I i 111GJontell Hmuereity Eibraqj
31 liara, Nrui ’fork
FROM THE
BENNO LOEWY LIBRARY
'COLLECTED BY
BENNO LOEWY
1854-1919
BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY

rfl •BX1765 CC015" UnlVerSi'y Ubrary
Fifteen
rears in th^ rhumh n._________
an
oiin
3 1924 029 406 323
31924029406323FIFTEEN VlM$ I TflE (JHOI^H OF f^OME
an Examination of
prie^, pop80, and Council^
BY
REV. S, R. CALHOUN *
“ Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit.”
“ Ubi Fides Vera est
Ibi Ecclesia est.”
— Jerome.
LOWELL, MASS.:
Vox Populi Press: S. W. Huse & Co., 130 Central Street.
1886.
6Atef-tr yDEDICATION.
ai innummininiiiituign Henry Norwell, Esq., — It is with great
j| satisfaction that I mention your name the first
among the many to whom I dedicate this
book. I owe this to you as a token of grati-
tude for the help and kindness which more than once I
received at your hands, years ago when a stranger in the
city of Boston. And the respect and esteem I entertain
for you will plead my apology for venturing to dedicate
to you this earnest, honest, and it is hoped not unsuc-
cessful, attempt to vindicate the true Church from all
alliance or identity with the Roman system.
To the Freemasons, Independent Order of Odd Fel-
lows, and Knights of Pythias, of the United States of
America, I dedicate this book, also.
In compliance with the Encyclical letter of Pope Leo
XIII, the Pastoral letter of the Archbishop of Toulouse,
published in the Semaine Catholique, and intended for
his entire diocese, contains the following extracts: —-
1.	“The necessity to combat Freemasonry is the principal work
for all Catholics.
2.	“The rapid and continually-increasing progress of the evil is
a daily source of cruel anxiety to all well-thinking people.
3.	“ The time for barren recriminations and useless complaints
has passed by; that for action has arrived.4
DEDICATION.
4.	“ His Holiness, the Sovereign Pontiff, has denounced the
source of evil, indicated the enemy, and it is a duty for all Cath-
olics to rush forward to the destruction of Masonry, to unmask
their hypocrisy, to make known their ravages, to unveil their ac-
complices, to enlighten their dupes; at a word, to prepare them-
selves against Freemasonry for a struggle to the knife.”
I know that Freemasonry alone, among all the grand
associations of men, has assumed the noble and generous
task of holding up, over a long series of unfortunate and
bloody centuries, the torch of toleration and of true brother-
hood ; that Odd Fellowship stands for liberty, equality,
and fraternity; that Knights of Pythias have no fellow-
ship with the ignorance, prejudice, superstition, jesuitism,
and clericalism of the Roman system. And we invite all
good men to assist us and testify that we have never
hurled anathemas against any one, and that our kindly
fraternities are certainly nearer to God than their in-
human and ridiculous papal infallibility.
There is an intrinsic value and a divine excellence in
the principle of secrecy:	“ Est et fideli tuta silentio metres"
— “For faithful silence, also, there is a sure reward.”
LODGE CERTIFICATE.
“Greeting: — We, the Master and Wardens of Independence
Lodge, No. 10, Free and Accepted Masons, constituted under
g a Charter from the M. W. Grand Lodge of the State of Ver-
mont, Do Certify, that our Worthy Brother, Rev. S. F. Calhoun,
° has been regularly initiated as an Entered Apprentice, passed
j to the Degree of Fell Craft, and raised to the Sublime Degree
of Master Mason, and is distinguished for his zeal and fidelity
. to the Craft. We do therefore recommend that he be received
^ and acknowledged as such by all true and accepted Freemasons,
w wheresoever dispersed.
“In Testimony Whereof, We have granted him this Certifi-
cate under our hands and the seal of the Lodge, having firstDEDICATION.
5
k caused our Worthy Brother to sign his name on the margin,
* this first day of March, A. D. 1886, A. L. 5886.
v	“ G. A. KIMBALL, Worshipfnl Master.
h.	[SEAL]	“R. A. PARKS, Senior Warden.
C?	“ GEORGE THOMAS, Junior Warden.
“ D. S. WELLS, Secretary."
“ This is to Certify, That Independence Lodge, No. ro, is a le-
gally-constituted Lodge, working under the jurisdiction of the Most
Worshipful Grand Lodge of Vermont. April 22, A. L. 5886.
“ SAMUEL M. READ, Grand Secretary."
CHAPTER CERTIFICATE.
“Greeting: — We, the Presiding Officers of Farmers Chapter,
2 No. 9, Royal Arch Masons, constituted under a Warrant from
^ the Grand Chapter of the State of Vermont, Do hereby Certify,
33 that our Worthy Companion, Rev. S. F. Calhoun, has been regu-
^ larly Exalted to the Sublime Degree of Royal Arch, and do
!j therefore commend him to the kindness and protection of all
•	Royal Arch Masons, wherever dispersed.
“In Testimony Whereof, We have granted this Certificate
m under our hands and the seal of the Chapter, having first caused
“ our Worthy Companion to sign his name on the margin, this
*	twenty-second day of March, A. D. 1886.
t	“Attest:	F. N. MANCHESTER, High Priest.
£	[seal]	“GEORGE A. CROSSMAN, King.
£	“EBEN J. BLISS, Scribe.
“R. F. KIDDER, Secretary."
“ This is to Certify, That Farmers Chapter, No. 9, at Brandon,
is a legally-constituted Chapter, under the jurisdiction of the Most
Excellent Grand Chapter of Vermont. A. L. 5886, A. I. 2416,
A- D. 1886.
“EXCELLENT WILLIAM H. S. WHITCOMB,
“ Grand SecretaryNe Varietur: S. F. CALHOUN.
6
DEDICATION.
COMMANDERY CERTIFICATE.
“ Greeting : — To all Knights Templar throughout the Globe.
We, the Eminent Commander, Generalissimo, and Captain Gen-
eral of the Commandery of Knights Templar and the Append-
ant Orders, holden in Middlebury, State of Vermont, U. S. A.,
hereby certify that our trusty and well-beloved Companion Sir
Knight, Rev. S. F. Calhoun, has been regularly created and
dubbed a Knight of the Red Cross, Knight Templar, and Knight
of Malta of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, and as such we
cordially recommend him to the favor and protection of all true
and courteous Knights of our Order, wherever dispersed.
“ Given under our hands and the seal of Mount Calvary Com-
rpandery, at Middlebury, this twenty-second day of March, 1886.
We have also caused our Companion Sir Knight to sign his
name in the margin,
“W. C. BRADBURY, Eminent Cotmnander.
[seal]	" G. A. KIMBALL, Generalissimo.
“ F. N. MANCHESTER, Cdptaiii General.
"Attest: Peter F, Goodrich, RecorderP
“Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Vermont: Thad.
M. Chapman, R. E. Commander. Be it known, that Mount Cal-
vary Commandery, No. 1, situated in Middlebury, is of regular
standing under our jurisdiction. Burlington, April 6, A. D. 1886.
"Attest: W. C- BRADBURY, Recorder.
LODGE CERTIFICATE.
“ This is to Certify, That Brother Rev. S. F. Calhoun was ad-
mitted by card a member of Lowell Lodge, No. 95, Independent
Order of Odd Fellows, Lowell, Mass., on the tenth day of April,
1874. Attest:
“JAMES F. McKISSOCK, Noble Grd7id.
[seal]	“GEO. H. RICHARDSON, Recording Secretary.”DEDICATION.
7
ENCAMPMENT CERTIFICATE.
“ This is to Certify, That Brother S. F. Calhoun was made a
member of Otter Creek Encampment, No. 7, Independent Order
of Odd Fellows, May 13, 1886, that he has attained the Third
Degree, and is at present a member in good standing of the above
Encampment. Rutland, Vt., July 6, 1886.
«FRANK M. MELLOR, Chief Priest.
[seal]	“THEO. J. MOORE, Scribe."
To the Rev. James B. Dunn, d. d., and the Clergy
OF THE GREAT PROTESTANT CHURCH IN AMERICA, I also
dedicate this book.
You have in your hands the moral power to form pub-
lic opinion respecting what is being done by the Roman
system in this country. Priest Hecker, chief of the
Paulist Fathers of	New	York city,	declares	“that there
is to be ere long	a State religion,	in this	country, and
that religion is to be Roman Catholic.” Bishop O’Connor
has said, “Religious liberty is merely endured till the
opposite can be carried	into effect	without	peril to the
Catholic world.” Pope Pius IX anathematized “those who
assert liberty of conscience and religious worship, and also
all such as maintain that the Church may not employ
force.” And yet the Protestant clergy sleep, and the
Protestant Church has ceased to protest. In the Ver-
mont Chronicle of	April	23, 1886,	the following article
and editorial comments appeared: —
“ARE PROTESTANTS HERETICS?
“ BY REV. S. F. CALHOUN.
u I have just read, in the Chronicle of April 2d, an article on
‘ Insufficient Information,’ in which Archbishop Carrigan, of New
York, is represented as saying to Rev. John Miller, of Princeton,
N. J., that ‘ outside the Church there is no salvation ’ applied to
Catholics and not to Protestants. If the Archbishop uttered this,
sentiment, what did he mean when he took the oath that every8
DEDICATION.
Archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church takes when he receives
the pallium, and which will be found in the Pontificale Romanuml
One clause of the oath is as follows: —
“ ‘ Heretics [that is, Protestants], Schismatics [that is, members of the Greek
Church that separated, as they say, from Rome], and Rebels against our Lord or
aforesaid successors, I will persecute and attack to the utmost of my power.’
“ What said Baronius, whom Archbishop Carrigan accepts as a
Roman Catholic historian ? —
“ ‘ This all assent to, so that no one dissents who does not by such disagree-
ment cut himself off from the Church.’ — Bar. anno	S. 14, Vol. XI,
Rome, c6oj.
“Then Pope Bonifice VIII has a decree in the Canon Law: —
“ ‘ Moreover, we declare, assert, define, and pronounce It to be of necessity
to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.’ —
Extrav. Comm., lib. 1, tit. 8, p. 1,160. Pars 2. Leips. l8pg.
“Five successive Popes, *•—Innocent III, Honorius III, Gregory
IX, Innocent IV, and Alexander IV, — decreed the extermination
of heretics: —
“ ‘ But because Luther escaped with impunity, CEcolampadius, Zwingle, Carl-
Btadt, and the Anabaptists, — the worst of all heretics, — dared to go abroad in
public and vent their heresies.’ — Cap. XII, p. 126.
“ Pope Gregory IX inserted in his Decretals the satorious decree
of the Fourth Lateran Council: —
“ ‘ We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy exalting itself against
that holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith which we have above set forth, con-
demning ail heretics, by whatever names they may be denominated, having in-
deed different faces, but tails tied together, because they all agree in the same
folly.'
“ Perhaps the Archbishop believed he was conforming to the
Canon Law, on the principle set forth by Pope Gregory IX, by
answering the Rev. John Miller as he did: —
“‘An oath contrary to the utility of the Church is not to be observed.’ —
Decret. Greg. IX, lib. 2, etc.
“ 1 Not only it is lawful, but it is often more conducive to the glory of God
and the utility of your neighbor, to cover the faith than to confess it.’
“ The Archbishop’s answer, then, is in direct opposition to his
own oath and the teachings of Popes and Roman Catholic histo-
rians. I have no pretensions to greater acumen, or to a juster ap-
preciation of the Roman Church, than the editor of the Chronicle
or my brethren in the ministry, but having long and laboriously
studied this subject, it seems to me that the Archbishop’s reply isDEDICATION.
9
not to be trusted. I have just completed a manuscript, entitled
“Fifteen Years in the Church of Rome — An Examination of
Priests, Popes, and Councils,’ and some time during the present
month it will be in the hands of the publisher, which covers this
entire question. The incident of boyhood to which the editor refers
has in it more of humanity than zeal for the Roman Church, and
then this whole matter is not one of persons, but of principles.
That was no time to consult the Church, the mass, purgatory, and
the Virgin Mary, but to act, as the excellent editor says, in neigh-
borly kindness.”
“COMMENTS BY THE EDITOR.
“ It is doubtless true that the view presented by the writer of
the above article, so far as the recorded declarations of the Roman
Catholic Church for generations past are concerned, is correct. She
has said many harsh things against ‘ heretics and schismatics,’
and by her anathemas shut the doors of heaven against them.
But the world moves. Human opinions change. Medieval expres-
sions of thought and formulated systems of the past are too strait
to contain the broadening views that have come from the continu-
ous study of God’s Word. The Roman Catholic Church, iron-
bound as it has been, feels the expanding and softening influences
of Christian light and love. It is slowly changing. It will never
send forth such fearful anathemas as it has in the past. Though
it has not publicly repudiated its past bigotry, the change going
on in its body can be seen in many of its utterances. The un-
qualified statements of Archbishop Carrigan in answer to Mr.
Miller’s inquiries show the drift of opinion in many of the more
enlightened of the Catholic clergy. Much as we lament what
seems to us the bigotry and unscripturalness of the Roman Cath-
olic system, we rejoice to notice any indications of a change for
the better within its fold.”
I can only say that the good, kind, and large-hearted
editor of the Vermont Chronicle is very much mistaken.
“Rome is tolerant only where she is helpless.” It is the
same system now in this Nineteenth century that it was
in the Sixteenth. Its spirit is the same; its doctrines are
the same; its methods are the same as when Huss,
Zwingle, Luther, Calvin, and Knox fought it with right-10
DEDICATION.
eous and fearless courage. We should remember the
words of the great English statesman, Gladstone:	“Rome
requires a convert who joins her to forfeit his moral and
mental freedom, and place his loyalty and civil duty at
the mercy of another.” Also of Lafayette:	“If ever the
liberty of the American Republic is destroyed, it will be
the work of Roman Catholic priests.” American Roman-
ism to-day is the same as Spanish Romanism or Italian
Romanism was in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth centuries.
The society of Jesuits as it exists now in the United
States is the same, in its aims and methods, that it was
in the Fourteenth century. It is the same old-timed or-
ganization working through its disguised emissaries, agents,
and conspirators, by intrigue, bribery, hypocrisy, and crime,
into every department of American society. A. J. Grover
says, “It would not be more incredible than many of the
Jesuit assassinations in Europe in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth centuries, which so startled the nations then, to
suppose that the Protestant President Garfield owes his
death, indirectly, to the Jesuits.” Father Chiniquy, in his
“Fifty Years in the Church of Rome,” pages 668-735,
gives pretty strong evidence that Abraham Lincoln was
killed by a Romanist; by a Jesuit and a conspiracy of
Jesuits, and is fully believed by those who have been
best informed of the facts concerning the methods of the
Jesuits of the Roman hierarchy. Mrs. Surratt was also
a slave of Roman priests. D. Harold was a Romanist,
probably a Jesuit; and he no doubt fled to Europe and
found friends, cover, and employment among the members
of that order. Every minister of the Gospel should try
to inspire public opinion, not with bigotry, or prejudice,
or revenge, but with faithful, Protestant principles, and
then we need have no doubt of the ultimate issue.PREFACE.
nature of the opposition that the Roman
rgy make to Biblical Christianity proves its
th in the main, — proves the consciousness
a real claim of God in it. No doubt they
have attacked Paganism as false. They have resisted Mo-
hammedanism with great zeal. But the constant and de-
termined opposition of the Roman Priesthood, the close
and sifting examination the Bible has gone through for
ages, the anxious research for errors or contradictions
within, prove unmistakably the animus of the Roman
Church. Those not immediately under the influence of
Mohammedanism are satisfied that it is false, and leave
it there; but this intense opposition to the Bible contin-
ues, is repeated and renewed, History is called in to aid.
