritance from their uncles and kinsmen, and some bastards from their fathers?

Would ever the licentiousness of the people, though they had been never so corrupt and lawless, have gone so far? But this is also more monstrous, that one man (I will not say what manner of man, but truly such a one as cannot govern himself) is set to govern five or six Churches. A man may see in these days in princes' courts, young men that have three abbacies, two bishoprics, one archbishopric. But there be commonly canons with five, six or seven benefices, of which they have no care at all, but in receiving the revenues. I will not object, that it is everywhere cried out against by the word of God, which has long ago ceased to be of any estimation at all among them. I will not object, that there have been many most severe penal ordinances in many councils made against this wickedness: for those also they boldly despise as often as they please. But I say that both are monstrous wicked doings, which are utterly against God and nature and the government of the Church, that one robber shall oppress many Churches at once, and that he should be called a pastor, which cannot be present with his flock though he would: and yet (such is their shamelessness) they cover such abominable filthiness with the name of the Church, to deliver themselves from all blame. But also (and God will) in these lewdnesses is contained that holy succession, by the merit of which they boast that it is brought about that the Church may not perish.

Now (which is the second mark in judging a lawful pastor) let us see how faithfully they exercise their office. Of the priests that are there created, some be monks, some be (as they call them) secular. The first of these two companies was unknown to the old Church: and it is so against the profession of monks, to have such a place in the Church, that in old times when they were chosen out of monasteries into the clergy, they ceased to be monks. And Gregory, whose time had much dregs, yet suffered not this confusion to be made. For he wills that they be put out of the clergy that are made abbots, for that no man can rightly be together both a monk and a clerk: since the one is a hindrance to the other. Now if I ask, how he well fulfills his office, whom the canons declare to be unfit: what I pray you, will they answer? They will forsooth allege to me those untimely born decrees of Innocent and Boniface, whereby monks are so received into the honor and power of priesthood, that they might still abide in their monasteries. But what reason is this, that every unlearned ass, as soon as he has once possessed the see of Rome, may with one word overthrow all antiquity? But of this matter we shall speak hereafter. Let this suffice for this time, that in the purer Church it was held for a great absurdity, if a monk did execute the office of priesthood. For Jerome says that he does not execute the office of a priest, while he is conversant among monks: and makes himself one of the common people to be ruled by the priests. But, although we grant them this, what do they of their duty? Of the mendicants some do preach: all the other monks either sing or mumble up masses in their dens. As though either Christ willed, or the nature of the office suffers, priests to be made to this purpose. Whereas the Scripture plainly testifies, that it is the priest's office to rule his own Church, is it not a wicked profanation, to turn another way, yes utterly to change the holy institution of God? For when they are ordained, they are expressly forbidden to do the things that God commands all priests. For this song is sung to them: let a monk, content with his cloister, not presume to minister the sacraments, nor to execute anything belonging to public office. Let them deny, if they can, that it is an open mockery of God, that any priest should be made to this purpose, to abstain from his true and natural office: and that he which has the name, may not have the thing.

I come to the secular priests, which are partly beneficed men (as they call them), that is to say, have benefices on which to live, and partly do let out their daily labor for hire in massing or singing, and live as it were of a stipend gathered thereupon. Benefices have either care of souls, as Bishoprics and cures of parishes, or they be the stipends of dainty men that get their living with singing, as Prebends, Canonships, parsonages and dignities, chaplainships, and such other. However, since things are now turned upside down, abbeys and priories are given to very boys by privilege, that is to say by common and usual custom. As concerning the hirelings that get their living from day to day, what should they do otherwise than they do? — that is, in servile and shameful manner to give out themselves for gain, especially since there is so great a multitude as now the world swarms with. Therefore, when they dare not beg openly, or forasmuch as they think they should but little profit that way, they go about like hungry dogs, and with their importunity, as with barking, they force out of men against their wills somewhat to thrust into their belly. Here if I would go about to express in words how great a dishonor it is to the Church that the honor and office of priesthood is come to this point, I should have no end. Therefore it is not meet that the readers should look for at my hand such a long declaration as may be proportional to so heinous indignity. Briefly I say, if it be the office of priesthood (as the word of God prescribes, and the ancient canons require) to feed the Church, and to govern the spiritual kingdom of Christ, all such sacrificers as have no other work or wages but in making a market of masses are not only idle in their office, but also have no office at all to exercise. For there is no place assigned them to teach; they have no flock to govern; finally there is nothing left to them but the altar, on which to sacrifice Christ — which is not to offer to God, but to devils, as we shall see in another place.

I do not here touch the outward faults, but only the inward evil which sticks fast by the root in their institution. I will add a saying which will sound ill in their ears, but because it is true I must speak it: that in the same degree are to be accounted Canons, Deans, Chaplains, Provosts, and all they that are fed with idle benefices. For what service can they do to the Church? For they have put from themselves the preaching of the word, the care of discipline, and ministration of Sacraments, as too troublesome burdens. What then have they remaining, by which they may boast themselves to be true priests? Singing, indeed, and a pomp of ceremonies. But what is that to the purpose? If they allege custom, if use, if prescription of long time: I again on the other side do lay to them the definition of Christ, by which he has expressed to us both true priests, and what they ought to have that will be accounted such. But if they cannot bear so hard a law, to submit themselves to Christ's rule, at the least let them suffer this matter to be determined by the authority of the Primitive Church. But their case shall be never the better, if their state be judged by the old canons. They that have degenerated into Canons should have been priests, as they were in old time, that should rule the Church in common with the Bishop, and be as it were his companions in the office of pastor. Those chapter dignities, as they call them, do nothing at all belong to the governing of the Church; much less chaplaincies, and the other dregs of like names. What account then shall we make of them all? Truly both the word of Christ and the usage of the Church excludes them from the honor of priesthood. Yet they stiffly hold that they be priests; but we must pluck off their visor: so shall we find that their whole profession is most strange and far removed from that office of priests, both which the Apostles describe to us, and which was required in the Primitive Church. Therefore all such orders, with whatever titles they be named, since they be new, being truly neither upheld by the institution of God nor by the ancient usage of the Church, ought to have no place in the description of the spiritual government which the Church has received consecrated with the Lord's own mouth. Or (if they will rather have me to speak more simply and plainly) forasmuch as chaplains, Canons, Deans, Provosts, and other idle bellies of the same sort do not so much as with their little finger touch any small parcel of that office which is necessarily required in priests, it is not to be suffered that in wrongfully taking a false honor upon themselves they should break the holy institution of Christ.

