such excessive self-complacency, into a sense of his malady, that he might perceive himself to be still very far from the perfect obedience of the law, to which he arrogantly and falsely pretended. I confess that this passage was misunderstood by some of the Fathers, and that their misconstruction gave rise to an affectation of voluntary poverty; so that they were supposed to be the only happy persons, who renounced all earthly things, and devoted themselves entirely to Christ. But I trust that the explication which I have given will be satisfactory to all good and peaceable persons, so as to leave them in no doubt of the true meaning of Christ.

XIV. Nothing however was further from the intention of the Fathers, than to establish such a perfection as has since been fabricated by these hooded sophisters, which goes to set up two kinds of Christianity. For no one had then given birth to that sacrilegious dogma, which compares the monastic profession to baptism, and even openly asserts it to be a species of second baptism. Who can doubt that the Fathers would have sincerely abhorred such blasphemy? As to the concluding observation of Augustine respecting the ancient monks, that they devoted themselves wholly to charity, what need is there for a word to be said, to demonstrate it to be altogether inapplicable to this modern profession? The fact itself declares, that all who retire into monasteries separate themselves from the Church. For do they not separate themselves from the legitimate society of the faithful, by taking to themselves a peculiar ministry and a private administration of the sacraments? What is a disruption of the communion of the Church, if this be not? And, to pursue the comparison which I have commenced, and to conclude it at once, what resemblance have they in this respect to the monks of ancient times? Though they lived in a state of seclusion from other men, they had no separate Church; they received the sacraments with others; they attended the solemn assemblies to hear preaching, and to unite in prayers with the company of the faithful; and there they formed a part of the people. In erecting a private altar for themselves, what have the present monks done, but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated themselves from the general body of the Church, and have shewn contempt of the ordinary VOL. III. 20

ministry, by which it has pleased God that peace and charity should be preserved among his servants. All the present monasteries, therefore, I maintain to be so many conventicles of schismatics, who disturb the order of the Church, and have been cut off from the legitimate society of the faithful. And to place this division beyond all doubt, they have assumed various names of sects; and have not been ashamed to glory in that which Paul execrates beyond all possibility of exaggeration. Unless we suppose that Christ was divided by the Corinthians, when every one boasted of his particular teacher; (q) and hat it is now no derogation from the honour of Christ, when instead of the name of Christians, some are called Benedictines, others Franciscans, others Dominicans; and when they haughtily assume these titles to themselves as the badges of their religious profession, from an affectation of being distinguished from the general body of Christians.

XV. The differences which I have stated, between the ancient monks and those of the present age, relate not to manners, but to the profession itself. Let it therefore be remembered by the readers, that I have spoken of monachism rather than of monks, and have censured those faults which are not merely chargeable on the lives of a few, but which are inseparable from the life itself. The great dissimilarity of their manners can hardly require a particular representation. It is obvious, that there is no order of men more polluted with all the turpitude of vice; none more disgraced by factions, animosities, cabals, and intrigues. In some few convents indeed they live in chastity; if chastity it must be called, where concupiscence is so far restrained as not to be publicly infamous: but it is scarcely possible to find one convent in ten, which is not rather a brothel than a sanctuary of chastity. What frugality is there in their food? They are exactly like so many swine fattening in a stye. But lest they should complain that I handle them too roughly, I proceed no further: though in the few particulars upon which I have touched, whoever knows the matter of fact will acknowledge that I have confined myself to the simple truth. Augustine, at a time when, according to his own testimony, monks were so eminent for

(g) 1 Cor. i. 12, 13. iii. 4.

the strictest chastity, yet complains that there were many vagabonds among them, who by wicked arts and impostures extorted money from the unwary, who exercised a scandalous traffic by carrying about the relics of martyrs, and even sold the bones of any dead men as the bones of martyrs, and who brought disgrace on the order by a great number of similar crimes. As he declares that he had seen no better men than those who had been improved in monasteries; so he complains that he had seen no worse men, than those who had been corrupted in monasteries. What would he say at the present day, to see almost all monasteries, not only filled, but overflowing with so many and such desperate vices? I say nothing but what is notorious to every person; though this censure is not applicable to all without any exception. For as the rule and discipline of holy living has never been so well established in monasteries, but that there were always some drones very different from the rest: so I do not say that the monks of the present day have so far degenerated from that holy antiquity, that there are not still some good men among their body; but they are very few, dispersed, and concealed among a vast multitude of the wicked and abandoned: and they are not only held in contempt, but insulted and molested, and sometimes even treated with cruelty by the rest; who, according to a proverb of the Milesians, think that no good man ought to be suffered to remain among them.