Antiquity, style, manuscripts of all kinds, contradictory tra-
ditions of the Fathers, absurd writings of so-called heretics,
— nothing is left undone to find something to discredit it.
It is doubtless true that of recent years there has been
an apparent increase of Roman power and influence in
America. It is also true that in the United States the
membership of the Roman Church has of late years largely
increased. Nor can it be doubted that the Roman Clergy
are making almost superhuman efforts to regain in the
New World what they have lost in the Old. And yet, it12
PREFACE.
is no less true that, taking a wide and comprehensive
view over the entire world, the influence of the Roman
Church is steadily and surely diminishing; and that the
power of Leo XIII, of the present day, compared with
that of Leo X or Gregory VII (Hildebrand), of the Mid-
dle Ages, is but a pigmy compared with a giant. Then
the Pope could hurl the mightiest monarchs from their
thrones; now he is not able to retain his own, nor to
keep under that spirit of liberty which has burst forth
and driven him from his tottering throne, and delivered
many oppressed and priest-ridden subjects from his unwel-
come and superstitious rule.
Fifteen years’ experience in the Roman Church has
given me remarkable opportunities to pursue a calm and
comprehensive study of its ecclesiastical history. I have
sketched here the historical state of the Roman Clergy,
the lives of the Popes their leaders, and the contradic-
tions of their Ecumenical Councils. I know pretty well,
in theory and practice, what Romanism is; and the his-
tory of the Popes is open to every one; but those who
know what the Roman Church has once been, are best able
to appreciate what she now is. The Inquisition, the St.
Bartholomew and the Waldensean massacres are a matter of
history. “The end justifies the means” is still the spirit
of Romanism in Spain, Mexico, and Ireland. The Irish
people suffer vastly more from Roman despotism than
from English landlordism. And while I have the deepest
sympathy for the Irish in their present struggle against
English oppression, I can not help feeling that the agita-
tion is more for Rome rule than Home rule. But Roman-
ism is dangerous in America as well as in Europe. It
opposes the public schools, controls elections, appropriates
vast sums of money from the public treasuries, and ownsPREFACE.
13
property aggregating about two billions of dollars ($2,000,-
000,000). The peculiar dogma of allegiance to the temporal
power of the Pope is hostile to the principles of the
Republic. Cardinal McCloskey confessed “that the Roman
Catholics of the United States are as strongly devoted
to the sustenance and maintenance of the temporal power
of the Holy Father as Catholics	in any part	of the world;
and if it should	be necessary	to	prove it by	acts, they are
ready to do so.”
Although there may be an apparent sincerity and purity
and patriotism on the part- of many Roman Catholic
priests, yet neither they nor their utterances have any
power to modify	the system	of	which they	form a part.
The indifference,	listlessness,	and drowsiness	of American
citizens incapacitates them from realizing the antagonisms
of Romanism and Republicanism, and to successfully com-
bat the threatening attitude of Romanist authorities that
might at some future time flame forth into civil war,
conspiracy, or revolution. The victory of Romanism in-
volves the defeat of Liberty, and there is no compromise
between the one and the other. There is no harmony
between them, and the only safeguard is “Eternal Vig-
ilance.” The following oath, which is taken by every
Roman Catholic bishop, should open the eyes of all
Americans. I will give it in Latin and English: —
“Ego, N.,Electus EcclesiaeN.,
ab hac hora autea fidelis et obe-
diens ero B. Petro Apostolo,
Sanctaeque Roman® Ecclesiae,
et Domino nostro, Domino N.
Papas N. suisque successoribus
canonice intrantibus.
“Non ero in consilio, aut con-
sensu, vel facto, ut vitam per-
“ I, N., Elect of the Church of
N., from henceforward will be faith-
ful and obedient to St. Peter the
Apostle, and to the Holy Roman
Church, and to our Lord, the Lord
N., Pope N., and to his successors
canonically coming in.
“ I will neither advise, consent,
nor do any thing that may lose life orH
PREFACE.
dant, aut membrum; seu capi-
antur mala captione; aut in eos
manus quo modo libet ingeran-
tur; vel injuri® alliqu® inferan-
tur; quovis qumsito colore.
“ Consilium vero quod mihi
creditare sunt, per se, aut Nun-
cios suos, seu literas, ad eorum
damnum, me sciente nemini pan-
dam.
“ Papatum Romanum et Reg-
ulia Sancti Petri adjutor eis ero
ad defendendum et retuiendum,
salvo meo ordine, contra omnem
hominem. Legatum Apostolic®
Sedis in eundo et redeundo hon-
orifice tractabo, et in suis neces-
siatibus adjuvabo.
“ Jura, honores, privjlegia, et
auctoritatem Sanct® Roman®
Ecclesi®, Domini nostri Pap®
et successorum pr®dictorum
conservare, defendere, augere,
promovere curabo.
“Neque ero in consilio, vel
facto, seu tractatu in quibus con-
tra ipsum Dominum nostrum, vel
eandem Romanum Ecclesiam
aliqua sinistra vel prsjudjco alia
personarum, juris, honoris, status
et potestatis, eorum machinen-
tur. Et si talia a quibus cunque
tractari vel procurari novero, im-
pediam hoc pro posse, et quanto
citius potero significabo eidem
Domino nostro, vel alteri per
quern possit ad ipsius notitiam
pervenire.
“Regulas Sanctorum Patrum,
deer eta, ordinationes, seu dis-
positiones, reservationes, provi-
member, or that their persons may
be seized, or hands anywise laid
upon them, or any injuries offered
to them, under any pretense what-
soever.
“ The counsel which they shall
entrust me withal, by themselves,
their messengers, or letters, I will
not knowingly reveal to any, to their
prejudice.
“ I will help them to defend and
keep the Roman Papacy, and the
Royalties of St. Peter, saving my
order, against all men. The legate
of the Apostolic See, going and
coming, I will honorably treat and
help in his necessities.
“ The rights, honors, privileges,
and authority of the Holy Roman
Church, of our Lord the Pope, and
his aforesaid successors, I will en-
deavor to preserve, defend, increase,
and advance.
“ I will not be in any counsel,
action, or treaty in which shall be
plotted against our said Lord,
and the said Roman Church, any-
thing to the hurt or prejudice of
their persons, right, honor, state, or
power; and if I shall know any such
thing to be treated or agitated by
any whatsoever, I will hinder it to
my power; and as soon as I can
well signify it to our said Lord, or
to some other by whom it may come
to his knowledge.
“ The rules of the Holy Fathers,
the Apostolic decrees, ordinances
or disposals, reservations, provi-PREFACE.
IS
siones, et mandata Apostolica
totis viribus observabo, et faci-
am ab aliis observari.
“ Hsereticos, Schismaticos, et
Rebelles eidem Domino nostro
vel successoribus prsedictis pro
posse persequar et impugnabo.
“Vocatus ad Synodum veni-
am, nisi prsepeditus fuero canon-
ica praspeditione.
“ Apostolorum limina singulis
trienniis personaliter per me ip-
sum visitabo, et Domino nostro
ac successoribus praefatis ratio-
nem reddam de toto meo pastor-
ali officio ac de rebus omnibus
ad meae Ecclesiae statum, ad
cleri, et populi disciplinam, anni-
arum denique quae meae fides tra-
ditrn sunt, salutem quovis modo
pertinentibus, et vicissim manda-
ta Apostolica humiliter recipiam
et quam diligentissime exequor.
“ Quod si legitimo impedimen-
to detentus fuero praefata omnia
adimplebopercertum. Nuntium
ad hoc speciale mandatum hab-
entem de gremio mei capituli;
aut alium in dignitate Ecclesias-
tica constitutum, seu alias per-
sonatum habentem ; aut his mihi
deficientibus per dicecessanum
sacerdotem; et clero deficiente
omnino per aliquem alium Pres-
byterum stecularum vel regula-
rem spectatae probitatis et reli-
gionis de super dictis omnibus
plene instructum,	v
“ De hujusmodo autem imped
imento docebo per legitimas pro-
bationes ad Sanctae Romanae Ec-
sions, and mandates, I will observe
with all my might, and cause to be
observed by others.
“ Heretics, schismatics, and reb-
els to our said Lord, or his aforesaid
successors, I will to my utmost
power persecute and wage war with.
“ I will come to a Council when
I am called, unless I be hindered
by a canonical impediment.
“ I will by myself in person visit
the threshold of the Apostles every
three years; and give an account
to our Lord and his aforesaid suc-
cessors of all my pastoral office,
and of all things anywise belong-
ing to the state of my Church, to
the discipline of my clergy and peo-
ple, and lastly to the salvation of
souls committed to my trust; and
will in like manner humbly receive
and diligently execute the Apos-
tolic commands.
“ And if I be detained by a law-
ful impediment, I will perform all
the things aforesaid by a certain
messenger hereto specially empow-
ered, a member of my chapter, or
some other in ecclesiastical dignity
or else having a personage; or in
default of these, by a priest of the
diocese; or in default of one of the
clergy (of the diocese ), by some
other secular or regular priest of
approved integrity and religion,
fully instructed in all things above
mentioned.
“ And such impediment I will
make out by lawful proofs to be
transmitted by the aforesaid mes-i6
PREFACE.
clesiae Cardinalem Proponentem
in Congregatione Sacri Concilii
per supra dictum Nuntium trans-
mittendas.
“ Possessiones vero ad mensam
meam pertinentes non vendam,
nec donabo neque impignorabo,
nec de novo infendabo vel aliquo
modo alienabo, etiam cum con-
sensu Capituli Ecclesiffi meee,
inconsulto Romano Pontifico.
“ Et si ad aliquam alienatio-
nem devenero, pcenas in quadam
super hoc edita constitutione
contentas eo ipso incurrere volo.
“ Sic me Deus adjuvet et hasc
Sancta Dei Evangelia,”
senger to the Cardinal proponent
of the Holy Roman Catholic
Church in the Congregation of the
Sacred Council.
“ The possessions belonging to
my table I will neither sell, nor give
away, nor mortgage, nor grant
anew in fee, nor anywise alienate,
no not even with the consent of the
chapter of my church, without con-
sulting the Roman Pontiff.
“And if I shall make any alien-
ation, I will thereby incur the pen-
alties contained in a certain consti-
tution put forth about this matter.
“ So help me God and these
Holy Gospels of God.”
Pontifical,'e Pomanum," pp. 59-61.
This oath itself proves the wickedness of the Roman
system. It repudiates all temporal power, except that of
the Pope, and claims the power to “persecute heretics.”
It takes from Romanists moral responsibility, and makes
it the duty of bishops to cover up crimes committed by
Romanists. It binds the Roman Catholic citizen to al-
legiance to a foreign potentate superior to the allegiance
he owes to the United States, or any government under
which he may live. It is obedience to Pope first—all
other obligations afterwards, if at all. Ought a man who
has taken such an oath to be allowed to become a citizen
of this Republic ? The Pope says Republicanism, free
thought, the separation of Church and State, free schools,
the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, are
heresies to be put down. But the principles, aims, and
purposes of Protestantism do harmonize perfectly with the
spirit and tendency of the American Republic, and are the'
inspirer of modern civilization..CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
PERSONAL STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT.
( a.) Church Authority.
( b.) Church History — The Fathers.
( c.) Biblical Christianity.
CHAPTER II.
CATHOLICITY AND UNITY.
(a.) The Greek and Protestant Schism.
( b.) The Reformation.
( c.) Internal Divisions.
CHAPTER III.
TRADITIONS.
(a.) The Virgin Mary.
( b.) Prayers for the Dead.
(c.) Purgatory.
CHAPTER IV.
HOLINESS.
(a.) Saints.
(b.) Miracles.
( c.) The Confessional.
2i8
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER V.
THE PRIESTHOOD.
( a.) Primitive Priesthood — Secular and Drunken.
( b.) Mediaeval Priesthood — Celibacy and Fornication.
( c.) Modern Priesthood — Simony, or Money-getting.
CHAPTER VI.
HISTORY OF THE POPES —366-1886.
(a.) The Popes and the Italian Nobles — 887-1000.
(b.) The Popes and the German Emperors—1002-1300.
( c.) The Popes and the French Protectorate —1309-1870.
CHAPTER VII.
GENERAL COUNCILS.
(a.) Imperial (Eastern) Councils, I-VIII—325-869.
(b.) Papal (Western) Councils, IX-XV—1123-1311.
( c.) Reforming (Prelatic) Councils, XVI-XIX—1414-1563.
(d.) The Vatican Council, XX —1869-1870.
CHAPTER VIII.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND EX CATHEDRA.
(a.) The Consent of the Church Universal with the Pope.
( b.) The Pope and the Whole Church Represented in a General
Council.
( c.) The Pope Speaking Ex Cathedra.
APPENDICES.
A.	— List of Church Fathers.
B.	— List of Roman Pontiffs.
C.	— List of General Councils.Fifteen Years in the Church of Rome.
CHAPTER It
PERSONAL STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT.
IE Roman Catholic Church is a sensuous
religion, filling the imagination with gorgeous
ceremonies, noble buildings, fine music, and
stately processions. The Roman Church feeds
the imagination with legends and the poetry of antiquity,
and accepts for the mass of its votaries full association
with the world. Roman Catholicism has penetrated into
all lands, and still exerts sway over nations and lan-
guages, differing both in climate and race. She has
touching services, immemorial traditions, dogma from first
to last marvellous with the boldest assumption; a hie-
rarchy graduating from the boy acolyte to the octoge-
narian Pope; and religious orders of endless observances
and aspirations. Such, in substance, were the arguments
and influences that drew me to it, and for fifteen years
retained me in it. But gradually the conviction dawned
upon me, that this wondrous system, such as it existed
in the past and such as it exists to-day, was a colossal
lie, a gigantic fraud, and a superhuman imposture. Do not20
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
suppose that I arrived, or could have arrived, at such a
conclusion at once; all my tenderer feelings recoiled from
it. I looked at the hosts of excellent men and women
in all ages that have belonged, and still cleave to it;
and could they all have been the victims of such a
delusion ? But gradually this all seemed capable of being
consistently explained. They seemed to have joined the
Roman Catholic Church, not only pledged never to find
fault with it, but to see with its eyes, hear with its
ears, understand with its understanding, and stand or fall
by its judgment. Their argument, I presume, would be that
the Church of Rome claims to be infallible; that they sub-
mitted themselves to it as such, in the fullest confidence
that its decisions can never mislead them ; that they are
God’s voice speaking to them, which they are bound, at the
peril of their salvation, never to mistrust, much less dis-
pute. The Church of Rome claims to be infallible, and
anybody who concedes, is dearer to her than anybody
who disputes, her claim. “ Sanctam Catholicam et apostoli-
cam Roinanam Ecclesiam, omnium ecclesiarum matrem et
magistram, agnosco”—a mediaeval phrase, of which I knew
the full historical value, was what Romanists gave their
adhesion before infallibility was decreed by the Vatican
Council.
If the Roman Church is really infallible, I feel she
will stand much more searching criticism than I can give
to her. For I consider after the extreme vigor with which
the claims of the Protestant Church have been examined
by us all, it would be the height of disingenuousness in
us to shut our eyes to any weak points of the Roman
system that men and women are embracing in preference,
should any such exist. I felt years ago that if I found
the claims of the Church of Rome to be thoroughly inEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	'31
accordance with facts, I should ever afterwards regard her
with tenfold reverence from having verified them myself.
If they were true, analysis, impartially conducted, could
only confirm them; if they were false to any extent, or
exaggerated, I conceive that we are bound in common
honesty to tell the world we were deceived to that extent.