There remain bishops, and parsons of parishes, who — I would to God they did strive to retain their office. For we would willingly grant to them that they have a godly and excellent office, if they did execute it. But when they will be accounted pastors, while they forsake the churches committed to them and cast the care of them upon others, they do as if it were the pastor's office to do nothing. If a usurer that never stirred his foot out of the city would profess himself a plowman, or a keeper of a vineyard; if a soldier that had been continually in the battle and in the camp, and had never seen judicial court or books, would boast himself for a lawyer, who could abide such stinking follies? But these men do somewhat more absurdly, that will seem and be called lawful pastors of the Church, and yet will not be so. For how many a one is there that does so much as in show exercise the government of his Church? Many do all their life long devour the revenues of churches, to which they never come so much as to look upon them. Some other do once a year either come themselves, or send their steward, that nothing should be lost in the letting to farm. When this corruption first crept in, they that would enjoy this kind of vacation exempted themselves by privileges; now it is a rare example to have one resident in his own Church. For they esteem them no otherwise than farms, over which they set their vicars as bailiffs or farmers. But this very natural reason rejects that he should be pastor of a flock that never saw one sheep thereof.

It appears that even in the time of Gregory, there were certain seeds of this mischief, that the rulers of churches began to be negligent in teaching: for he does in one place grievously complain of it. The world (says he) is full of priests: but yet in the harvest there are seldom workmen found: because indeed we take upon us the office of priest, but we fulfill not the work of the office. Again, because they have not the bowels of charity, they will seem lords: they acknowledge not themselves to be fathers. They change the place of humility into the advancing of lordliness. Again, but what do we, O pastors, who receive the reward, and are no workmen? We are fallen to outward business, and we take in hand one thing, and perform another. We leave the ministry of preaching: and to our punishment, as I see, we are called Bishops, that keep the name of honor and not of virtue. Since he uses so great sharpness of words against them, which were but less continuing and less diligent in their office: What, I pray you, would he say, if he saw of the Bishops almost none, or truly very few, and of the rest scarcely every hundredth man once in all his life to go up into a pulpit? For men have come to such madness, that it is commonly counted a thing too base for the dignity of a Bishop, to make a sermon to the people. In the time of Bernard, things were somewhat more decayed: but we see also with how sharp chidings he inveighs against the whole order: which yet it is likely to have been then much purer than it is now.

But if a man does well weigh and examine this outward form of ecclesiastical government that is at this day under the papacy, he shall find that there is no thievish corner wherein robbers do more licentiously range without law and measure. Truly all things are there so unlike the institution of Christ, indeed so contrary to it, they are so degenerate from the ancient ordinances and manners of the church, they are so repugnant to nature and reason, that there can be no greater injury done to Christ, than when they pretend his name to the defense of so disordered government. We (say they) are the pillars of the church, the chief Bishops of religion, the vicars of Christ, the heads of the faithful: because the power of the Apostles is by succession come to us. They are always bragging of these follies, as though they talked to stocks. But so often as they shall boast of this, I will ask of them again, what they have common with the Apostles. For we speak not of any inheritably descending honor, that may be given to men even while they lie sleeping: but of the office of preaching, which they so much flee from. Likewise when we affirm that their kingdom is the tyranny of Antichrist, by and by they answer, that it is that reverend Hierarchy, so often praised of notable and holy men. As though the holy fathers, when they commended the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy or spiritual government, as it was delivered them from hand to hand from the Apostles, did dream of this misshapen and waste disordered heap, where the Bishops are for the most part, either rude asses, which know not the very first and common principles of faith, or sometimes children yet newly come from the nurse: and if any be more learned (which yet is a rare example) they think a bishopric to be nothing else but a title of gloriousness and magnificence: where the persons of churches think no more of feeding the flock, than a shoemaker does of plowing: where all things are confounded with more than Babylonian dispersal, that there remains no more any one step whole of that ordinance of the Fathers.

What if we descend to their manners? Where shall be that light of the world, which Christ requires? Where is the salt of the earth? Where is that holiness, which may be as a perpetual rule to judge by? There is no degree of men at this day more ill spoken of for riot, wantonness, daintiness, finally all kind of lusts. There are of no degree men either fitter, or more cunning masters of all deceit, fraud, treason, and breach of faith: there is nowhere so great cunning or boldness to do hurt. I pass over their disdainfulness, pride, extortion, cruelty. I pass over the dissolute licentiousness in all the parts of their life. In suffering whereof the world is so wearied, that it is not to be feared, that I should seem to enforce anything too much. This one thing I say, which they themselves shall not be able to deny: that of the Bishops there is almost none, of the parsons of parishes not the hundredth man, but if judgment should be given of his manners, according to the old Canons, he should be either to be excommunicated, or at least to be put from his office. I seem to say something incredible: so far is that ancient discipline grown out of use, that commanded a more exact trial to be had of the manners of the clergy: but the truth is so. Now let them go, you fight under the standard and guidance of the see of Rome, and let them boast among themselves of the order of priesthood. As for the order that they have, truly it is evident, that it is neither of Christ, nor of his Apostles, nor of the fathers, nor of the old church.