XVI. By this comparison of ancient and modern monachism, I trust I have succeeded in my design of evincing the fallacy of the plea, which the present men of the hood allege in defence of their profession, from the example of the primitive Church: as they differ from the early monks just as apes do from men. At the same time I admit that even in the ancient system which Augustine commends, there is something which I cannot altogether approve. I grant, they discovered no superstition in the external exercises of a too rigid discipline: but I maintain that they were not free from excessive affectation and misguided zeal. It seemed a good thing to forsake their property, in order to exempt themselves from all earthly solicitude; but God sets a higher value on pious exertions for the government of a family, when a holy father of a

family, free from all avarice, ambition, and other corrupt passions, devotes himself to this object, that he may serve God in a particular calling. It is a beautiful thing to live the life of a philosopher in retirement, at a distance from the society of men: but it is not the part of Christian charity, for a man to act as if he hated all mankind, withdrawing to the solitude of a desert, and abandoning the principal duties which the Lord hath commanded. Though we should grant that there was no other evil in this profession, yet certainly this was not a small one, that it introduced a useless and pernicious example into the Church.

XVII. Let us now examine the nature of the vows by which monks in the present day are initiated into this celebrated order. In the first place, their design is to institute a new service, in order to conciliate the favour of God; therefore I conclude, from the principles already established, that whatever they vow is an abomination in the sight of God. Secondly, without any regard to the calling of God, and without any approbation from him, they invent for themselves a new mode of life, in conformity with their own inclinations; therefore I maintain it to be a rash and unlawful attempt, because their consciences have nothing to rest upon before God, and "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." (r) Thirdly, they bind themselves to many corrupt and impious services, comprehended in the monachism of the present day; therefore I contend, that they are not consecrated to God, but to the devil. For why was it lawful for the prophets to say of the Israelites, that "they sacrificed unto devils, not to God," (s) only because they had corrupted the true worship of God with profane ceremonies; and why shall it not be lawful for us to say the same of the monks, whose assumption of the hood is accompanied with the yoke of a thousand impious superstitions? Now what is the nature of their vows? They promise to God to maintain perpetual virginity, as if they had previously stipulated with him that he should exempt them from the necessity of marriage. They have no room to plead, that they make this vow merely in a reliance on the grace of God: for as he declares that it is not given to all men, (t) we (t) Matt. xix. 11.

(r) Rom. xiv. 23. (8) Deut. xxxii. 17.

have no right to entertain a confidence that we shall receive the special gift. Let those who possess it, use it: if they experience disquietude from the stimulations of passion, let them have recourse to that aid by which alone they can be strengthened to resist. If they are unsuccessful, let them not despise the remedy which is offered to them. For those who are denied the gift of continence, are undoubtedly called to marriage by the voice of God. By continence I mean, not a mere abstinence of the body from fornication, but an unpolluted chastity of mind. For Paul enjoins the avoidance not only of external impurity, but also of the internal burning of libidinous desire. (v) It has been a custom, they say, from time immemorial, for persons who intended to devote themselves entirely to the Lord, to bind themselves by a vow of continence. I confess that this custom was practised in the early ages; but I cannot admit those ages to have been so free from every fault, that whatever was done then must be received as a rule. And it was only by degrees that in process of time things were carried to such an extreme of rigour that no one, after having made the vow, was permitted to recal it. This is evident from Cyprian. "If virgins have faithfully dedicated themselves to God, let them persevere in modesty and chastity without any disguise. Thus being firm and constant, they may expect the reward of virginity. But if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better for them to be married, than with their pleasure to fall into the fire." With what reproaches would they now hesitate to stigmatise a person who would wish to introduce such a reasonable limitation of the vow of continence? They have widely departed therefore from the ancient custom, in refusing to admit the least moderation or relaxation, if any one be found incapable of performing the vow; and not only so, but they are not ashamed to pronounce that he commits a greater sin, if he remedies his intemperance by taking a wife, than if he contaminates his body and soul with fornication.

XVIII. But they still pursue the argument, and endeavour to shew that vows of this kind were in use in the times of the apostles; because Paul says that widows who, after having

(v) 1 Cor. vii. 9.