I have resided in various countries where it was dom-
inant, and have studied its worship in town and country,
and have set myself to work to improve my previous
knowledge of its history in past ages. All this has been
my constant employment for many years; so that I can
not be said to have drawn my conclusions hastily. The
conviction impressed upon me by what I have heard and
seen in Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, and Canada, is that
Protestant Christianity is the only good and genuine and
beneficial religion. Protestantism has its weak as well as
its strong side: its shortcomings historically traceable to
the sins of our forefathers in no small degree.1 Among
the strong points attributable to its influences are a
strong love of honesty in intention, of truthfulness in
language, and of uprightness and manliness in conduct,
and a still stronger abhorrence of falsehood and treachery
to engagements in every form. Its virtues belong mostly
to the practical and domestic order. Its weak points are
too great self-reliance, too much disposition to criticise,
and too little faith in the unseen. As a general rule,
Roman Catholics are weak where Protestants are strongest,
and strong where Protestants fail. Such results are due
to the system in each case, showing imperfections in
each. Roman Catholics may be compared with Prot-
1 I hope, at no distant day, to give to the reader my impressions
of Protestantism, the practical workings of the Protestant Church, and
my personal experience with members of local Churches.22
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
estants as boys brought up at a private school, or else
at home, with boys brought up at a public school in
America. Roman Catholics may be compared with Prot-
estants as men educated at the universities of Paris,
Munich, or Padua, with men educated at Harvard, Yale,
or Princeton. And the vast difference between the moral
tone of society in Protestant and Roman countries I
attribute to the superiority of Protestantism and the in-
herent goodness of its claims.
Taking this for my guide, I have been engaged con-
stantly in instituting comparisons between members of the
Protestant Church and members of the Church of Rome
generally, and between my former and my present self in
particular; and the result in each case has been to
confirm me in the belief that the notion of the Roman
Church exercising any greater influence upon the heart
and life than the Protestant Church, is not merely pre-
posterous, but as contrary, both to faith and fact. What
people say of those generally who have become Roman
Catholics is, that they have deteriorated as a body, rather
than advanced. And as far as my own experience goes,
it is quite true; but still, I believe that Christian quality
is possible in the Roman system, according to the dis-
positions of those who frequent it. I have found Roman
Catholics—-I mean the educated classes—all that in gen-
eral estimate members of a Christian Church should be:
God-serving, charitable, conscientious, refined, intelligent;
and I could discovef nothing idolatrous or superstitious
in their worship, nor any thing at variance with first
principles in their daily life. But afterwards, when I
came to ask myself the question, Are these, then, the
only true Christians that you have ever known in life?
I can scarce describe the recoil that it occasioned in me!EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
23
If the Protestant Church is only a sham, and the Roman
Church, without exception, a reality, how comes it that
Roman Catholics are not incomparably more exalted char-
acters than Protestants; or that Roman Catholic countries
are not incomparably more penetrated to the core with
Christianity than Protestant America or England? In
Spain there is early Mass most mornings of the week,
but you seldom, if ever, see any but women at it, and
these rarely more than from ten to twenty. But on Sun-
day, at High Mass, the Church, as a general thing, is
well filled with men and women; but the only spark of
devotion you ever witness is, now and then you might
see parties of four or five women sitting outside their
doors, in the cool of the evening, reciting their chaplet.
If the priest is affable and intelligent, and seems anxious
to promote education, he is too much mixed up in the
secular affairs of his parish to give much attention to it.
The honors of the priest’s house are always done by
one who goes by the name of his “eugina”; but she is
neither his wife nor any relation to him. You can only,
therefore, account for the average respect that is paid
him on the supposition that such things are not uncom-
mon. Altogether we feel strongly that there is certainly
not so much Christianity in Spain as in America; that
the Americans here are better educated and more intelli-
gent in their devotions, beyond comparison, than these
specimens of Spain ; and that the minister here could not
have a woman sitting at the head of his table, who is
neither his wife nor his relation. Yet this is a country
that has remained exclusively Roman Catholic since its
release from the Moors.
In France the Sundays are the great days for parties
and hunting, and keen sportsmen find it no small act of24
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
self-denial to forego the latter. The principal actors in
the “chasse” will enter church, leaving their guns, dogs,
and game in the porch, just in time to save Mass; and
before the service is finished, they disappear and resume
their sport. And surely there can be no doubt but that
we do things in reality better in America a hundredfold,
notwithstanding that appearances are kept up here. In
Italy, in most parts of the country, church-going is con-
fined to Mass on Sundays, high or low, — low when any
of the family communicates, which is never oftener than
once a month; High Mass otherwise. And when Mass
is over, everybody meets, gossips, and promenades up
and down the streets till the carriages are ready to take
them home. Well, we have some of this custom here in
America, in country districts, but with this difference,—
that most respectable people go to church twice on
Sundays, and some of them likewise to a prayer and
conference meeting during the week.
But Roman Catholics say that the Protestant opposition
to Romanism was caused by political motives in Henry
VIII’s time, than which nothing can be more unfounded.
Henry VIII burnt people for giving up his Six Articles,
which were essentially Popish, though he would not ac-
cept the Pope’s supremacy. The Reformation in England
was set on foot by Edward VI, as to authority; and by
martyrs, of whom Henry VIII burned many, as to indi-
vidual protest. I am convinced, after reading ecclesiastical
history through as a Roman Catholic, that there never
was a more justifiable revolt from authority than the
revolt we call the Reformation. The revolt of the United
States of America from the authority of England was no
more just than was the revolt of Protestantism from
Romanism. And no Protestant should ever dream ofEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
25
transferring his allegiance to Roman Catholicism, any more
than any citizen of the United States, in his sober senses,
should ever dream of transferring his own principle to
the English government.
I know the Roman system. I have known it and
walked in it for years. I have fasted in Lent so as to
be weak in body at the end of it; I ate no meat on
week days, and nothing till evening on Wednesdays, Fri-
days, and Saturdays, and then only a little bread, or
nothing; I observed strictly the weekly fasts and what-
ever was imposed through penance; I held that Luther
and Zwingle and Wickliffe and their followers were
heretics; I was taught to hate Protestantism; so that to
receive a Protestant without abjuration of error was suffi-
cient almost, if not quite, to oblige a person to leave
the church, and was what finally led me from it. It did
much to shatter my faith in Romanism. What delivered
me from this whole system was a study of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. I could not, for the Roman priesthood,
give up the Priesthood of Christ, which I found to be
irreconcilable. Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the worship
of the Virgin and the Saints, Indulgences, the repeated
Sacrifice of the Mass as an expiation for the sins of the
living and the dead, the supremacy and infallibility of
the Pope, —none of these, or other principles and dogmas
of Rome, could I find anywhere in the Bible.
CHURCH AUTHORITY.
Romanism has no divine foundation of divine faith; it
is from beginning to end denied. It has dogmas im-
mensely important, and they are fundamental dogmas, but
no divine ground of faith. The soul that has faith in
God, has what the soul needs and craves after. It is26
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
not looking about for safety, for it is safe in Him and
through Him; not in self-confidence, but trusting the
Good Shepherd. It does not slight the Sacraments, but
is thankful for them; nor the ministry of men whom the
Lord has sent. It blesses God heartily for all these
things where it enjoys them, but it possesses the sub-
stance of all in Christ, — eternal life. It has peace and
rest of heart in Him. When a Roman Catholic, I either
possessed Christian faith, or I did not. If I did, my
position was false; if I did not, any one can understand
why I turned Protestant. I had nothing. I had authority
(seemingly), but not faith in God. I believed in transub-
stantiation, because I received it on authority. I believed
that the Roman Catholic Church was the oracle of God.
The sacraments, absolution, and celibacy passed muster
with all the rest, and I declared it to be a part of the
original revelation. But this is no true faith in God; it
is acquiescence in authority, and after all it is accrediting
Rome for a fact. Rome says I can not believe in Chris-
tianity but on the authority of the Church. But how am
I to believe in the Church? The first Christians could
not. Antiquity, Catholicity, and Succession did not exist.
They were called on to believe in Christ alone. There
was no Church, and all ecclesiastical authority was against
Him. The foundation of the first Christian’s faith is dif-
ferent, on the Romanist system, from mine. Their faith
could not be founded, and was not to be founded, on
the Church; nor could it be with heathens now, for they
do not recognize the Church. It is said that there is
special grace for them; so heathens have special grace,
which Christians can not have. And if, as believing in
God, I seek, not Christianity, but honestly what Church
is the best one, it is said I must begin by owning theEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
2;
authority of that Church. But this is absurd on the face
of it, for what I want to know is, Has it authority? Is
it the true Church ? The Church rests chiefly on the
doctrine of tradition: “To learn doctrine we must have
recourse to the catechisms and creeds, and after learning
from them the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must
verify them from Scripture.” The first Christians cer-
tainly did not learn from creeds or catechisms, for there
were none to learn them from; and now a parent, as
well as a catechism, a friend, a minister, may have taught
us, or the Bible may have done so. The Bible is the
only standard. The fallacy of the statement is in this:
that catechisms and creeds are here introduced, not as
teaching, but as an authority, —that is, the Church is.
We have received the truth from them, as truth, without
saying so. Let it be true or false, it is a deceitful
presentation of the matter. A parent, a friend, or a
minister, is not an authority. If catechisms and creeds
are only means of learning, there are a hundred others.
Their authority is at the root of this tradition.
CHURCH HISTORY —THE FATHERS.
I took great delight in the study of the Fathers and
Church history. There can be no doubt but that the
wild vagaries of the Alexandrian Fathers gave rise to
the Romish doctrine of angels and celibacy. The doctrine
about souls, and angels, and daemons (daimdn) is unques-
tionably half Platonic, and reigned among the Alexandrian
Fathers. The celibacy of the priesthood undoubtedly arose
from Manicheism and Gnosticism, and a semi-Jewish and
semi-heathen origin. Philo, the Jewish leader, held that
all was full of living beings; the sun, moon, and stars
were not only animals, but most pure minds; that all the28
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
air,—the space from the moon, the extreme of heaven
proper, — to the earth was filled with souls as numerous
as the stars; that the higher ones were very pure, and
were daemons, — called angels by Moses; the lower ones
loved getting down into human bodies; the root of all
the doctrine being the evil of matter. The supreme un-
known God, who dwelt in the - depths of silence, could
have no connection with matter; hence emanations and
the Demiurge, an inferior Creator, resulting in Gnosti-
cism— the plague of the early Church.
Platonism, with its emanated daemons, and the Alex-
andrian philosophy, divide into the Christian and heathen
parties, Clement giving the perfect Christian the name of
“Gnostic” (Man of Knowledge). It resulted, in another
form, in Arianism, the doctrine more or less of these
Alexandrian Ante-Nicene Fathers (not Irenasus), combated
by Athanasius, when it came formally to a head in Arius.
Hence, too, arose asceticism. Asceticism began in the
Alexandrian Church; partly, indeed, by persons who fled
in the Decian persecution; hence forbidding to marry, not
that people might be more devoted, but as evil for the
Gnostic. Origen, who was a most attractive and interest-
ing man,—-his name became the football of passion in the
Church. He held that souls were born into different con-
ditions in this world, according to their conduct in a
previously existing state. He held that the fall was the
pure soul of man coming into a body. Men’s souls were to
work their way back to liberation from matter,—as also
Alexandrian and Platonic predecessors and Gnostic contem-
poraries held; that was the object of the mission of Christ.
Now, asceticism proves the effect of this heathenish
system of morals. The one great form of asceticism was
the clergy abstaining from marriage, under the plea ofEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
29
purity, taking to sleep with them females, with the same
pretension to purity, alleging they were free from all evil
of mind. This was one form of asceticism,' but not the
only one. I know they went into the desert. But this
shows the nature of it. It was often condemned, but that
shows it was a custom; and they had a name, both in
Greek and Latin, — suneisaktai (subintroductse), and agapetai
(beloved). Irenseus himself charges the Gnostics with the
same practice. And Tertullian, when a Montanist, charges
the Catholics with it.
The Roman body holds celibacy, not only as a matter
of discipline, but as apostolic. The Greek Church requires
that priests should be married. But a man must be
wholly blinded by imagination, to say celibacy is, as a
rule, apostolic. What its enforcement in the Eleventh
century, by Hildebrand, — though never carried through till
the end of the Thirteenth, — produced, is well known.
And in the Council of Nice, it was formally refused to be
made a rule, though it had acquired great influence, and
was resisted by Paphnutus, an unmarried bishop, as a
snare.
How has duty to morals fared at the hands of the
Roman Church? All honor to such men as St. Bernard
and Thomas Aquinas, for their candor in denouncing the
abuses of the Middle Ages! But still, that system could
never have thriven, or become possessed of any such
abuses, without their aid or acquiescence. I can not shut
my eyes to the fact, that they clung to the system under
which they lived, and never dreamt of exchanging it for
another, thus proving that it existed in the main, abuses
excepted, with their full concurrence. History sets forth
unhesitatingly that the Roman system rose to the em-
inence which it occupied in the Thirteenth century, when30
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
at her zenith, most unrighteously, by fraud and force; by
the weapon of the weak and the weapon of the strong,
alternately put into her hand, and employed by her as
legitimate, for the spread of her own power, to the dis-
memberment and destruction of the Church at large.
BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY.
Protestantism asserted the authority of the Bible and
maintained the direct responsibility of each conscience to
God alone, as contrasted with the domination of priests.
The question with me was, What was to have authority
over my conscience: the Bible, or the Clergy and Tradition?
I found that the Protestant principle was the absolute
authority of Biblical Christianity, and that each local Church
framed its own profession of faith. It was the protest of
the conscience against the most horrible system of in-
iquity that ever withered and overwhelmed the human
conscience. It was not merely negative; there was the
positive assertion of common fundamental dogmas, — such
as justification by faith, the two sacraments, and other
anti-Romanist ones.	Protestantism and Christianity had
become convertible terms. I am a Christian, and not a
Romanist; and if there is anything that I love dearly,—
crazily, let it be called, for aught I care, — it is the
Christian religion.1
There is a passage of Xenophon which says that Per-
sian law treated ingratitude as a heinous crime.. My own
feelings are that no punishment would be too great for
1 Many years ago, in 1858, when only twelve years old, I was left
an orphan in a Roman Catholic school, to go through a preparatory
course of instruction before studying for the priesthood. In 1864 I
was converted, and after a thorough study of the New Testament, I
was led to renounce Roman Catholicism and embrace Protestantism.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
31
me, were Christianity to cease to be my fondest object
in life. It alone stands between me and a yawning abyss,
to which I can see no end. It alone prevents me, hourly,
from cursing the day on which I was born. Go where
I will, look where I will, past, present, and future stare
me in the face with a picture of doubt and perplexity,
of sin and misery, that, but for Christianity, I should not
have strength to contemplate, or be able to reconcile with
the existence of a just and merciful God.	Christianity
will not answer all my difficulties; but it answers so
many of them, and so satisfactorily, that I can well afford
to wait in confidence for the solution of the rest, which it
intimates for purposes of my probation are withheld now,
which it assumes will be vouchsafed hereafter, — when we
ourselves shall, if faithful, be admitted with glorified fac-
ulties into visible fellowship with Him, by whom all things
were made, to hear them explained.
Meanwhile, from the experience which I have of it in
my own person, and from what I have seen in others,
those who have been brought up in it, and those who
have never known it, or cast it off, I am morally con-
vinced that its influences are of the most humanizing
description of any within man’s reach; having a direct
tendency to develop all that is high and capable of de-
velopment in us, if it had our full co-operation, to a point
incredible; and to eradicate or keep in check all that is
debasing in us, but in resisting which our probation con-
sists : inspiring us with a desire, based upon the purest
motives, to relieve the wants, inequalities, and miseries
that we see around us, and making our own homes all
the happier, the better ordered, and more respectable, the
more we can, each one of us who compose them, regu-
late our lives by its precepts.32
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
CHAPTER II.