Now let the Deacons come forth, and that most holy distributing that they have of the goods of the Church. However they do not now create their Deacons to that purpose, for they enjoin them nothing else but to minister at the altar, to read and sing the Gospel, and do I know not what trifles. Nothing of the alms, nothing of the care of the poor, nothing of all that function which they in old time executed. I speak of the very institution. For if we have respect for what they do, indeed it is not to them an office, but only a step toward priesthood. In one thing, they that keep the Deacon's place at the mass, do represent a void image of antiquity. For they receive the offerings before the consecration. This was the ancient manner, that before the communion of the Supper, the faithful did kiss one another, and offer their alms at the altar: so first by a sign, and afterward by very liberality they showed their charity. The Deacon, who was the poor men's steward, received that which was given, to distribute it. Now of those alms, there comes no more to the poor, than if they were thrown into the sea. Therefore they mock the Church with this lying deaconry. Truly therein they have nothing alike, neither to the institution of the Apostles, nor to the ancient usage. But the very distribution of the goods they have conveyed another way: and have so framed it, that nothing can be devised more disorderly. For as thieves, when they have cut men's throats, do divide the prey among them: so these, after the quenching of the light of God's word, as though the Church were slain, do think that whatever was dedicated to holy uses is laid open for prey and spoil. Therefore making a division, every one has snatched to himself as much as he could.

Here all these old orders, that we have declared, are not only troubled, but utterly wiped out and razed. The Bishops and Priests of cities, which being made rich by this prey, were turned into Canons, have made havoc of the chief part among them. But it appears that the partition was disorderly, because to this day they strive about the bounds. Whatever it be, by this division it is provided, that not one halfpenny of the goods of the Church should come to the poor, whose had been the half part at least. For the canons do give them the fourth part by name: and the other fourth part they do therefore appoint to the Bishops, that they should bestow it upon hospitality, and other duties of charity. I speak not what the clerks ought to do with their portion, and to what use they ought to bestow it. For we have sufficiently declared, that the rest which is appointed: for temples, buildings and other expenses, ought to be open for the poor in necessity. I pray you, if they had one spark of the fear of God in their heart, would they abide this burden of conscience, that all that they eat, and with which they be clothed, comes from theft, yes, of sacrilege? But since they are little moved with the judgment of God, they should at least think, that those be men endued with wit and reason, to whom they would persuade, that they have so goodly and well framed orders in their Church, as they are accustomed to boast. Let them answer me shortly, whether deaconry be a license to steal and rob. If they deny this, they shall also be compelled to confess, that they have no deaconry left: for as much as among them, all the disposition of the goods of the Church is openly turned into a spoiling full of sacrilege.

But here they use a very fair color. For they say, that the dignity of the Church is by that magnificence not uncomely upheld. And they have of their sect some so shameless, that they dare openly boast, that so only are fulfilled those prophecies, whereby the old Prophets describe the gloriousness of the kingdom of Christ, when that kingly gorgeousness is seen in the priestly order. Not in vain (say they) God has promised these things to his Church: Kings shall come, they shall worship in your sight, they shall bring you gifts. Arise, arise, clothe yourself with your strength, O Zion: clothe yourself with the garments of your glory, O Jerusalem: All shall come from Sheba, bringing gold and incense, and speaking praise to the Lord. All the cattle of Cedar shall be gathered together to you. If I should tarry long upon confuting this lewdness, I fear lest I should seem foolish. Therefore I will not lose words in vain. But I ask: if any Jew would abuse these testimonies, what solution would they give? Truly they would reprehend his dullness, for that he transferred those things to the flesh and the world, that are spiritually spoken of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. For we know, that the Prophets under the image of earthly things, did paint out to us the heavenly glory of God, that ought to shine in the Church. For the Church had never less abundance of these blessings, which their words express, than in the time of the Apostles: and yet all confess, that the force of the kingdom of Christ then chiefly flourished abroad. What then mean these sayings? Whatever is anywhere precious, high, excellent, it ought to be made subject to the Lord. Whereas it is namely spoken of Kings, that they shall submit their scepters to Christ, that they shall throw down their crowns before his feet, that they shall dedicate their goods to the Church: when (will they say) was it better and more fully performed, than when Theodosius, casting away his purple robe, leaving the ornaments of the empire, as some one of the common people, submitted himself before God and the Church, to solemn penance? Then when he and other like godly princes bestowed their endeavors and their cares to preserve pure doctrine in the Church, and to cherish and defend sound teachers? But how priests at that time exceeded not in superfluous riches, that only sentence of the Synod at Aquileia, where Ambrose was chief, sufficiently declares: Glorious is poverty in the priests of the Lord. Truly the Bishops had at that time some riches, with which they might have set out the Church's honor, if they had thought those to be the true ornaments of the Church. But when they knew that there was nothing more against the office of Pastors, than to glisten and show themselves proudly with daintiness of fare, with gorgeousness of garments, with great train of servants, with stately palaces, they followed and kept the humbleness and modesty, yes, the very poverty which Christ holily appointed among his ministers.

But, that we may not be too long in this point, let us again gather into a short summary, how far that dispensation or dissipation of the goods of the Church, that is now used, differs from the true deaconry, which both the word of God commends to us, and the ancient Church observed. As for that which is bestowed upon the adorning of temples, I say it is ill bestowed, if that measure is not used, which both the very nature of holy things appoints, and the Apostles and other holy fathers have prescribed both by doctrine and examples. But what similar thing is there seen at this day in the temples? Whatever is framed, I will not say after that ancient sparing, but to any honest mean, it is rejected. Nothing at all pleases, but that which savors of riot and the corruption of times. In the meantime they are so far from having due care of the living temples, that they would rather suffer many thousands of the poor to perish from hunger, than they would break the least chalice or cruet, to relieve their need. And that I may not pronounce of myself anything more grievously against them, this only I would have the godly readers to think upon: if it should happen that same Exuperius Bishop of Toulouse, whom we even now rehearsed, or Acatius, or Ambrose, or any such to be raised from death, what they would say. Truly they would not allow that in so great necessity of the poor, riches in a manner superfluous should be turned another way. Admit I speak nothing how these uses upon which they be bestowed, (although there were no poor) are many ways hurtful, but in no way profitable. But I leave to speak of men. These goods are dedicated to Christ: therefore they are to be disposed after his will. But they shall in vain say, that this part is bestowed upon Christ, which they have wasted otherwise than he commanded. However, to confess the truth, there is not much of the ordinary revenue of the Church abated for these expenses. For there are no bishoprics so wealthy, no abbeys so fat, finally neither so many, nor so large benefices, that may serve to fill the gluttony of priests. But while they seek to spare themselves, they persuade the people by superstition, to turn that which should be bestowed upon the poor, to build temples, to set up images, to buy jewels, to get costly garments. So with this gulf are the daily alms consumed.