CATHOLICITY AND UNITY.
the imagination of men is sought to be filled
with an idea of the Catholicity and Unity of
the Roman Church, it is needful to turn to
the facts, that one may know that what is
called the Roman Catholic Church was the most divided
thing in the world. Its pretension to catholicity is absurd,
as probably the majority of Christendom, and certainly the
most ancient Churches, are outside its pale. Unity hence
fails in its first element. There is no unity now;—nor
was there in the Roman body in former times.	All the
assertions as to the pretended Catholic Church are un-
founded. The majority of professing Christians do not
belong to Rome. There are one hundred and sixteen
millions of Protestants, and I suppose seventy-eight mil-
lions of Greeks, besides Arminians and Jacobites in the
East, whose numbers are not exactly known, but of which
there must be about seven millions, so that in round
numbers there are, giving the largest margin, some one
hundred and ninety millions connected with Rome, and
some two hundred and one millions separate from it.
Hence there is no pretension of catholicity.
As to antiquity, it is that Eastern Christendom is more
ancient than Rome. The Buddhists have between four and
five hundred millions, and constitute by far the most numer-EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
33
ous religion in the world. The Mohammedans count some
one and seventy millions. They are spreading rapidly in
Africa, through having the power in their hands and the
prohibition for any Mohammedan to make a slave of an-
other. The Brahminical religion counts about two hund-
red millions of votaries ; other heathens, perhaps over two
hundred millions. This will disabuse the imagination of
the idea of the catholic or universal character of Rome.
Besides this, there are Canada, the West Indies, and a
scattered population, which can not very much affect the
balance either way. The main numbers are pretty nearly
correct; were there five millions wrong in either, it would
not affect the question we are considering. Then, between
Turkey, the Austrian possessions, Russia, and the East,
the Greeks must number some sixty millions, besides
smaller but ancient bodies. So that Christendom not con-
nected with Rome numbers some one hundred and sixty
or one hundred and seventy millions; Rome some one
hundred and thirty millions. That is a strange way of be-
ing catholic, which means universal. The Greek Churches
in Asia are more ancient than Rome.	Rome was the
last founded of which we have any original history, and
Greeks, Nestorians, and Jacobites were all separate from
Rome, the earliest in the Fifth, and the latest in the
i
Ninth century. They insist on the word catholic, and on
their adversaries admitting the term; this is equally false.
The Greeks never call them Catholics, nor intelligent
Protestants either; and were it otherwise it would be no
more than calling Protestant places of worship churches,
and theirs and others’ chapels. It proves nothing. To
use a lawyer’s maxim: Allegatio ejusdem rei cujus disso-
lutio petilur, nil valet. (To allege that as proof which is
the thing sought to be disproved has no force.) There34
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
are the Greek body, the Latin body, the Episcopal body,
the Lutheran body, each established in different countries,
in America all on the same footing. Catholicity does not
exist.
THE GREEK AND PROTESTANT SCHISM.
The formal teaching of the Popes, ever since the schism
of the Greek Church began till now, has been that the
Church is divided as regards her members, and that there
are Churches forming part of the Catholic Church, which
are, and have been for ages, out of communion with the
Roman Church. The Popes, indeed, have never practically
said this of any Churches but the Greek, and of the
Greek but those communicating with the Patriarch of
Constantinople. But in admitting this much, they most
unquestionably concede that what we call the Roman
Catholic Church has not constituted the whole Church,
nor have they themselves consequently spoken at the
head of the whole Church since the Greek schism. In
general, the action of Rome has been prompt, peremptory,
and decisive, almost to a fault; bold, almost to rashness;
unhesitating, almost to arrogance; — she seems intent on
impressing with nothing so much as her own asserted
unity, her utter inability to commit a mistake of any kind,
or be in the wrong.
Contrast this with her extraordinary shiftiness and inde-
cision on the added Articles, the old and interpolated
clause concerning the “ Procession of the Holy Ghost,”
which caused the Greek schism. When has she ever
affirmed them to be doctrinally the same ? What, accord-
ing to her, is the exact difference between their respec-
tive Churches? Pope Leo III forbade the use of the
interpolated form. His successors winked at it, and endedEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	35
by adopting it themselves; still, they doubted about en-
forcing it on those who clung to the old form. Gregory
X read the letters of the Greeks at the Second Council
of Lyons, begging to be excused using the interpolated
Article without answering them, — “Because of his extreme
bitterness in beholding the rent of the Universal Church,
foreshadowed in the net of Peter the fisherman, that brake
for the multitude of fishes enclosed. We do not say
divided as regards its faith, but notoriously and lamen-
tably divided as regards its faithful members.’’
Nicolas III went further, and added that “ as unity of
faith could not consist with diversity in those that pro-
fessed .	.	. therefore, the desire of the Roman Church
was, that the added Article should be chanted uniformly
with the additional clause by the Greeks as well as the
Latins.” This was in effect deciding that the old form
of the Creed should be superseded ; but it was never car-
ried out. When the subject was revived at the Council
of Florence, Rome was more diplomatic than she had
ever been previously. No Creed at all was recited there,
nor was any hint dropped whether both forms conjointly,
or one without the other, should be considered the Creed
of the Church.
These various policies having to be reconciled with each
other, it was at length ruled by Clement VIII and Ben-
edict XIV, successively, that the Greeks were no heretics,
and that they should still be regarded as members of the
Roman Church. The representatives of the Greek Church
sat in the Council of Florence, debated and subscribed
on the same terms as the Roman. Pope Eugenius IV
told his legates: “ It is for the union of the Greek and
Roman Church, so long and ardently desired by us, that
you are sent.” And when he despaired of union he told36
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the Greeks: “ In what shall we be benefited if we fail
to unite the Church of God ? ’’ What, then, are the con-
clusions ensuing from the facts which have been adduced ?
First, that Rome has both erred from the faith in point
of dogma, and has .trifled with it in practice so often, that
her conduct has been a stumbling-block to Christendom
and occasioned a division of the Greek Church on doc-
trinal grounds. Secondly, that by allowing the primitive
belief of the Church to be stealthily supplanted by a
new belief based upon falsehoods, which she herself ac-
cepted without examination, and endeavored to make bind-
ing upon others by violence, she has occasioned a division
of the Greek and Roman Churches on disciplinary grounds.
In other words, that it is to the flagrant unfaithfulness
and injustice of her governmental policy, both as regards
doctrine and discipline, that secession from her communion
has been, and is still, due. Rome became a prey to dis-
sension, split into fragments, and had its own belief ques-
tioned retributively for its conduct toward the Greek
Churcfi, which it trampled on for upholding the original
belief of the Church.
THE REFORMATION.
When the Greek Church separated from the Roman
Church, the Greek constituted the majority by far; but
when Protestants' separated from Rome, the majority by
far sided with Rome. Adding to the Belief of the Church
produced the Greek schism, and subtracting from the
Belief of the Church the Protestant separation. The
Reformation was at once the avenger and logical offspring
of the schism between the Greek and Roman. Frederick
of Saxony, Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth,
together with Luther and Wickliffe, prescribed a BeliefEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
37
which Protestants accepted, as much as Charlemagne and
Henry II prescribed one which the Greeks rejected. The
Roman system might well be supposed to have adopted
a more confident tone since the Reformation, but the
closer it is scrutinized the further it is seen to be from
unhesitating and decisive. Those who had renounced their
Communion were invited to the Council of Trent, not to
be condemned, but to be heard.
If Luther was excommunicated twice, the Confession of
Augsburg has never as yet been anathematized. It might
be said that all this has been the effect of moderation
and paternal tenderness on the part of the Popes. One
of the most warmly-debated points in modern times has
been the power of the Popes and their true relation to
the Church. Who can fail to be struck with the absence
of any formal assertion on their part, that the terms
“Catholic” and “Roman Catholic” are strictly convertible?
The fact is, they have never striven to appropriate the
term “Catholic” pure and simple to their own Commun-
ion, but have commonly called it themselves, and been
content that it should be called by others, the Roman
Catholic Church, as being its strict and adequate title.
No doubt, the teaching of all those who obey them has
always been that the Catholic Church has a visible unity
upon earth, under the Pope. But all such teaching, read
by the light of their own admissions respecting the Greek
Church, is seen to be but a declaration of what ought
to be, not of what is; a picture of the ideal or of the
primitive, not of the actually existing Church.
Where, indeed, is the part of Christendom seriously
purporting to call itself the Catholic Church in these
days ? Protestant or Reformed Episcopal, Presbyterian or
Congregational, Methodist, Baptist, or Quaker,—all in38
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
their degree seem influenced by some hidden spell to
abstain from arrogating to themselves, or attributing to
each other, the epithet of “Catholic,” as it is applied
to the Church of Rome. It may seem useless to devote
any time to the discussion of a question so apparently
unimportant as the growth of a religious denomination;
but unnecessary as the examination into religious differ-
ences is, on general principles, there is in the present
instance a deep foundation in fact for the discussion.
Within certain limits it is undoubtedly safe to leave dif-
ferences of religious belief to take care of themselves.
But we sadly misunderstand the laws of human develop-
ment if we suppose that a vast and overshadowing system
like Roman Catholicism can be safely passed by in silence
and unconcern.	What applies to doctrinal differences
among Protestant denominations, does not apply to Roman
Catholicism. In point of fact, the Romah Catholic Church
aims at a spiritual and temporal sovereignty, which sep-
arates it in kind no less than in degree from other bodies
of the Christian faith. Recognizing no equal, and regard-
ing all forms of Protestantism since the Reformation as
so many phases of infidelity, Roman Catholicism comes
before us, not as a system claiming to be approved ac-
cording to its merits, but as a system claiming to be on
all subjects a supreme and infallible judge.
INTERNAL DIVISIONS.
Roman Catholics allege that they are at unity among
themselves. A little body like the Moravians could say
as much. I admit that the Roman system is admirably
organized, that centralization1 (which was in no way the
1 This centralization has been very diligently carried out. Not only
in early ages was one universal episcopacy insisted on, but in detailsEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
39
case in early ages) has been carried out with admirable
skill. That its leaders have known how to draw into its
effective force the means at its disposal, in an admirable
way, as to skill,—that it has used its power over the
populations to make kings and the civil power subservient
to it, — is all true. Every intelligent man is aware and
owns this. But there have been serious divisions within
itself, as Gallicanism, Jansenism, Jesuitism, Dominicanism,
and Franciscanism. It does not hold on some really
important points what its greatest doctors once held;
and as to many of its own dogmas, there have been
great changes. The seat of religious authority, in its
present form, dates only from the Council of Trent;
and upon the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
the Thomists and Scotists, Dominicans and Franciscans,
have been altogether divided. But the Papacy has suc-
ceeded in reducing them all to order. Centralized power
has prevailed.
As to infallibility, the Roman creed is not quite ten
years old at the present moment, and general councils
confirmed by Popes held to be in error. The Immaculate
Conception is eighteen or twenty years old, and Transub-
stantiation is some six hundred and sixty years. Pope
Pius IV added twelve new articles in 1564, and Pope Pius
IX two more in 1854 and 1870.	Still the Pope has suc-
ceeded in bringing all the Roman body into unity of
dependence on himself, and he can decree what he likes
%
as a matter of faith, but only for his own body. The
the process of centralization has been carried on. After canonization
of saints came in, prelates besides the Pope did it, till a decree of
a Pope in the Middle Ages appropriated it to the See of Rome. So,
with indulgences, all prelates gave or sold them. That, too, was ap-
propriated to the Pope.40
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Greeks reject his authority, and the Protestants look with
horror on his taking a place which belongs to God only;
—that is, the greater part of Christendom. No infallibility
can hinder differences so long as the human mind works.
The doctrine of the Greeks differs from the doctrines of
Rome, the Nestorians differ from both, the Jacobites
from all, and the Protestants from the system they have
abandoned.
This only proves that the Roman Church has failed in
hindering divisions and maintaining unity. The divisions
existed there before Protestants were there. With these
divisions the question is, What is the rule to judge which
is the right one? Not the authority of one giving itself
as the rule. That is what Rome does.
Divisions prove the infirmity of human nature, only that
it is much more excusable in Protestants just coming out
of the dark obscurity and superstition men were immersed
in during the Middle Ages than in Greece and Rome,
whose common starting point was pure Christianity. And
men must not suppose differences do not exist among
Romanists. The Dominicans resisted with all their force
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (lately
made by Pope Pius IX a matter of faith), so that there
was the most important body of Romanists (till the
Jesuits, the inventors and directors of the Inquisition, rose)
judges thus of heretical pravity, unsound on what is now
declared to be an article of faith. The Augustinians be-
lieve in predestination; the Roman Catholic priests deny
it. And so far did these disputes go that the Domini-
cans, in the Seventeenth century, charged the Jesuits with
maintaining the idolatry of the Chinese in their missions
in China. For years the inquiry was pursued before the
Pope, and the practices sanctioned by the Jesuits at lastEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
41
condemned by Pope Clement XI, in 1704.1 The decree
was mitigated in 1715. Now, the allowance of heathen
idolatry was a much graver difference than the details
on which Protestants differ, while agreeing in fundamental
principles.
Then there is an all-important difference on the subject
of authority and infallibility. It is a noticeable circum-
stance, that it was the same man, Bossuet, who wrote a
crafty book on the variations of Protestants, who led the
way in this important variation among Romanists, and
defended it against the attacks of Ultramontanes as they
are called, — that is, the extreme defenders of the Pope’s
claims. Ultramontane principles prevail now, but to this
day Gallican principles, which deny the Pope’s infallibility,
hold their ground in France and Germany. Disputes and
discussions belong to human nature, and where there is
more freedom for it, it appears more openly, as among
Protestants.	In Rome, though violent, it is more con-
nected with intrigues and less exposed to view. Unity
and catholicity do not exist.
But Romanists say that the Protestant system has
issued not merely in a multitude of sects, but in ration-
alism, so-called, and infidelity. I deny the statement alto-
gether. Infidelity is far more general in Roman Catholic
countries than in Protestant ones. It is more published,
perhaps, in Protestant countries, because there are more
intellectual activity and greater freedom. Not only the
1 The decree of 1715 allowed the Chinese to continue the worship
of their ancestors with gifts and burnings before them, and prostrat-
ing themselves, the principal worship of the heathen Chinese. Since
China has been opened to Europeans, they have found a great dragon
on the altar of a Jesuit church of that day, so that the Chinese
could worship that and the host at the same time.42
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
French Revolution was in a Roman Catholic country,
and spread its principles over such, but, in more modern
times, when the violent reaction against the Papal system
was over, Gregory XVI gives us this account in his
encyclical letter of 1832:	“We speak, venerable brethren,
that which ye behold with your own eyes, which therefore
we deplore with united tears. An unrestrained wickedness,
a shameless science, a dissolute licentiousness, are triumph-
ant. The sanctity of holy things is despised! ” After stat-
ing that the Church was exposed to the hatred of the peo-
ple, he adds: “The academies and schools resounded in a
dreadful manner with new and monstrous opinions, by which
the Catholic faith is no longer assailed secretly, but a
horrible and impious war is now openly waged against
it”; and then refers to attacks on the order of the Church
by members of the clergy and associations of them.
Roman Catholic countries are not more exempt from
infidelity than the Protestant. There is no one acquainted
with Roman Catholic and Protestant nations but knows
that faith and morality are more common in the masses
in Protestant than in Roman Catholic nations. Abject
superstition — devotion, if they please to call it so — is to
be found in the darker parts of the land in Roman
Catholic countries, and closely connected, very commonly,
with violence and corruption. The Italian brigands are
most devout; and in Spain, houses of ill-fame supply the
needed certificate of priestly absolution to commercial
travelers, who never trouble themselves with priests, when
these documents were needed for their journey off the
great routes. And no one can have been in Western
Papal Europe without knowing the universal spread of in-
fidelity, where there was any energy of civilization, and the
degradation and corruption which pervade those countries.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
43
They tell us the true Church is catholic, or universal,
in three several respects: as to persons, as to places, and
as to times. We	are told that it	consists	of	the most
numerous body of	Christians; that	is, it is	not	universal
as to persons. We are told it is more or less diffused
wherever Christianity prevails; that	is, it is	not	universal
as to places. In	fact, in many countries,	it	is a very
small minority. It is said that it constitutes the main
stock of Christianity; but if it is only the main stock,
it is not catholic. Every one who is acquainted with the
facts, knows that unity and catholicity are not to be
found embodied anywhere in Christendom. Whoever be
right and whoever be wrong, the unity does not exist
and the Roman or Latin body is not catholic because it
is Roman, and it is so constantly called by Popes and
Councils. When it insisted on Rome being supreme,
catholicity and unity departed, even iq outward form,
from Christendom.44
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
CHAPTER III.
TRADITIONS.
authority of tradition, unwritten or oral
:hing, arose from the controversy which
i place between the Christian Fathers and
Gnostics, Montanists, and Valentinianists1
of the early centuries. The Gnostics (Men of Knowledge)
first contended for some teachings delivered by tradition
and not contained in the Bible; the early Fathers re-
sisted this. When tradition was first spoken of by the
early Fathers, they used it as a testimony to confirm
teaching already in existence, and not as containing any
thing new. The Fathers used tradition with a good in-
tention, and their practice not only fails altogether as a
secure proof, but it condemns the traditions of Rome.
And we condemn the Romanists, because all their pecul-
iar teachings are novelties, the dates or gradual intro-
duction of them being historically demonstrable. Thus,
Purgatory was hinted at in the Fifth century; said to be
useful for very small sins in the Sixth, and then only
gradually grew up. Transubstantiation was never decreed
definitely until the Thirteenth century, and the contrary
1 The Gnostics, Montanists, and Valentinianists were called heretics.
They taught that there were two Gods, — a good and bad one, — and
pretended to some secret or concealed doctrine. The Romanist is
clearly on the ground the heretics were on.
aiiiiiniiiiijuuiiiiiminiiiHpf jr
to<EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
45
was taught by the most famous doctors previously. The
saints were prayed for, and not to, for centuries, so that
they had to alter the Roman liturgy to suit the change.
The Sacrifice of the Mass can be traced from the sacri-
fice of praise and thanksgiving (whence the word “Eucha-
rist”), but till very late, to its being the real sacrifice
of Christ, efficacious for the sins of quick and dead, and
the liturgy was changed accordingly. Romanists are now
in the position of the Gnostics of old, alleging tradition1
for new doctrines, which are not found in the Bible.
We can appeal to history and prove the introduction
of the particular doctrines they insist on, as novelties in
the Christian Church. The Romish Church cites the
Fathers, and it will be useful in many respects to refer
to them. The fact is, the Fathers argued as it suited
them at the moment. When the Gnostics pressed them,
they flew to tradition. The reasonings of the Fathers
will give us the worth of their testimony and how they
contradict, not each other merely, but themselves. Clement
of Alexandria resisted the Gnostics, who infested the
Church. He said to them that there were Christian Gnos-
tics, who, by temperance (a human thing) and prudence (a
Divine thing) arrived at Gnosis (knowledge), and thus
had got higher truths and intelligence to understand
what was concealed from vulgar eyes. Clement, after all,
was not very famous for orthodoxy. He was saturated
with Alexandrian Platonism, and used very awkward lan-
1 The traditions of the Roman Church fill one hundred and thirty-
five immense folios, all in the Latin tongue: one Papal Bulls, in
eight volumes; two Decretals, in ten volumes; the Fathers, in thirty-
five volumes; the Saints, in fifty-one volumes. The word “tradition”
is shamefully abused. Tradition means now what is handed down,
unwritten, from one to another.46
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
guage, so that the famous Romanist doctor, Petau, charges
him plainly with not speaking in an orthodox way.
Cyprian, whom the Romanists pass over quite naturally,
strenuously resisted all the pretensions of Rome till the
day he was martyred. Pope Stephen of Rome (253), not
being able to prove his point against him on a subject
of practice and discipline, appealed to tradition. Stephen
said: “ Let nothing be innovated on what has been handed
down” (tradition). Cyprian replied: “Whence is that tra-
dition?	What obstinacy is that [in the Pope], what
presumption, to prefer human tradition to a Divine dis-
position, and not to take notice that God is indignant
and angry as often as human tradition sets aside and
passes by Divine precepts ! ”
The testimony of the early Fathers is unanimous against
tradition as being superior to the Bible. Basil (Fourth
century) wrote nearly four hundred years after Christ,
when superstitions were creeping in and false doctrines
had made havoc of the Church. Men used to live in
sin, and wait till they were dying, to be baptized, in order
to get off quite clear. I do not mean that all did, but
adduce the fact to show the corruption that had come
in. Basil himself, too, became suspected of heresy. He
never would say the Holy Ghost was God.	The excuse
was, that if he had, he would have been driven from
his See, and the heretics would have had all his flock
in their power; so he avoided the word, but said what
was equivalent. Epiphanius (Fourth century) applies
also the authority of tradition only to practice; namely,
that unmarried persons who dedicated themselves to God
sinned if they married afterwards, and ought to be ac-
cepted as founded on tradition. He is reasoning against
those who forbade to marry, and says the Church approvedEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
47
marriage, but admired people not marrying, and then refers
to tradition as helpful in understanding the Bible. Ath-
anasius, Ambrose, Gregory Nyssa, Jerome, and Augustine
used the best grounds they thought they could find, and
when heretics, Popes, or councils, pleaded tradition, said
all- must be proved by the Bible. When religion became
a religion of ordinances, the traditions that were in vogue
for them became the groundwork of all the Christian
system, and the Bible disappeared. Chrysostom urges, with
all persevering eloquence and zeal, every body’s reading
the Bible; saying they were written by poor, uneducated
men, on purpose that they might be plain for such, and
that laymen occupied in the world had more need to read
them than monks or clergy. Augustine says, that if the
doctors of the Church go wrong, he is not bound by
them; and this is an additional proof of the uncertainty
of tradition. The primacy of St. Peter at Rome and the
Invocation of Saints is a question of tradition. The Nes-
torians refused to call Mary the mother of God,1 and the
Immaculate Conception is nothing but a tradition.
THE VIRGIN MARY.
It is the common doctrine that the Virgin has more
power in heaven than God, — that the mother can com-
mand her son. It is expressly founded on a mother hav-
ing pre-eminence and being superior to a son. The words
in Latin are “ Sequitur quod ipsa benedicta Virgo sit
superior Deo ” (It follows that the blessed Virgin herself
is superior to God). And so it is said that God has
reserved the supremacy of justice, but given up to the
Virgin the supremacy of grace. Thus, in “The Glories
1 The heathen, who had rejected the preaching of Christ, gave up
their temples in crowds when they had a woman to worship.48
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
of Mary,” by Ligouri, a sinner, after singing the “Hail,
Mary,” to an image of the Virgin, “saw an infant covered
with wounds streaming with blood ... he began to
weep; • but he saw the infant turning away from him .
.	. he had recourse to the most holy Virgin, saying:
‘Mother of Mercy, thy Son rejects me.’ The Virgin re-
proached him with renewing the Passion of Jesus. But
because Mary knows not how to send away disconsolate
a soul that has recourse to her, she turned to her Son
to ask pardon for that miserable sinner. Jesus still ap-
peared	unwilling to	forgive him;	but	the	holy Virgin,
placing the infant in the niche, prostrated herself before
him, saying: ‘Son, I will not depart from thy feet till
thou dost pardon this sinner.’ Jesus then said: ‘Mother,
I can refuse thee nothing. Thou dost wish me to pardon
him; for thy sake I pardon him. Make him come and
kiss my wounds.’ The sinner came, weeping bitterly, and
as he kissed the wounds of the infant, they were healed.
In the end, Jesus embraced him in token of his pardon;
the sinner changed his conduct, and afterwards led a holy
life, enamored of the most holy Virgin.”
It is for Mary’s sake that Christ pardons the sinner.
Their excuse is, that “Jesus	is	the only	Mediator of
justice	between men	and God	.	. .	but	because men
recognize and fear in Him (Jesus Christ) the divine
majesty	which resides	in Him	as	God, the	Lord wished
to appoint another advocate, to whom we could have
recourse with less fear and with more confidence. This
advocate is Mary.”	There is need, then, of a medium
with the Mediator himself! The images are the living
persons; they do not, as falsely alleged, merely recall
these. Real idols!	Mercy is in Mary, not in Jesus!
“She knows so well how to appease the Divine justice,EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	49
by her tender and wise prayers, that God himself blesses
her for it, and, as it were, thanks her for thus keeping
Him from abandoning them to the chastisements which
they deserve!” She is a mediatrix of justice, really, in
these stupid follies.
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
The early Fathers speak of prayers for the dead, not
of Purgatory. The dead were remembered in the sacri-
fice of the altar; but this had no possible connection
with Purgatory, for they named the patriarchs, apostles,
prophets, martyrs, and the Virgin Mary herself. It is a
curious fact, that these very prayers for the dead saints
were turned into prayers to the saints. These prayers
are found in all the ancient liturgies. Thus, in that as-
cribed to James: “Remember, Lord, the God of the spirits
of all flesh, the orthodox whom we have commemorated
and whom we have not commemorated, from righteous
Abel unto this day. Give them rest, there, in the land
of the living in Thy Kingdom, in the delight of Para-
dise, in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our
holy fathers, whence pain, sorrow, and groaning are
exiled, where the light of Thy countenance looks down,”
etc. And St. Chrysostom:	“ And further, we offer to
Thee this reasonable service in behalf of those who have
departed in the faith: our ancestors, fathers, patriarchs,
preachers, evangelists, confessors, virgins, and every just
spirit made perfect in the faith .... especially
the most holy, undefiled, excellently laudable, glorious
lady, the mother of God and ever Virgin Mary.”
Epiphanius specially remarks, that Christ alone, as testi-
fying to the glory of His person, was not prayed for.
4SO	FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
St. Gregory, who formed the Roman liturgy, will suffice:
“Remember, O Lord,	thy	servants	(male	and	female)
who have preceded us with the sign of faith, and sleep
in the sleep of peace. To them, and to all who are at
rest (quiescentibus) in Christ, we entreat Thou shouldest
grant a place of refreshment and light and peace.” Nor
is this all. In one of the decretals, after a long dis-
cussion whether the water as well as the wine in the
Mass is changed into blood, Pope Innocent III replies
to another question of	the archbishop	of	Lyons	why,
when in the ancient	liturgies, in a	part	of the	service
called the Secreta (where the name of the person in
whose honor the Mass was said was mentioned), it ran
thus:	“Grant, Lord,	that	this offering may profit the
soul of Thy servant,	Leo.”	It was	then	said:	“Grant
us, that by the intercession of thy servant, Leo, this
oblation may profit us.” Pope Innocent tells him that
Scripture says that it is injurious to the saints to think
they need to be prayed	for when they	are	in life.	As
to how the change came about, he says nothing; but in
looking for glory for the saints, it must be their being
honored among men, and refers to St. Augustine’s state-
ments, — calling it Scripture; thanksgiving for very good;
prayer for middling good, and solace to middling bad;
and tells the archbishop that whether it be so, he leaves
to him to investigate. Thus the liturgy was changed.
Still, the prayer for rest for those asleep in Christ re-
mains. I he force of this has been felt, and, in a modern
Roman Catholic Prayer Book, approved by the late Arch-
bishop Hughes, of New	York, it is said	to	be for	souls
in Purgatory, though it	is expressly for	all	who rest in
Christ — omnibus quiescentibus in Christo.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	51
PURGATORY.
But the greatest and most influential tradition of the
Roman Church is that of Purgatory. The Roman Church
teaches that there are two middle places, called Limbo
and Purgatory. The doctrine is confused enough. The
Hell to which the Saviour descended is said to contain
three places:	First, Hell proper, where the wicked are
tormented; secondly, the fire of Purgatory; lastly, a third
sort of receptacle is that in which were received the souls
of the pious who died before the advent of Christ. These
pious souls Christ liberated; for after all they were kept
in painful suspense (suspensi torquebantur) and miserable
wearisomeness (misera molestia). But here Purgatory is
a distinct thing. Christ brought to Heaven, according to
the	Roman Catholic doctrine, the holy	fathers and the
other pious souls freed from prison. But then, they do
hold that some were suffering the most acute torments,
as those in Purgatory do. Alphonsus de Castro and some
Roman Catholic bishops admit that there was nothing
about Purgatory in the early centuries; especially the
Greek Fathers and the Greek Church deny the doctrine;
and	passages	from	Tertullian, Cyprian,	Basil, Dionysius,
Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Hilary, and Ambrose may be
quoted, which plainly set aside Purgatory. Macarius puts
the three states: Guilty (the devil) takes it off the holy
servant of God; angels bring them to the Lord with all
his soul; He cleanses him in one hour, and takes him
unto His bosom and to see light. Thus Athanasius says
the	first pass	out	of this world into	everlasting rest.
Ambrose says	wise	men desire death as	a rest from their
labors and an end of their evils. Gregory Nazianzen says:
“ Nor beyond this night [of this life] is there any puri-
fying.” So the famous Cyril of Alexandria says: “ For He52
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
delivered His own soul into the hands of His own Father,
that we, taking our point of departure in it, and on ac-
count of it, may have splendid hopes, firmly feeling and
believing that we, having undergone the death of the
flesh, shall be in the hands of God, and shall be in a
far better state.” Hilary insists on all being settled at
death; for though judgment is to come, still the case is
settled in death. There is no putting off or delay, for
the day of judgment is the eternal retribution of blessed-
ness or punishment; but the time of death holds each
one meanwhile	by its own laws. Nor	do the	Roman
Catholics deny that those who go to Purgatory are for-
given and justified, and the principle of sin (peccati fomes)
is gone. It is penal suffering from God after guilt and
sin are wholly gone. I do not give the Fathers as my
authority, but as showing the common current belief; for
as to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is en-
tirely out of the question.
The Romanists teach that there are two kinds of sin
— mortal sin, which deserves Hell, and venial sin, which
deserves Purgatory. The Roman Catechism of the Council
of Trent contains the following:	“There	is also	the fire
of Purgatory, in	which the souls	of just	men are	purified
by a temporary	punishment, to	qualify	them to	be ad-
mitted into their eternal country, into which nothing de-
filing entereth.”1 2 (“Prceterea est Purgatorius ignis,'2, quo
piorum animtz ad definitum tempus cruciatce expiantur, ut
eis in cetemam patriam ingressus patere possit.”) It is
1	The words of the Catechism are given from J. Donovan’s — a pro-
fessor at Maynooth college — translation.
2	The words “purgantur” and “expiantur ” are used for clearing
the tormented souls from it, because Heaven can not be defiled.
But it shows the mere external character of the remedy of theirEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
S3
singular enough, this obscurity and inconsistency of the
Catechism of the Council of Trent on this subject. In
the article on the Descent into Hell, besides what I have
just quoted, after speaking of Purgatory, it is said: “The
third kind of abode is that in which were received the
souls of the just who died before Christ, and where, with-
out experiencing any kind of pain, supported by the blessed
hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. These
pious souls, then, who in the bosom of Abraham were
expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord liberated, descend-
ing into Hell.” Shortly after, in the same article, it is
said, speaking of the descent of the just: “They all
descended: some to endure the most acute torments;
others, though exempt from actual pain, yet deprived
of the vision of God and of the glory for which they
sighed, and consigned to the torture of suspense in
painful captivity.” Is being consigned to the torture of
suspense in painful captivity, peaceful repose in the bosom
of Abraham ?