Of the revenue, that they receive of their lands and possessions, what else shall I say, but that which I have already said, and which is before all men's eyes? We see with what faithfulness they which are called Bishops and Abbots do dispose the greatest part. What madness is it, to seek here for an ecclesiastical order? Was it fitting that they, whose life ought to have been a singular example of frugality, modesty, continence, and humility, should contend with the royalty of princes in number of goods, in gorgeousness of houses, in daintiness of apparel and fare? And how much was this contrary to their office, that they, whom the eternal and inviolable commandment of God forbids to be desirous of filthy gain, and bids to be content with simple living, should not only lay hands upon towns and castles, but also violently enter upon the greatest lordships, finally possess forcibly very empires? If they despise the word of God: what will they answer to those ancient decrees of the Synods: whereby it is decreed that the Bishop should have a small lodging not far from the Church, mean fare and household goods? What will they say to that praise of the Synod at Aquileia: where poverty is reported glorious in the priests of the Lord? For perhaps they will utterly refuse as too much rigorous, that which Jerome advises Nepotianus, that poor men and strangers, and among them Christ as a guest, may know his table. But that which he by and by adds, they will be ashamed to deny, that it is the glory of a Bishop to provide for the goods of the poor: that it is the shame of all priests to study for their own riches. But they cannot receive this, but they must all condemn themselves of shame. But it is not needful in this place to speak more harshly against them, since my meaning was nothing else, but to show, that among them the lawful order of deaconry is long ago taken away: that they may no more glory of this title to the commendation of their Church: which I think I have already sufficiently showed.

It is now worth setting before everyone's eyes the order of church governance that the see of Rome and all its defenders maintain today — the full image of that 'hierarchy' they constantly invoke — and comparing it with the order of the early and ancient church we have just described. The comparison will make clear what kind of church they actually have, and what weight their title of authority really carries against us. But it is best to begin with the calling, so we can see who is called to this ministry, what kind of men they are, and through what process. After that we will examine how faithfully they carry out their office. We will give first place to bishops — and I wish to God that this position of first in our discussion could be an honor for them. But the facts do not allow me to touch this subject even lightly without bringing great shame upon them. I will nonetheless remember what kind of writing I am engaged in, and I will not allow my discussion — which should be limited to straightforward teaching — to overflow its bounds. But let any one of them who has not entirely lost all shame answer me: what kind of men are commonly chosen as bishops today? It has now become almost unheard of for any examination of learning to take place. And if learning is considered at all, they choose some lawyer who is better at arguing in court than preaching in a church. It is certain that over the past hundred years, hardly one in a hundred men chosen understood anything of holy doctrine. I do not cite the earlier ages as much better — I mention them only because our present question is about the church as it now stands. If their character is examined, we find that few or almost none would have been judged worthy by the ancient canons. Those who were not drunkards were whoremongers. Those who were free from those vices were either gamblers, hunters, or dissolute in some other way. These are already among the lesser offenses that would exclude a man from the episcopate under the old canons. Most outrageous of all is the fact that, by papal grant, children barely ten years old are being made bishops. They have reached such a level of shamelessness and deadened conscience that they are not afraid of this extreme — indeed this monstrous wickedness — which is repulsive even to basic human decency. The carelessness of their elections shows exactly how religious the process has become.

As for the election itself, all the people's rights have been stripped away. Their desires, their approval, their signatures — all of this has vanished. The entire power has been transferred to the canons alone. They award the bishopric to whoever they choose and then present him before the people — not to be examined, but to be revered. But Leo on the contrary side cries out that no reason permits this and declares such an imposition to be an act of violence. Cyprian, when he testifies that it is grounded in the law of God that it should not be done without the people's consent, shows that the opposite practice is contrary to the word of God. The decrees of so many synods most severely forbid it to be otherwise done, and command that if it is done, it is null and void. If these things are true, then no canonical election — by God's law or by ecclesiastical law — remains in the papacy. But even setting aside all other evils, how will they be able to excuse the way they have robbed the church of her right? They say: the corruption of the times required it — since in appointing bishops, personal favoritism and partisan passions prevailed over right judgment among the people and magistrates, it was necessary to transfer control to a few. Very well. Suppose that was the last resort in a desperate situation. But since the medicine itself has proved more harmful than the disease, why is this new evil not also corrected? They say: the canons precisely prescribe what is to be followed in elections. But do we doubt that the people of ancient times also knew they were bound by the most sacred laws — when they saw that God's own word gave them the rule they were to follow when they came to choose a bishop? That single voice of God, by which He describes the true character of a bishop, ought to outweigh thousands of canons. And yet the people, corrupted by their worst impulses, paid no attention to law or equity. So today, though excellent laws are written down, they lie buried in papers. For the most part it is common practice — indeed accepted as perfectly normal — that drunkards, whoremongers, and gamblers are routinely advanced to this honor. And I am saying this mildly — bishoprics are given as rewards for adultery and prostitution. When they go merely to hunters and falconers, it is considered well spent. There is no way to excuse so outrageous an injustice. The people in ancient times, I say, had a very good canon: God's word itself prescribed that a bishop must be above reproach, able to teach, not violent, and so on. Why then was the authority to choose taken from the people and given to these men? Because, supposedly, God's word was not being heard amid the tumult and factional strife of the people. Why then should it not now be taken back from these men, who not only break all laws but, having cast aside all shame, shamelessly, greedily, and ambitiously throw together both divine and human matters without any distinction?

But they lie when they say this was devised as a remedy. We read frequently of tumults breaking out in ancient churches during the election of bishops — yet no one ever dared to think of stripping the authority from the people. They had other means by which such faults could be prevented, or corrected after the fact. Here is what actually happened: when the people became negligent about making elections and let that responsibility drift to the priests as though it did not concern them, the priests seized on this opportunity to usurp a tyranny for themselves — which they then entrenched with new canons. As for their ordination process, it is nothing but a hollow charade. The examination they stage there is so empty and meaningless that it lacks even a pretense of substance. Therefore, where some princes have obtained from the bishops of Rome the right to nominate bishops themselves, the church suffered no new loss — for the election was only taken from the canons, who had seized it by force without any right in the first place. It is a disgraceful practice, to be sure, that bishops are dispatched from the royal court to take possession of churches — and it would be the work of godly rulers to refrain from this corruption. For it is a wicked robbery of the church to thrust upon any congregation a bishop they have not desired, or at least not freely approved. But the long-standing disorder in the churches gave princes the opening to take the presentation of bishops into their own hands — for they preferred it to be their gift rather than that of men to whom it belonged no more, and who abused it just as wrongfully.

This, then, is that noble calling on the basis of which bishops boast of being successors of the apostles. They claim that the authority to create priests belongs to them alone. But in this they most wickedly corrupt the ancient institution — for by their ordination they do not create pastors to govern and feed the people, but sacrificers to offer sacrifice. Similarly, when they consecrate deacons, they perform nothing belonging to the true and proper diaconal office — they only ordain them to serve at certain ceremonies around the chalice and the paten. But the Council of Chalcedon decreed the opposite: ordinations were not to be absolute — that is, a specific place was to be assigned to those ordained, where they would actually exercise their office. This decree was useful for two reasons. First, so the church would not be burdened with the costs of unnecessary personnel — so that what should go to the poor would not be consumed by idle men. Second, so those ordained would understand that they were not being elevated to an honor but entrusted with a duty, to which they bound themselves by solemn commitment. But the Roman authorities — who think nothing in religion matters except their bellies — define 'title' to mean simply the revenue sufficient to support someone, whether from personal wealth or from a benefice. So when they ordain a deacon or priest without any regard for where he ought to serve, they confer the order on him as long as he is wealthy enough to support himself. Who could accept the idea that the 'title' the council requires should be merely a yearly income for personal upkeep? Later canons tried to curb the bishops' careless ease of admission by penalizing them if they ordained someone without a sufficient title. In response, a clever workaround was devised: the person being ordained names whatever title he likes and promises to be satisfied with it, thereby forfeiting his right to claim support from his ordaining bishop. I will pass over the thousand frauds connected with this: some naming fictitious titles of benefices worth barely anything per year; others privately borrowing benefices on the understanding they will promptly return them — though sometimes they never do. And so on with other such games.

But even if all these grosser abuses were removed — is it not always absurd to appoint a priest and assign him no place? And they ordain no one except to offer sacrifice. But the true purpose of a priest's ordination is to be called to govern and shepherd the church, and a deacon's is to be called to gather and distribute alms. They do indeed dress up their proceedings with great pomp and ceremony, so that the sheer spectacle may impress the simple-minded. But for those with sound judgment, what can such theatrical displays amount to if there is no substance or truth beneath them? The ceremonies they use are either borrowed from Jewish sources or invented by themselves — and it would be better to do without them. Of genuine examination — for I care nothing for the shadow of it they still maintain — of the people's consent, and of other necessary elements, they make no mention. What I call a shadow is the absurd pantomiming, fit to draw laughter, contrived as a cold and empty imitation of antiquity. The bishops have their deputies who may inquire into the candidates' learning before ordination. But what do they ask? Whether they can read their masses. Whether they can decline a common noun they come across while reading, conjugate a verb, or identify the meaning of a single word. Understanding a verse is not required. And yet those who fail even at these elementary skills are not turned away from the priesthood, as long as they bring money or letters of favor. In the same spirit, when candidates are brought to the altar for ordination, three times the question is asked in a language no one understands: whether they are worthy of this honor. Someone answers — someone who has never laid eyes on them, but who is playing his assigned part in the performance so that the required form is observed — 'They are worthy.' What can one say about these reverend fathers, except that in mocking sacrilege so openly, they shamelessly laugh in God's face and in everyone else's? But because they have been doing this for so long, they think it is now their established right. For anyone who dares open his mouth against these so obvious and so outrageous crimes is immediately dragged by them to punishment of death — as if he were someone in ancient times who had divulged the sacred mysteries of Ceres. Would they do this if they truly believed there was a God?

And how much better do they behave themselves in the awarding of benefices? — something that was once tied to ordination but is now entirely separate. Among them there are various methods. The bishops alone do not confer all benefices, and even those they are said to confer, they do not hold full authority over — others hold the right of presentation, while the bishops retain only the title of collation for the sake of appearances. There are also nominations from schools, resignations whether simple or for exchange, letters of commendation, preventions, and everything else of that sort. And they conduct themselves in such a way that none of them can throw stones at the others. I will state plainly that scarcely one benefice in a hundred is awarded today in the papacy without simony, as the ancient writers defined the term. I do not say they all purchase them with ready cash — but show me one in twenty who obtains a benefice without some form of behind-the-scenes patronage. Some are advanced by family connections or marriage ties, some by their parents' influence, some by rendering favors and cultivating goodwill. In short, benefices are given not to provide for churches, but to benefit those who receive them. They call them 'benefices' — a word that says enough: they treat them as nothing more than the generous gifts of princes, used either to win the loyalty of their soldiers or reward their services. I will not even mention that such rewards are handed out to barbers, cooks, stable-keepers, and other such lowly characters. The law courts today ring with nothing so much as disputes over benefices — one could say benefices are simply prey thrown before dogs to fight over. Is it even tolerable to hear them called pastors — men who have broken into the possession of a church as into the property of an enemy they have seized? Who obtained it by legal wrangling? Who bought it with money? Who earned it through shameful services? Or who received it as children scarcely old enough to speak, as an inheritance from uncles and relatives, or — in the case of some — from their own fathers as illegitimate sons?