The fire of Purgatory is the second thing. Limbus
Patram is the third kind of abode, where there was no
pain, but peaceful repose; yet some were there to endure
the most accute torments. In a further passage it is
said:	“And the souls of the just, on their departure
from this life, were borne to the bosom of Abraham; or,
as is still the case with those who require to be freed
from the stains of sin, or die indebted to the Divine
justice, were purified in the firq of Purgatory.” Hence,
the souls of the just, who were enjoying peaceful repose
idea of sin. It looks like quibbling on the Latin word “purgor,”
which means to put away, in the way of expiation, and not purging
of a soul. Expiantur is a sacrificial word, expressing the removal
of what, in any way, offends the gods, or is offensive in their sight.54
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
in the torture of suspense, must have been perfect souls;
the others were in the fires of Purgatory, as people are
now. The Jews’ belief is that Abraham descended, from
time to time, to deliver souls. Cardinal Bellarmine insists
that it is a material fire; — a strange thing for souls to
suffer from!—but what is more important, he declares
that the element of sin (the forties peccati) is gone by
death, because sensuality is extinguished; habits, not. But
they must soon be gone, too, — nay, at once, though that
is not the case in this life, because there will be no
contrary and resisting element as there is here; nor is
Purgatory for these habits, as adults who die directly
after baptism and martyrs do not go there. Yet, neither
baptism nor martyrdom destroys them. After reasoning
thus, and saying Purgatory was for none of these, he adds:
“There remain the penalties of guilt and venial sins, which
may properly be called the remains of sins, on which
account Purgatory is. But these remains, it is sometimes
certain, are purged in death. Sometimes it is certain they
are not purged; sometimes it is doubtful which happens;
and it is most probable they are partly purged and partly
not purged.”1 I cite this because it is thus clear, from the
highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church, that it
is not inward spiritual purifying, — for sensuality is ex-
tinguished by death, — not even habits, but the penalty of
guilt and venial sin. It is strictly penal and satisfactory;
and secondly, it is exactly for that (“the remains of sin,”
1 “ Restat ergo reatus pcenae, et peccata venialia, que proprie dici
possunt reliquiae peccatorum, ob quas est Purgatorium. Has autem
reliquias aliquando certum est in morte purgari: aliquando certum est
non purgari: aliquando dubium est, quid fiat, probabilissimum est,
partem purgari, partem non purgari.”—Bellarmine De Purg.: Lib. II,
Cap. IX, 7.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
55
which Extreme Unction1 takes away) that men go into
Purgatory.
“The pains of Purgatory,” says Bellarmine, “are most
horrible (atrocissimce). It can not be said how long they
last; they may diminish gradually.” This he proves by
visions. He enlarges upon the proofs of the horrible pains
compared with any thing here. In result for the slightest
faults (if Pope Gregory the Great is to be believed), and
with no view to purify from lust or sensuality (for that
is extinguished), justified, holy souls, in a state of grace,
are kept in torment as a mere penal satisfaction. The
Roman Catechism would lead us to conclude, that as there
were these pious people in Purgatory before Christ de-
scended, as well as saints in Abraham’s bosom,—though
in repose, —tortured by suspense, though sustained by
hope (a strange kind of repose), the other pious souls
not completely saints tortured horribly in the fire; so
when He descended, these last got off to Heaven as well
as the saints, properly speaking. We are not told who
finished their satisfaction for them, without which they
could not be clean. They were better off than those now
in Purgatory, any way. These, we are told, must pay
the last farthing, or they can not come out thence. Better
to have been a Jew, any way, than a Christian. However
that may be, it is to be taught that Christ the Lord
went down to Hell to liberate from prison those holy
fathers and the other pious persons, and brought them to
Heaven. Yet, those in Purgatory now enjoy the effects
of Christ’s expiation, are in a state of grace, and, Cardinal
1 “ Cujus unctu delicta, si quae sint adhuc expianda, ac peccati re-
liquias abstergit.” — Concil. Tridentini, Sessio XIV] De Sacr. Ex-
trema Unctionis, Cap. II. This is exactly what Bellarmine says
souls go to Purgatory for.56
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Bellarmine tells us, of their salvation, no principle of sin in
them; but there they must stay till they have made satis-
faction for their faults. The happier Jews of Old Testa-
ment times got clear without doing so; because what
Christ did was to impart the benefit of His Passion to
them, of which the Christians who have to stay enjoy
the benefit, but only to bring them into Purgatory; for
otherwise they would have gone into Hell. They are all
strange inventions, and hence confusion.
But the true source of Purgatory is a mixture of
Judaism and Platonism. Roman Catholic authors refer to
both as being the same doctrine, in substance, as the
Romanist doctrine of Purgatory. No one denies that the
modern idea of Purgatory is found no where so clearly
stated as in Plato. Cardinal Bellarmine, the Jesuit, and
the highest authority in Roman circles, appeals to Plato,
Cicero, Virgil, and the Mohammedans, to prove that it
is according to natural light.1 After a pretty elaborate
description of Hades, or the infernal regions, Plato says:
“These things being so, when those who are departed
come to the place where the daimonion carries each,2
first they are distinguished in judgment, both those who
have lived well and piously and righteously, and those
who have not; and those who have seemed to live
in a middle way having come to the Acheron, having as-
cended the vehicle for each, they come to the lake, and
there they dwell, and being purified and paying the penalty
1	“ If Plato (Plato in Georgia), Virgil (/Eneid I, 6), and other
heathens, ancient and modern, as likewise Mahomet (the Koran) and
his disciples . . . have embraced this doctrine, it only shows how
conformable it is to the dictates of natural religion.”
2	Daimon, with Plato, is an instrument of Divine agency, not bad
as such.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
57
of their unrighteous deeds, they are absolved, if any one
has acted unrighteously, and have the rewards of their
good deeds, each according to his desert. But those who
seem to be incapable of being healed, because of the
greatness of their sins,— having committed either many
or great sacrileges, or many unrighteous and illegal mur-
ders, or whatever else such-like they may be involved in,
— these a fitted fate hurries away to Tartarus, whence
they never get out; but those who have committed such
as may be healed, yet great sins, .	.	. are kept a year,
and, if need be, more, till they obtain release from those
they have injured for the wrongs done: for that is the
penalty adjudged them. . . . But those who are es-
teemed to have excelled as regards living piously,— these,
liberated and removed from their places on the earth as
from prisons, going away to the pure dwelling place,
dwell over the earth. And if these same [those who have
been adequately purified by philosophy] live without pain
all time hereafter, and come into a better habitation than
these, which it is not easy to describe.”
And again, “ If a soul depart in this state [a good one]
it departs to what is like itself, and invisible — what is
divine, immortal, and wise, and coming there, begins to
be happy, is freed from the contagion of human ills, and
is in the society of the Gods. But if it shall depart
contaminated out of the body, it will be, when separated,
impure.1 Those who have passed through life justly and
piously, when they die, go to the isles of the blessed, to
dwell in all happiness, without any evils. But he who
has lived unrighteously and without God, will go to the
prison of vengeance and punishment which they call Tar-
1 Plat. Phsed., sects. 118, 119; Eus. Praep. Ev. (553), Lib. XI, 27
to 38, from (568) Georgias, near the end, sects. 164, 168.58
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
tarus. But they who have committed the worst unright-
eousness, and on account of such unrighteousness can
not be healed any more, — of these examples are made.
These can not, indeed, any longer be helped who are
incurable, but	they help	those	who see them, when they
see them, for	their very	great	sins suffering most	painful
and frightful sufferings forever.”
All this was borrowed from Egypt, as different points
show, though	made up	into	Grecian philosophy;	as in
other parts we find him stating the Egyptian doctrine of
the transmigration of souls, accompanied with another doc-
trine greatly taught afterwards, that the soul existed before
and came down to dwell in the body, — two natures mak-
ing up one person, as will be found in the places I have
quoted from. But, though in a heathen form, we have the
Roman doctrine of saints who go to Heaven, the wicked
to Hell, and	a middle	class	to Purgatory. So	Virgil,1
when Aineas goes down to Hades, he is told by them
in Purgatory: “When life leaves with the last light [of
day], not yet is every evil over to the unhappy, nor all
corporeal infection2 wholly gone; and it is altogether nec-
essary that many things should have grown up as part
of ourselves in wonderful ways,3 therefore they are exer-
cised with penal torments, and pay the penalty of old
evils.” And then he speaks of different punishments
before they go to Elysium.4 And further, in the Odyssey,
1	In Dante’s “Inferno,” Virgil is made to be the poet’s “guardian
spirit” through the visit
2	Or evils; but Platonic doctrine makes the text, I doubt not, right.
3	This is also Platonic, and the same is found just before the
passage I have quoted from Eusebius.
4	But here, again, there is the Egyptian doctrine of transmigration.
This Christianity made them to suppress; the rest they retained.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
59
souls complain that sacrifices have not been offered for
them, to get them out of this place. Plato teaches the
pre-existence of the soul (Phasdo 223) and transmigration.
Only true saints, who had kept alone from every snare
of corporate existence, went, it is suggested, to God. So
did Pythagoras. Philo, the Jew, held the pre-existence of
the soul, as Plato, and that the air is full of daimonions
up to the moon; and the lower or inferior class were
disposed to be earthly and come into bodies.	This came
from Indian or Egyptian heathenism. And the great early
doctors of the Church, — Justin Martyr and Clement of
Alexandria, — were educated in Platonism. Origen,1 too,
embraced the whole system—Transmigration and the re-
newal of the whole series of the soul’s history in another
earth. Jerome and Ruffinus (Latins), and, even in part,
Ambrose followed Origen in a good deal, as did Gregory
Nyssa and many others in the East. Origen was fol-
lowed and defended till the fifth general council. Jerome
and Augustine, who hesitated about it all, led in the
notions of the Western Church. Augustine was a very bad
man, and, undoubtedly, became a truly great man; but
Jerome, saint though he be called, had an awful and
unsubdued temper, and was abusive and revengeful to
the last degree. However, he was a saint for Rome.
The doctrine of Purgatory had now come in, and soon
after, the dark ages, when wickedness, and corruption,
and superstition were at their height. They had to make
some other way of clearing themselves, and hence pen-
ances, and indulgences, and Purgatory. The early, learned
Fathers, who imprinted the character of their doctrines
1 These are the conclusions that Origen came to; for agreement
between the Fathers is the most ridiculous thing in the world to
talk of.6o
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
on the Church, lived at Alexandria. There was the great
Christian Catechetical school, and the principal of these
Fathers were its masters, as Clement and Origen; and
through these this mixture of Platonism and Judaism
flowed into the Church. Plato holds that the flesh is an
evil part of the nature, which infects the soul, and that
if it has wholly given itself up to vice, it would be given
up to punishment for the advantage of others, as an
example; if not, but still any had not kept themselves
free, they would be punished in Hades for a certain time,
proportioned to their unpurged stains; that there were
two instruments for the health of the body, — exercise
[gymnastics] and medicine, — and if the first was not suf-
ficient, the other was to be applied; that the spots of
the soul were like the colors after a wound when com-
pletely well; the soul, at the end of its purification and
punishment, would be rendered splendid and spotless.
That is simply Purgatory. Virgil enlarges a little on it :
Besides the torments of Hell, he states the same process
of punishment and purification; but he does not quite
finish them off then: he sends them to Elysium (a place
of blessedness), and then, after a length of time, the
hardened spots are wholly gone, and the ethereal soul
is left quite pure. Other fictions were added; the souls,
quite pure, according to Plato, went off to the stars,
according to their qualities, for they held the stars to be
living beings. Hades was placed by them under the earth,
and so by Romanists. This doctrine of Purgatory was
connected with the famous mysteries of Eleusis. It was
signified in the rites (says Plato) that he who was not
initiated, and the unperfected in them, would go to Hades
and lie in mire; but that the purified and the perfected
person, when he departed, would dwell with the Gods.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
6l
So they held that there were those who answered to the
Romish saints — the heroes who went to Heaven at once
and were eternally happy.
The real source of Purgatory is heathenism and Juda-
ism, which were associated at Alexandria, where the first
great doctors of the Church lived. At first it took the
shape of purifying all completely in eternal fire; but that
was not generally accepted. It then took the form of
prayer for all, and apportioned to all some punishment, at
the least the punishment of loss,—not seeing God; or
at any rate, were uncertain, and prayed for all, even for
the Virgin Mary, with a view to their speedily seeing the
face of God. But the idea of the purging process sur-
vived through, and in Augustine’s time was a question as
to which he doubted, —Jerome speaking with such uncer-
tainty, that he is accused of denying eternal punishment.
This was in the Fifth century. In the end of the Sixth
century, Gregory specifies the purifying very light sins.
With schoolmen it was, like other things, formed into an
elaborate system; but all this was only in Western
Christendom. Greek or Eastern Christendom has never
received the doctrine of Purgatory. It is the great doc-
trine’ of Romanism in connection with the Mass. It is
to get people out of it that Masses are constantly said.
The poverty of the system is shown, that after the use
of all the means the Roman system has at its disposal
(Absolution, the Viaticum, and Extreme Unction, which
wipes off the remains of sin), the faithful have to go to
Purgatory to get these remains of sin burned out of
them.62
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
CHAPTER IV.
HOLINESS —SAINTS AND MIRACLES.
ERE I am on painful and dangerous ground,
and I feel both the painfulness and the dan-
ger. But with the pretensions which are cur-
rent, and the deceitful statements of morbid
imaginations as to the Holiness of the Romish body, it
becomes necessary that those likely to be deceived should
know the truth. Not only is “corruptio optimi pessima
corniptio,” but the corruption of Rome was in itself worse
than any corruption that ever existed. As the imagination
of Roman Catholics is filled with an idea of the Holy
Roman Catholic Church, it is needful to turn to facts,
that we may know that what is called the Catholic
Church was the unholiest thing in the world; that it had
extinguished the truth, put to death the saints, and cor-
rupted morals till it became intolerable. It will be alleged
that there was always individual sanctity. Now, that there
were God’s hidden ones in all times is not to be doubted
for a moment. Still, it is beyond all question, that the
universal unholiness of the professing Church, and the
idolatry prevalent in Christendom, exposed those whose
consciences were oppressed by what was all around them
to fall into the snares laid for them by a corrupt
Church. The effect of this was, that Christendom was
composed of: first, unholy, iniquitous, and persecutingEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
63
orthodoxy (a few souls groaning under the state of things,
such as St. Bernard, who said, all that remained was for
Anti-Christ to come, and others, that he was born already
at Rome); secondly, of a vast number (for they filled
the country from Asia to Spain) who had fallen into
Manichean notions, and sought holiness by judging all
matter as itself unholy,' but whose devoted and blameless
walk won the confidence of the population, till they were
put down by fire	and sword;	and	thirdly,	of	a number
whose doctrines it is hard to discover, whose constancy
and blameless walk astonished conscientious men; and
lastly, of others who were counted only schismatics, whose
only fault was that they could not own the corruption
which reigned around them. One class or another of
these was spread all over Europe.	It is a sad history,
for they were all	hunted as	wild	beasts	all	over the
country, burned and tortured,	and	it is often hard to
ascertain what they really did hold.