Would the people themselves, however corrupt and lawless they might have been, ever have gone so far? But this is even more monstrous: that one man — I will not say what kind of man, but certainly one who cannot govern himself — is set to govern five or six churches. In the courts of princes today one can see young men holding three abbacies, two bishoprics, and one archbishopric. And it is common for canons to hold five, six, or seven benefices, over which they exercise no care at all except to collect the revenues. I will not press the point that the word of God cries out against this everywhere — for it has long since ceased to carry any weight with them at all. I will not press the point that many councils have issued the most severe penalties against this wickedness — for they boldly disregard those whenever they please. I simply say that both of these things are monstrous wickedness, utterly contrary to God, nature, and the proper governance of the church: that one plunderer oppresses many churches at once, and that a man who cannot even be present with his flock — even if he wanted to — is called a pastor. And yet — such is their shamelessness — they cover such abominable filthiness with the name of the church, to escape all blame. And this, God help us, is the holy succession by whose merit they boast the church is preserved from perishing.

Now let us examine — as the second mark of a legitimate pastor — how faithfully they exercise their office. Among the priests they create, some are monks and some are what they call secular clergy. The first of these two groups was unknown to the ancient church, and it is so contrary to the monastic profession to hold such a place in the church that in ancient times, when monks were chosen from monasteries to serve in the clergy, they ceased to be monks. Even Gregory — whose time was already much corrupted — would not allow this confusion. He directed that those made abbots must be removed from the clergy, for no one can properly be both a monk and a cleric at the same time, since each hinders the other. Now if I ask how someone who, by the canons themselves, is declared unfit can properly fulfill his office — what, I ask, will they say in reply? They will of course produce for me those ill-conceived decrees of Innocent and Boniface, by which monks were received into the honor and power of the priesthood while being permitted to remain in their monasteries. But what kind of reasoning is this — that any ignorant man, the moment he occupies the see of Rome, can with a single word overturn all of antiquity? But we will speak of this elsewhere. Let it be enough for now that in the purer church it was considered a great absurdity for a monk to exercise the priestly office. For Jerome says that while he lives among monks, he does not exercise the priest's office, but places himself among the common people to be governed by the priests. But even granting them this concession — what do they actually do with their responsibilities? Of the mendicants, some preach. All other monks either sing or mumble their way through masses in their cloisters. As though Christ ever intended, or the nature of the office allows, priests to be made for this purpose. When Scripture plainly testifies that it is the priest's office to govern his own church, is it not a wicked profanation to redirect that office — indeed to completely transform the holy institution of God? For when these monks are ordained, they are expressly forbidden to do the very things God commands of all priests. The charge is sung to them: 'A monk, content with his cloister, may not presume to administer the sacraments or to perform anything belonging to public office.' Let them deny, if they can, that it is a plain mockery of God for any priest to be ordained for the express purpose of abstaining from his true and proper duty — so that a man may bear the name while having nothing of the thing.

I come now to the secular priests, who are partly what they call 'beneficed men' — that is, they have benefices to live from — and partly those who hire out their daily labor for pay in saying masses or singing, living on the wages they collect from this. Benefices are either those with cure of souls — such as bishoprics and parish cures — or they are the comfortable incomes of men who make their living by singing, such as prebends, canonships, rectories, dignities, chaplaincies, and the like. As things now stand, abbeys and priories are given to mere boys by privilege — that is, as a matter of common and established custom. As for the day-laborers who live from one day to the next — what else are they supposed to do but what they do? — which is to offer themselves for hire in a servile and shameful way, especially given that there is such a swarm of them in the world today. Since they dare not openly beg, or think they would get little that way, they go around like hungry dogs — and with their persistent pestering, like barking, they force something out of unwilling people to stuff into their bellies. If I tried to put into words how great a disgrace it is to the church that the honor and office of priesthood has come to this point, I would never finish. So the reader should not expect from me a full account proportional to such outrageous indignity. Briefly: if it is the office of priesthood — as God's word prescribes and the ancient canons require — to feed the church and govern the spiritual kingdom of Christ, then all these sacrificers who have no other work or wages beyond running a mass market are not only idle in their office, they have no office at all to exercise. They have been assigned no place to teach, no flock to govern — nothing remains to them but the altar on which to sacrifice Christ, which is not offering to God but to demons, as we will show in another place.

I am not addressing here the outward abuses, but only the deep-rooted internal corruption of their institution. I will add a word that will sting their ears, but since it is true I must say it: canons, deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who live off idle benefices must be counted in the same category. For what service can they render to the church? They have set aside the preaching of the word, the oversight of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments as burdens too heavy to bear. What then remains to them by which they can claim to be true priests? Singing and the pomp of ceremonies. But what does that amount to? If they appeal to custom, usage, and long-established practice — I counter with Christ's own definition, by which He has shown us both what true priests are and what those must have who would be so counted. If they cannot bear so demanding a standard as submitting to Christ's rule, let them at least be willing to have this question decided by the authority of the primitive church. But their case will be no better if judged by the ancient canons. Those who have degenerated into canons ought to have been what canons were in ancient times: priests who governed the church jointly with the bishop and served as his partners in the pastoral office. The so-called 'chapter dignities' have nothing at all to do with governing the church — still less chaplaincies and the other dregs of similar titles. What account shall we make of all of them? Both the word of Christ and the practice of the church exclude them from the honor of priesthood. Yet they stubbornly insist they are priests — but we must pull off their mask. Beneath it we will find that their entire occupation is utterly foreign and far removed from the office of priests — both as the apostles describe it and as the primitive church required it. All such orders, under whatever titles they are named — being innovations supported neither by the institution of God nor by the ancient usage of the church — ought to have no place in the account of the spiritual governance that the church has received from the Lord's own mouth. Or, to put it more plainly: since chaplains, canons, deans, provosts, and the other idle bellies of the same sort do not so much as lift a finger toward any part of the office necessarily required of priests, they must not be allowed to break the holy institution of Christ by wrongfully claiming for themselves an honor that is not theirs.

There remain bishops and parish rectors — and I would to God they were striving to retain their office. We would willingly grant that theirs is a godly and excellent office, if they were actually carrying it out. But when they insist on being called pastors while abandoning the churches entrusted to them and dumping the care of them on others, they behave as if the pastor's duty were to do nothing. If a moneylender who had never left the city were to claim he was a farmer or a vineyard keeper; if a soldier who had spent his whole career in battle and on campaign and had never opened a law book were to boast of being a lawyer — who could stomach such ridiculous impostures? But these men do something even more absurd: they insist on being seen and called the legitimate pastors of the church, and yet have no intention of actually being so. For how many of them even go through the motions of governing their church? Many spend their entire lives consuming the revenues of churches they have never even visited. Others come once a year — or send their steward — simply to make sure nothing is slipping through the cracks in the leasing of the income. When this corruption first crept in, those who wished to enjoy this kind of absence bought themselves exemptions through privileges. Now it is rare to find anyone resident in his own church. They treat their churches no differently from farms, over which they install their vicars as overseers or tenant managers. But simple common sense rejects the idea that a person can be the pastor of a flock he has never once laid eyes on.

It appears that even in Gregory's time, the seeds of this problem were already sprouting — the rulers of churches were beginning to be negligent in teaching — for he complains of it bitterly in one place. 'The world is full of priests,' he says, 'and yet at harvest time, workers are seldom found — because we take on the office of priest but do not fulfill the work of the office.' Again: 'Because they have no heart of compassion, they want to be lords rather than fathers. They exchange the posture of humility for the elevation of lordship.' Again: 'But what are we doing, O pastors, who receive the reward but do no work? We have fallen into external business, we take one thing in hand and perform another. We abandon the ministry of preaching — and to our own punishment, as I see it, we are called bishops: we keep the name of honor, not the virtue it requires.' Since Gregory used such sharp language against those who were merely less consistent and less diligent than they should have been — what, I ask, would he say if he saw that among the bishops almost none, or truly very few, and among the rest scarcely one in a hundred, had ever mounted a pulpit in their entire life? For people have reached such a level of absurdity that it is now commonly considered beneath the dignity of a bishop to preach to the people. In Bernard's time things had already declined somewhat further — yet we see how fiercely he also lashes out against the entire order, which was in his day likely still far purer than it is now.

But let a person carefully examine the outward form of church governance that exists today under the papacy, and he will find that there is no den of thieves where robbers range more freely without law or limit. Truly, all things there are so unlike the institution of Christ — so contrary to it — they have so far departed from the ancient ordinances and practices of the church, they are so repugnant to nature and reason, that there can be no greater injury done to Christ than when they invoke His name as a defense of such disordered governance. 'We,' they say, 'are the pillars of the church, the chief bishops of religion, the vicars of Christ, the heads of the faithful — because the power of the apostles has come to us by succession.' They are forever boasting of these things as though they were speaking to wooden posts. But whenever they boast of this, I will ask them what they have in common with the apostles. We are not speaking of some hereditary dignity that can be conferred on sleeping men — but of the office of preaching, which they flee from at every turn. Likewise, when we assert that their kingdom is the tyranny of antichrist, they immediately reply that it is that 'venerable hierarchy' so often praised by great and holy men. As though the holy fathers, when they commended the ecclesiastical hierarchy — the spiritual government handed down from the apostles — were dreaming of this misshapen and chaotic wreck. In it, the bishops are for the most part either ignorant fools who do not know the most basic and common articles of the faith, or mere children barely out of the nursery. And if any among them is more learned — a rare sight indeed — he regards a bishopric as nothing but a title of glory and grandeur. The officers of churches think no more about feeding their flocks than a cobbler thinks about plowing a field. Everything is thrown into a confusion greater than Babylon's, so that not one step of the fathers' ordinances remains intact.

What if we descend to their personal conduct? Where is that light of the world that Christ requires? Where is the salt of the earth? Where is that holiness that ought to serve as a perpetual standard of judgment? No rank of men today is more notorious for excess, licentiousness, self-indulgence, and every kind of depravity. In no rank are men more skilled or more accomplished in every form of deceit, fraud, treachery, and breach of trust. Nowhere is there greater cunning or boldness in doing harm. I pass over their arrogance, pride, extortion, and cruelty. I pass over the unbridled licentiousness that runs through every aspect of their lives. The world is so exhausted from enduring these things that there is no risk I am exaggerating. I say this one thing, which they themselves cannot deny: that among the bishops there is almost none, and among parish clergy not one in a hundred, whose conduct — if judged by the ancient canons — would not result in excommunication or at least removal from office. I realize this sounds incredible — so completely has that ancient discipline fallen out of use which required a more thorough examination of the clergy's character. But it is the truth. Now let them carry on, fighting under the banner and guidance of the see of Rome, and boasting among themselves of the order of the priesthood. As for the order they have — it is evident that it comes neither from Christ, nor from His apostles, nor from the fathers, nor from the ancient church.

Now let the deacons come forward, along with that supposedly holy distribution of church goods they maintain. But they do not now create deacons for that purpose at all — they assign them nothing except ministering at the altar, reading or chanting the Gospel, and performing various other meaningless rituals. Nothing about alms, nothing about caring for the poor, nothing about any of the functions they carried out in ancient times. I am speaking of the institution itself. For if we look at what deacons actually do, the deaconate is not even an office — it is merely a stepping stone to the priesthood. In one respect those who occupy the deacon's place at the mass do retain an empty image of antiquity. They receive the offerings before the consecration. The ancient practice was this: before the communion of the Supper, the faithful exchanged a kiss of peace with one another and brought their alms to the altar — first expressing their love by a sign, and then by actual generosity. The deacon, who served as the steward of the poor, received what was offered and distributed it. Now of those alms, not a penny reaches the poor — it might as well be thrown into the sea. So they make a mockery of the church with this fraudulent deaconate. In truth it has no resemblance to either the institution of the apostles or the practice of the ancient church. As for the actual distribution of church goods, they have rerouted it entirely, and arranged it in a manner that could not be more disordered. For just as thieves, after cutting men's throats, divide the plunder among themselves — so these men, after extinguishing the light of God's word and slaughtering the church as it were, treat everything dedicated to sacred uses as open spoil and plunder. And so, making a division, each has seized for himself as much as he could.