The Inquisition was invented to put them down. Of
one large class, the Albigenses and the Waldenses (of
whom the former	were, as to	their	leaders	at	any rate,
more or less Manichean), the judgments at Toulouse may
be found in the end of Limborch’s History of the Inqui-
sition.1 There were those inside and outside the Romish
1 The Records of the Inquisition of Toulouse were published by
Limborch. The history of the Albigenses is full of interest. A man,
escaped from the Saracens, gave the Gospels and the Epistles of
St. Paul to a man who gave him hospitality. A very great awaken-
ing took place, and many companies of saints were gathered. The
Eastern Emperors attacked them, and unhappily they took arms, and
for long years they withstood the Greeks, but retreating into Persia
it seems they got infected with Manicheism, which joined with them
in rejecting images and superstition. At last, the Emperor made peace
with them, and transported them to Bulgaria, as a check against the64
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
body who sighed and groaned over the abominations that
were committed. It is evident by the sentences pro-
nounced by the Inquisition itself, that the Waldenses
were only schismatics. There were many of whom no
certain judgment can be formed, as may be seen by the
letter of Everonius of Cologne to Bernard. Those who
went to England, led by a certain Gerard, were, says
William of Neuberg, sound in substance as to the Su-
preme Physician, but rejected Roman superstitions as to
the Sacraments.1 The state of professing Christendom
was such that it gave occasion for convulsive efforts for
good, and for evil under protest of good. Waldo sought
what was good; and somewhat later, such men as Gerard
Groot, Thomas i-Kempis, and the fratres vita communis;
even Wycliffe, Huss, and Jerome; and, on the other hand,
there were the Brethren of the Free Spirit, who were
very bad; Beghards, Beguines, Lollards, whose real char-
acter it is often hard to determine.
But all these (generally persecuted indeed, were they
good or evil, if not subject to Rome) did not alter the
general state of Christendom, which had in every way
Northern hordes. Thence they spread through Lombardy to Spain.
There were two classes, the Albanenses and the Baioli. The former
held two principles, a good and an evil one; the Baioli not.
1 This all of them were accused of. In a general way they were
accused of denying marriage. But it is plain that it was only the
Romish sacrament as to it, which they denied, for their wives and
widows were spoken of. As those who went to and perished in
England, were Germans, and were pronounced sound in faith, proba-
bly those at Cologne, and in Germany elsewhere, were also. But it
is quite possible some, in breaking loose from the horrible iniquities
and superstitions of Rome and Romanists, may have been misled in
some points, too, by heresy. Everonius’ letter is interesting; there
is heart and conscience in it, though he saw them all burnt.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
65
become intolerable, though’nobody knew how to mend it.
The shameless corruptions of Rome are written on every
page of history. Wycliffe and Huss denounced the state
of things, and Wessal was put in prison. The Roman
Church refused their testimony to the evil, however
notoriously true; Huss was burnt for his pains, by the
Council of Constance, after it had pledged its faith to
him, because faith was not to be kept with heretics; and
Wycliffe, defended during his life by the Duke of Lan-
caster, had his bones dug up and cast away. There were
saints found outside of Rome who were generally perse-
cuted. The truest saints were hunted down on every
side, then burned by Rome’s prelates and Inquisition for
the truth they held, giving their lives rather than give
it up. And as to the kind of saints found in the Roman
Church,—those canonized by men,—the Greek Church
have a full complement of them, and some of them as far
from sanctity as need be, and those among the most
famous, too, as St. Cyril, a most violent and unprincipled
man; St. Jerome, the bitterest and most unforgiving and
abusive; others, as Cyprian, independent of and opposed
to Rome; or Augustine, who led the way in an African
council in excommunicating all who appealed to Rome
after they had decided any thing in Africa.
Rome’s pretension to have all the saints may do very
well for ignorant people, who know nothing about the
matter, but will not do for those who do. If a calendar
is a proof, the Greeks have about as full a one as Rome.
I do not know if they have St. Veronica. It is a curious
history. There was a story, as there are many such, that
some woman gave a handkerchief to wipe the face of the
blessed Lord on His way to Calvary; and, as a reward,
His likeness was imprinted on it. This was copied and
s66
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
sold everywhere in Italy. The* word “Veronica” is a cor-
ruption of true likeness, and then was taken to be the
name of a woman. And she is in the calendar, and
worshipped as such; and the handkerchief exposed to the
worship of the multitude at St. Peter’s at Rome.1
MIRACLES—A WITNESS OF HOLINESS.
Miracles are regarded in the Roman Church as historical
characteristics of holiness. First as to Martin of Tours,
the Apostle of Gaul. He lay on ashes, as he was, for
his bed, and covered with a sack and the like ; and when
he put his foot out of the cell, to go a couple of miles
to church, all those possessed with devils in the church
showed he was coming, though in different ways, so that
the clergy learned thus he was coming. “I saw [I quote
from Sulp. Sev., Dialogues, III, 6] one caught up in the
air as Martin was coming. Suspended on high, with his
hands stretched out, his feet unable to touch the ground,
Martin prayed, prostrate in sackcloth and ashes. Then you
might see the unhappy men cleansed by their going out
in different ways; these, their feet being carried up on
high, hang as if from a cloud, and yet their garments not
fall down over their face, lest the naked part of their
bodies should put people to shame.” So in Egypt. Two
friends went to see one of the anchorites. An enormous
lioness came and sought him, and they all followed her.
She took them to a cave, and they saw what was the
matter: five cubs were all blind. The anchorite stroked
1 “ Pope Urban erected a statue of the supposed Veronica, and an
altar. The superstition is a late one. Mabillon puts the scene in
Gethsemane; and Ducange, on the way to Calvary. In 1083 it was
alleged to have cured the Emperor Tiberius of leprosy. It is now
an object of gorgeous worship at Rome.” — Maitland, Catacombs, 260.68
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
some of all, and specially when he had the saints with him.
When Sulpicius Severus went to see him all was harmony,
and Martin was talking, and women’s voices within, for
two hours, while Sulpicius and Gallus were outside.
This turned out, as he told them after he came out
covered with ashes and filth, to be Agnes, Thecla, and
Mary (deceased persons held .to be saints). Then all of
a sudden a whole lot of devils came, Martin denouncing
them by their names. Jove, he said, was a brute and
stupid (bnttum et habetmn). They beset his dying bed.
“Why are you standing there, bloody beast?” he said.
“Thou shall find nothing, O fatal one, in me; the bosom
of Abraham has received me,” and so expired. Yet he
had promised pardon to the devil if he repented. The
devil was accusing some monks who had sinned after
baptism. Martin replied that crimes were purged by the
conversation of a better life, and God would pardon; and
then said to the devil, if he, as judgment was near, even
then left off following after men, and repented of his
deeds, he himself trusting in the Lord, promised him the
mercy of Christ. I might multiply stories; but this, surely,
is enough. He died in 402, or thereabouts. When he
dined with the emperor, he gave the cup to the presbyter
first, as superior to him. Such was the holiness of this
ascetic worker of miracles.
I may mention another, as showing the character of
the miracles and the credulity of men’s minds when once
this system was given in to. Paulinus,—the same that
complains of their mixing drunkenness with their cele-
bration of his patron saint, St. Felix,—relates that a
countryman had two capital bullocks; they were stolen;
the countryman sought them in vain; no marks were to
be found where they had been driven. He goes to theEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
69
said St. Felix, pleads with him to send the bullocks back;
that he had trusted him, he really had kept his bullocks,
and he was answerable for them; that, as he kept them,
he should hold him for being in league with the robber,
if he did not bring them back; that he saw and knew
all things, and, therefore, could do it, for he knew where
they were. He might pardon the robbers, but he must
have the bullocks; the pardon belonged to the saint, but
the bullocks to himself; he would not go after them, nor
leave the place; he would give up his life on the thresh-
old if he did not bring them back; and so spent the
whole day praying. The martyr heard him joyfully, and
laughed with the Lord at his reproaches. He helps him.
He is thrust away from the face of Felix to shut the
doors at night, and goes and lies down in his stable,
crying still on the saint; and frightened by a noise out-
side, there are the oxen come home without a guide.
It may be said this is only the credulity of a rustic;
but the account is of Paulinus of Nola, — a saint, a prelate,
and a correspondent of the famous Augustine. This was
the kind of sanctity now introduced. Paulinus’ was specially
shown in honoring St. Felix. He had festivals in honor
of his saint. But this change to honoring saints instead
of heathen demigods, thus systematically established, did
not change the habits. He deplores the votaries’ honoring
the saints with drinking bouts. Verum utinam sanis ager-
ant hoc gundia votis, nec sua luminibus miscerant pocula
sanctis.1 He covered St. Felix’s house with holy pictures,
1 However, he thinks such joys are to be pardoned, as error creeps
into rude minds; nor conscious of so great a fault, fails in piety in
fancying amiss the saint’s delight in it. (1.) Ignoscendo tamen puto
talia parvis. (2.) Gaudia qutz ducunt epulis, quia mentibus error.
(3-) Irrepit rudibus, nec tantce conscia culpa. (4.) Simplicitas pietate70
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
that the gaper may drink in sobriety, — forget too much
wine. He implores the aid of St. Felix directly, not
even his intercession, for sickness and a bad eye; he
calls himself ‘‘him that is thine”; he seems to make the
saints particularly efficacious wherever a part of their
body was.
It has been remarked by some one, that up to 350 the
heathen ridiculed the Christians for worshipping a dead
man; after that, for worshipping saints’ and martyrs’ tombs;
and Augustine tells us that, above all, the monks drove
a lively trade in relics. Within a few years, it was alleged
that the Virgin had visited a little peasant girl on a
mountain in France. The local prelate issued a pastoral
against it, but it was attractive. The government took it
up and proved the fraud in open court; but then the
wind turned round, and Church authorities made a great
deal of it, and pilgrimages were made there. In the first
life of Ignatius Loyola, by Ribadeneyra, there was no
limit of miracles 51 but when Ignatius was to be canonized,
t
cadit, male credula sanctos. (5.) Perfusis balante mero gaudere sepul-
cheris. Paulinus does not approve of this system of holiness; but it
was common, and the system which gave rise to it was approved by
Rome, as a system. In the well-known letter to Mellitus, Gregory I
desires Augustine not to pull down the temples, if well built, but to
sprinkle them with holy water, put relics of saints in them, and as
they were accustomed to slaughter many oxen in the sacrifice of
demons, the solemnity was to be changed somewhat.
1 It is a curious piece of Roman sign-making, and shows what
these things are really worth. In Ribadeneyra, the disciple and com-
panion of Ignatius himself, we find a long proof in the objection
that he did no miracles; that they were not to be as proofs. He
quotes Gregory, saying the proof of sanctity is not in doing signs.
Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssa, and Athanasius
wrought no miracles. All these are reasons for Ignatius not doingEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
71
the account of his life was full of them. Among the
rest he raised a hen, accidentally drowned, to life, Xavier
invoking him in India, and he remained in absolute celi-
bacy ever after; and Xavier routed a great army by his
presence. Francis Xavier, being a self-sacrificing man, his
life only proves the evil of the system he was in. He
carried on his work by the force of the arms of the
Portuguese. One of his miracles was Ignatius’ miraculous
appearance in India, leading the troops and routing the
infidels. The first multitude whom he is said to have
converted already called themselves Christians, but had been
made so by the arms of the Portuguese, without knowing
a word of what it meant. They did not understand a
word of the Portuguese, nor the Portuguese them. Xavier
got some who knew his and their language a little, and
translated the creed, the commandments, Lord’s prayer,
and a supplication to the Virgin ; learned them by heart
(though subsequent statements give him the gift of
tongues), himself, made them repeat them, and say, “Lord,
give me to believe,” and then a short word to the Virgin,
and then, as sufficiently tested, baptized them. It went
so far, both in the conduct and relapses of the converts,
that Ignatius himself was dissatisfied. He wrote: “Some-
times I baptize a whole city in a day. Much of this
success is to be attributed to the Viceroy of India. By his
endeavor we have now thirty cities of Christians on this
coast. He has lately given 4,000 pieces of gold to those
any. Two hundred well proved ones were produced for his beatifica-
tion, as is stated by the Pere Bonhours. It is a striking thing that,
whatever was the reason, Ignatius died without the Sacraments. It
is asserted that he died in terror; but it is certain that he died
without the Sacraments.72
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
who, with all diligence, profess the truth in the cities of
the Christians.” Xavier promoted in the same way the
Viceroy’s efforts, organizing expeditions, and enforcing the
Christians to behold Jesus Christ crucified before their
eyes during the battle. And he announced far away from
the scene: “Jesus Christ has conquered for us; the enemy
is routed with very great slaughter.” But he left India in
a few years disgusted, and avowing himself useless, went
to Japan.
Now as to some of the miraculous events: One night,
as he was praying to the Virgin, the devils attacked him
in crowds, and beat him so that he was half dead with
the blows, and forced to keep his bed for some days.
Ignatius Loyola himself is stated to have been horribly
beaten by devils so as to cry out, and another ran in
twice to see what was the matter, and then was forbid
to come. Xavier spoke so that in one sentence people
of ten languages understood him, all at the same time.
He sprinkled holy water on them and ordered them to
leave and never come back, and so it was. On a voy-
age a child fell into the sea. Xavier asked the Moham-
medan father if he would believe if his child were restored.
He said yes. Three days after, the child appeared on
the deck. Neither he nor any one knew whence he came.
Again, he gave a chaplet of the Virgin Mary to an in-
fidel. The ship was wrecked, and they made a raft; he
thought himself with Xavier, as in ecstasy; and. when
he recovered his natural sense, found himself safe on
shore and all his companions lost. It is said he raised
the dead several times. It is stated he spoke with
tongues; but it is quite certain, both in India and Japan,
by his own statement, that he used interpreters to beginEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
73
his work. His conversions were really none.1 He con-
verted a whole island and built churches, in some years,
and left; when gone, through the influence of the chief
of another island, the churches were pulled down, and all
turned idolaters again. The Portuguese sent an expedition,
and they all turned Christians again. That he was a
man of indomitable energy and rare courage, is unques-
tionable. But all his work in India and Japan, and in gen-
eral that of the Jesuits there and in Abyssinia, have come
to nothing. Where European dominion has been estab-
lished, the Roman Catholic system has continued, as in
Brazil and similar countries.
This is the kind of holiness that the Roman Church
has produced. It is impossible to have a more eloquent
description of Romish holiness than the efforts to keep
Jerome’s name among the saints. He sought to over-
come his nature, there is no doubt. He fasted exces-
sively, lived in grime and filth, did every thing possible to
subdue flesh by flesh’s efforts, but nature is not over-
come thus. Roman Catholics declare that he was very
little exact in stating things as they were, following more
his own ideas than the truth. These, however, they say,
are only the defects of a great genius. But he did not
weigh what he said, and, what is to be more regretted,
attacked St. Chrysostom; indeed, whoever he found as an
adversary was the basest of men; he had too great an
1 In writing to Francis Henry, a missionary desponding in the
work, and thinking of leaving:	“You profit more than you think in
preparing infants, diligently obtained, for heaven by baptism; for if
you are willing to look round in your mind, you will find that out
of the Indians, white or black, few come into heaven but those who
depart this life under fourteen years of age, in the innocence of
baptism.”—Epist. II, 24.74
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
idea of his eloquence, shows it, was jealous and envious,
so as to wound his greatest friends and alienate them.
It is hard not to recognize that he had in his natural
character a sourness and bitterness which pained many.
He was soon on fire when offended, and did not easily
pardon. Are we to say, they ask, if so many saints
who have admired him, and the Church who honors him
amongst its saints and doctors, have been deluded, a
humble son of the Church can not say that St. Ambrose,
St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, are excellent models of a
perfect virtue to animate us to imitate them ? But others
have had great sins, as David. We may say, even, that
the	defects of Jerome are	useful,	as teaching	us	what
the	substance (le fond) of	virtue and Christian	piety is.