All the ancient orders we have described are not merely disordered here — they have been utterly wiped out and erased. The bishops and priests of the cities — enriched by this plunder and transformed into canons — seized the lion's share among themselves. That the division was disorderly is evident from the fact that they still fight over the boundaries today. Whatever the outcome, the division has been arranged so that not a penny of the church's goods reaches the poor — who were entitled to at least half. The canons specifically assign one quarter to the poor. The other quarter they designate for the bishops, on the understanding that they would spend it on hospitality and other works of charity. I will not press here what the clergy ought to do with their portion, or how they ought to spend it. We have already shown sufficiently that the portion assigned to buildings, maintenance, and other expenses ought to be opened for the poor in times of need. I ask: if they had a single spark of the fear of God in their hearts, could they bear the weight of conscience that everything they eat and wear comes from theft — indeed from sacrilege? But since they are little moved by God's judgment, they should at least consider that those they are trying to persuade — that their church has such an excellent and well-ordered structure, as they love to boast — are human beings endowed with reason and common sense. Let them answer me plainly: is the deaconate a license to steal and plunder? If they deny it, they will also be compelled to admit they have no deaconate left — since among them all the administration of church goods has been openly turned into sacrilegious plunder.

But here they offer a fine-sounding justification. They say that the dignity of the church is fittingly upheld by such splendor. And some among them are so shameless that they dare openly boast that the prophecies in which the ancient prophets describe the glory of Christ's kingdom are fulfilled only when that kingly magnificence is seen in the priestly order. 'Not in vain,' they say, 'has God promised these things to His church: kings shall come and worship in your presence, they shall bring you gifts. Arise, arise, clothe yourself with your strength, O Zion; clothe yourself with your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem. All shall come from Sheba, bringing gold and incense, and proclaiming the praises of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered to you.' If I were to spend much time refuting this foolishness, I fear I would myself appear foolish. I will not waste words on it. But I ask: if a Jew were to use these passages in the same way, what answer would they give him? They would rebuke his dullness for applying in a fleshly, worldly sense what is spiritually spoken of Christ's spiritual kingdom. For we know that the prophets painted for us in earthly images the heavenly glory of God that ought to shine in the church. The church never had less of the material abundance these words literally describe than in the time of the apostles — and yet everyone agrees that the power of Christ's kingdom flourished most gloriously then. What then do these sayings mean? They mean that whatever is anywhere precious, high, and excellent ought to be brought into submission to the Lord. Where they speak specifically of kings — that they shall lay their scepters at Christ's feet, cast their crowns before Him, and dedicate their wealth to the church — when was this ever more fully and beautifully fulfilled than when Theodosius, casting aside his royal purple, stripped of imperial ornaments, humbled himself before God and the church like a common citizen to undergo solemn penance? Or when he and other godly princes devoted their energy and care to preserving pure doctrine in the church and supporting and defending sound teachers? But how modest the priests of that time were in their wealth is sufficiently shown by that one declaration of the Synod of Aquileia, where Ambrose presided: 'Glorious is poverty in the priests of the Lord.' The bishops of that time did have some wealth, with which they could have displayed the church's splendor — if they had thought such things were the true adornments of the church. But knowing that nothing was more contrary to the pastoral office than to glitter and show themselves proudly in sumptuous food, gorgeous clothing, great retinues of servants, and palatial residences — they embraced and maintained the humility, modesty, and indeed the very poverty that Christ has sacredly appointed among His ministers.

To avoid spending too much time on this point, let us gather into a brief summary how far the current management — or rather mismanagement — of church goods differs from the true diaconate that both God's word commends to us and the ancient church practiced. As for what is spent on adorning church buildings: it is spent wrongly if the measure is not observed that both the nature of holy things requires and the apostles and other holy fathers have prescribed by both teaching and example. But what resemblance of that measure is seen in today's churches? Anything built in even a modest, honest style — far less the austere simplicity of the ancients — is rejected. Nothing is approved unless it reeks of excess and the corruption of the age. And yet, while spending lavishly on buildings, they show no concern at all for the living temples — the poor — preferring to let thousands starve than to break the smallest chalice or cruet to meet their need. Rather than making any harsher judgment of my own, I would ask godly readers to consider this: if Exuperius, the bishop of Toulouse whom we just mentioned — or Acacius, or Ambrose, or any like them — were raised from the dead, what would they say? They would certainly never allow that in the midst of such desperate need among the poor, wealth that amounts to surplus should be diverted elsewhere. I will not even press how these uses — even apart from the poor entirely — are harmful in many ways and profitable in none. But I leave that aside. These goods are dedicated to Christ, and therefore they must be distributed according to His will. They cannot claim that any portion is given to Christ when it has been wasted in ways He never commanded. And yet, to tell the truth, not much of the church's regular revenue actually goes to these expenses. For there are no bishoprics wealthy enough, no abbeys fat enough — and neither numerous nor large enough benefices — to satisfy the gluttony of priests. But to spare themselves, they persuade the people through superstition to redirect what should go to the poor toward building churches, erecting images, buying jewels, and purchasing costly garments. And so the daily alms are swallowed up by this bottomless pit.

As for the revenues they receive from their lands and properties, what more can I say beyond what I have already said and what is plain for everyone to see? We see with what faithfulness those who call themselves bishops and abbots manage the largest share. What madness is it to look here for any church order? Was it fitting that men whose lives should have been outstanding examples of frugality, modesty, self-control, and humility should compete with princes in the number of their possessions, the grandeur of their houses, and the richness of their food and clothing? And how completely contrary to their office that those whom God's eternal and unbreakable command forbids to pursue dishonest gain — and commands to be content with simple provision — should not only seize towns and castles but forcibly claim the greatest lordships and even entire territories? If they despise God's word, what will they say to the ancient decrees of the councils, which require that a bishop live in a modest dwelling near his church, with plain food and simple furnishings? What will they say to that commendation from the Synod of Aquileia, where poverty is declared glorious in the priests of the Lord? Perhaps they will dismiss as too strict what Jerome advises Nepotianus — that poor men and strangers, and among them Christ as a guest, should know his table. But they will be ashamed to deny what Jerome immediately adds: that it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the needs of the poor, and the shame of all priests to pursue their own wealth. They cannot accept this without condemning themselves. But there is no need to speak more sharply here — my only purpose was to show that the lawful order of the diaconate has long since been abolished among them, and that they can no longer boast of this title as a commendation of their church. I believe I have already shown this sufficiently.