For	if it consisted in an even and	uniform life,	in	which
few faults are committed, one would have to prefer
Rufenius to him. But the	Church	leaves him	to	God’s
judgment, and has always had the greatest respect for
Jerome. Not the services he has rendered the Church
by his labors (he corrected the translation of the Scrip-
tures); these are not virtues. Catholic historians can see
that in his case his austerities would not do. Doubtless,
he says, they were useful to him (which his own account,
by the by, does not show, though I do not question their
sincerity in seeking to maintain incorruptness in celibacy,
which he held the highest of virtues); yet, if we had
nothing else to praise in him, we should have reason to
fear they had rendered him proud, and had been the
cause of that severe and critical spirit which some have
blamed in him. They then show what they think proof
of what constitutes a saint: First, his love of his soli-
tary life and poverty, though he could have enjoyed the
favor of Pope Damasus and the wealth of Saint MarcellaEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
75
and Saint Paula, two rich women who admired him
greatly; and his fleeing those who honored him, humility
which was shown in not exercising the functions of priest
for which he had been brought up; his eleemosynary
charity and laborious service for others, when he might
have been glad to be writing; they like his anger against
his heretical adversaries, and his conduct in exalting St.
Augustine, when he might have seemed a conspirator, the
more so as he had quarreled with him. Jerome’s lan-
guage, particularly against those who deprecated monkish
sanctity, saint and image worship, was regular billingsgate;
for that is really the only word to describe it by. The
Church makes a saint of him in these words: “ The
Scripture does not call him alone happy who is without
spot and does not sin; but, moreover, him to whom God
does not impute sin, because he hates it by a pure and
sincere love of righteousness, and that he covers it by
the nuptial robe of Charity, which covers a multitude of
sins.”
Another painful question may be asked: Why bring
all this failure up, if things are changed ? Is there such
vice now ? Has the Romish body the “ vote of holiness ” ?
The facts are every thing. It certainly has not. There is
no doubt that the light and spiritual energy of the
Reformation caused a certain amelioration in Rome; but
I still must say, that where the action is not decidedly
felt, it is not changed. Mr. Froude, whose hard-riding
imagination had made a picture of mediaeval holiness, was
checked by the degeneracy he found in Italy. We have
seen what they degenerated from. I have known a good
deal by personal experience in several countries, and a
good deal more by that of others; and I believe that in
principle and practice there is no change, though there76
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
may be more concealment. It is thought infidelity is
found among Protestants especially. It is a mistake;
more, I believe, in the bosom of what is called Catholi-
cism ; but not published, as among those called Protestants.
Go to France and Italy, and see the state of men, in
towns especially.
THE CONFESSIONAL.
Auricular confession, so far as the priests are con-
cerned, has three objects in view, viz:	First, money;
second, secret information; and third, a substitute for
matrimony. The first is a great source of revenue to
the Church, by which the contributions of one hundred
and ninety millions are poured into the common treasury.
It is very largely through the Confessional that marble
cathedrals are built, costly altars erected, expensive robes
provided, and the vast resources of the papal system in-
creased annually almost beyond conception. Millions and
millions of dollars are received at Confession every year
for Indulgences, Extreme Unction, Baptisms, and Absolu-
tions from sin.
Then, secondly, it is a means of obtaining a
knowledge of the secrets of employes and employers,
parents and children, husbands and wives, rulers, citizens,
and political parties. Here lies the secret of the power
possessed by the Roman hierarchy over every department
of national, state, and municipal governments. It becomes
a secret detective bureau in any great crisis of national
election, managing caucuses, influencing congress, and par-
alyzing Protestant agencies. There is no privacy of the
home no matter how sacred, and no thought or desire
of the soul ever so delicate or shameful, but what must
be confessed to the priest. And in giving the penitentEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
77
absolution, the confessor has power to make sins virtues
and virtues sins. The six thousand priests hear the con-
fession of about every sixth woman, wife, and daughter
in the country. They confess to them the secrets of their
own hearts, the secrets of their families, their husbands’
secrets, and their own secret desires, loves, hopes, and
fears.
And then again, thirdly, the Confessional makes it
easier for the priestly confessor to love without entering
into the relation of a legally married life. He has abso-
lutely in his power the female penitent, her intellect,
conscience, and affection. He has a right to say what-
ever he sees fit to her, or require her to do, however
wicked and abominable in itself. He has command of
her fortune, her husband’s fortune, and she loves and
reveres him, though he may be base and vile, because
she thinks he can forgive her sins or make them virtues.
When she has much to confess, and is very devotional,
and he has much to hear and forgive, the intimacy is
necessarily very close. It sometimes happens, oftener than
is known, that he discovers that the relationship between
her and her husband is not the true relationship of hus-
band and wife, and the wickedness and sin which are
possible to a priest holding so dangerous a power over
superstitious women is enough to make any man shudder
at the bare suggestion. Should the real state of things
by possibility become known to the husband, he may be
too good a Romanist to make a public scandal. If he
should complain to the bishop of the conduct of the
priest whose zeal for the holy Catholic Church has been
so great, the priest would be removed to another parish.
According to Pascal and Chiniquy, very few if any cases
of excommunication for immorality can be found. Should78
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the pious penitent, whose earnest devotion has so often
melted into love and tears in the sanctuary of the Con-
fessional at the feet of her divine confessor, happen to
be an attractive, young, unmarried woman, the result
would be the same, minus the complications of a husband
and family, and the orphan asylum, for which the black-
robed sisters beg so assiduously, instead of the husband,
would take the care and education of the children, and
the pious penitent would go to a nunnery, or be pro-
moted as mistress of a bishop, perhaps, and be supported
at the expense of the irresponsible treasury of the Church
on the proceeds of the Confessional.
Father Chiniquy gives cases of this kind exactly. He
says: “I solemnly in the presence of God, who ere long
will judge me, give my testimony on this grave subject.
After twenty-five years’ experience at the Confessional, I
declare that the confessor himself encounters more terrible
dangers when hearing	the	confessions	of	refined and
highly educated ladies	than	when listening	to those of
the humbler class of his female penitents.” In this sol-
emn manner he gives	the	confession of	a	dying priest,
and says: “That the number of married and unmarried fe-
males the dying priest had heard in the Confessional was
about fifteen hundred, of whom he said he had destroyed
or scandalized at least	one	thousand by	his questioning
them on most depraved things, for the simple pleasure
of gratifying his own corrupted heart, without letting
them know any thing of his sinful thoughts and criminal
desires towards them. But he confessed that he had de-
stroyed the purity of ninety-five of those penitents, who
had consented to sin with him.” Of the Irish Romanists
he says: “Why is it that the Irish Roman Catholic peo-
ple are 60 irremediably degraded and clothed in rags ?EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
79
The principal reason is the enslaving of the Irish women
by means of the Confessional. Every one knows that the
spiritual slavery and degradation of the Irish woman has
no bounds. After she has been enslaved and degraded,
she in turn has enslaved and degraded her husband and
sons. Ireland will be an object of pity; she will be poor,
miserable, riotous, blood-thirsty, degraded, so long as she
is ruled by the father confessor planted in every parish
by the Pope.”	,
At the Confessional Romanism clutches brain and con-
science, and utilizes the piety, passions, and pocket of the
penitent to build up and keep up, from century to cen-
tury, its system of power and	crime. It subjugates	and
enslaves woman, the	mother	of men.	It corrupts	the
source of life. It insures the transmission of slavish sub-
mission and degradation from mother to sons and daugh-
ters; and thus pulls down and holds down to its low
level a race, from generation to generation, by degrading
the mothers of the race. The generations of conquered,
enslaved, subjugated, imbecile women of Catholic Spain,
Italy, Ireland, and South America have made the Catholic
men of those countries what they are, cringing, degraded,
poverty-cursed slaves. And so of every other country
where Romanism has had sway. This has been the
natural hereditary result. It could not be otherwise. A
stream can not rise higher than its fountain. One-sixth
of the women in the United States attend the Confes-
sional. Rome expects	to conquer the	republic at	the
Confessional, by the	triumph	of the	priest over	the
women. See as authorities, “Pope or President?” Denis’
“Moral Theology,” Vol. VI., p. 123. Liguori, Vol. II., p.
464, “Gavin on the Popish Church,” Rankin’s “History
of Popes,” “Egaris’ Variations,” Dowling’s “History of8o
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Romanism,” and Father Chiniquy’s “The Priest, The
Woman, and The Confessional.” In Peter Denis’ “The-
ology,” the doctrine is distinctly laid down, that a priest
may be a libertine without forfeiting his priestly office,
even if the fact should become known. (See Denis, Tome
V., p. 287.) The author of the “Pope or President”
gives pages of facts and examples from the history of
Romanism to show that practically Denis’ morality is still
that of the Roman Church.
t
I will now give quotations in Latin, taken from Roman
Catholic authorities, for the direction of confessors on
what matters to question their penitents.
Denis, a distinguished Roman Catholic theologian and
casuist, wants confessors to question their penitents on
the following matters:1 —
1.	“ Peccant uxores, quae susceptum viri semen ejiciunt vel
ejicere conantur.”— Vol. VII,; p. ipj.
2.	“ Peccant conjuges mortaliter, si, copuli incepti, cohibeant
seminationem.
3.	“ Si vir jam seminaverit, dubium fit an femina lethaliter
peccat, si se retrahat a seminando; aut peccat lethaliter vir non
expectando seminationem uxoris.” — Vol. VII, p. 153.
4.	“ Peccant conjuges inter se circa actum conjugalom. Debet
servari modus, sivi situs; imo ut non servetur debitum vas, sed
copula habeatur in vase praepostero, aliquoque non naturali. Si
fiat accedendo a postero, a latere, stando, sedendo, si vir sit
succumbus.”— Vol. VII, p. 166.
5.	“ Impotentia est incapacitas perficiendi, copulum carnalem
perfectam cum seminatione viri in vase debito seu, de se, aptam
generationi. Vel, ut si mulier sit nimis arcta respectu unius
viri, non respectu alterius.” — Vol. VII, p. 273.
6.	“ Notatur quod pollutio in mulieribus possit perfici, ita uta
semen earum non effluat extra membrum genetale. Judicium istius
allegat Billuart, si scilicet mulier sensiat seminis resolutionem
1 The English translation will be supplied to any responsible per.
son on receipt of five dollars.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
81
cum magno voluptatis sensu, qua complete, passio satiatur.” —
Vol. IV, p. 168.
7.	“Uxor se accusans, in confessione, quod negaverit debitum,
interrogetur an ex pleno rigore juris sui id petiverit.”—Vol. VII,
p. 168.
8.	“ Confessor pcenitentem, qui confitetur se pecasse cum sacer-
dote, vel solicitatam ab eo ad turpia, potest interrogare utrum
ille sacerdos sit ejus confessarius, an in confessione solitaverit.”
— Vol. VI, p. 294.
St. Liguori. — Other points for examination in the Con-
fessional.
1.	“Quasrat an sit semper mortale, si vir imitat pudenda in
os uxoris ?
“ Verius affirma quia, in hoc actu ob calorem oris, adest prox-
imum periculum pollutions, et videtur nova species luxurias con-
tra naturam, dicta irruminatio.”
2.	“Eodem modo, Sanchez damnat virum de mortali, qui in
actu copulse, immiteret dignitum in vas prseposterum uxoris; quia,
ut ait, in hoc actu adest affectus ad Sodomiam.”—Liguori, Vol.
P- 935-
The Right Reverend Burchard, Bishop of Worms, com-
posed a book of questions to be put to both sexes. The
following to young men: —
1.	“Fecisti solus tecum fornicationem ut quidam facere solunt;
ita dico ut ipse tuum membrum virile in manum tuam acciperes,
et sic duceres prseputium tuum, et manu propria commoveres,
ut sic, per illam delectationem semen projiceres ?
2.	“Fornicationem fecisti cum masculo intra coxes; ita dicto ut
tuum virile membrum intra coxas alterius mitteres, et sic ag-
itando semen funderes ?
3.	“Fecisti fornicationem, ut quidem facere solent, ut tuum
virile membrum in lignum perforatum, aut in aliquod hujus modi
mitteres, et, sic, per illiam commotionem et delectationem semen
projiceres ?
4.	“Fecisti fornicationem contra naturam, id est, cum mascu-
lis vel animalibus coire, id est cum equo, cum vacca, vel asina,
vel aliquo animali ? ” — Vol. I, p. 136.
682
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Questions for women : —
1.	“Fecisti quod quaedem mulieres solent, quodam molimen,
aut machinamentum in modum virilis membri ad mensbram tuas
voluptatis, et illud lodo verendorum tuorum aut alterius cum
aliquibus ligaturis, ut fornicationem facereres cum aliis mulieribus,
vel alia eodem instrumento, sive alio tecum ?
2.	“Fecisti quod quaedem mulieres facere solent ut jam supra
dicto molimine, vel alio aliquo machinamento, tu ipsa in te solam
faceres fornicationem ?
3., “Fecisti quod quaedem mulieres facere solent, quando libidi-
nem se vexantem exuiquere volunt, quae se conjugunt quasi coire
debeant ut possint, et conjugunt invicem puerperia sua, et sic,
fricando pruritum illarum extinguere desiderant ?
4. “Fecisti quod quaedem mulieres facere solent, ut suc-
cumberes aliquo jumento et illiud jumentum ad coitum quoli-
cumque posses ingenio, ut sic coiret tecum ? ”
Debrbyne’s questions to young men:—
“Ad cognos cendum an usque ad pollutionem se tetigerent,
quando tempore et quo fine se tetigerint; an tunc quosdam motus
in corpore experti fuerint, et per quantum temporis spatium ;
an cessantibus tactibus, nihil insolitum et turpe accideret; an non
longe majorem in compore voluptatem perceperint in fine tactuum
quam in eorum principio; an turn in fine quando magnam de-
lectationem carnalem sensuerunt, omnes motus corporis cessaverint;
an non madefacti fuerint?”
Debr^yne’s questions for young women : —
“Quae sese tetegisse fatentur, an non aliquem puritum ex-
tinguere entaverint, et utrum pruritus ille cessaverit cam mag-
num senserint voluptatem; an tunc, ipsimet tactus cessaverint?”
The Right Reverend Kenrick, late Bishop of Boston,
Mass., has the following among thousands equally bad
or worse:-—
“Uxor quae, in usu matrimonii, se vertit, ut non recipiat semen,
vel statim post illud acceptum surgit ut expellatur, lethaliterEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
83
peccat; sed opus non est ut diu resupina jaceat, quum matrix,
brevi, semen attrahat, et mox, arctissime clandatur.” — Vol. Ill,
P- 3H-
“ Pullse patienti licet se vertere, et conari ut non recipiat
semen, quod injuria ei immittitur; sed, exceptum, non licet ex-
pellere, quin jam possessionem pacificam habet, et haud absque
injuria naturas ejiceretur.”— Vol. Ill, p. 317.
“ Conjuges senes plerumque coeunt absque culpa, licet con-
tingat semen extra vas effundi; id enim per accidens fit ex
infirmitate naturas. Quod si veres adeo sint fractse ut nullo sit
seminandi intra vas spes, jam nequeunt jure conjugii uti.” —
Vol. Ill, p. 3n,84
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
CHAPTER V.
THE PRIESTHOOD.
|HE Roman priesthood became an immense sys-
! tem in the early centuries, by making large
|| concessions to pagan usages. The Romans
| were passionately fond of festivals and pro-
cessions. The Saturnalia and other feasts were at the
end of December. Christmas1 was fixed there. The Luper-
calia in the end of January; it was a feast of purification.
The purification of the Virgin Mary2 was fixed there.
St. Peter de Vinculis replaced Augustus Caesar. Christians
went to the heathen feasts, as Augustine, Chrysostom,
and many others testify. They resisted, as in the case
of Pope Gelasius and others; and when paganism fell and
1	“ The feast now celebrated at Christmas (the very evergreens are
Pagan) was the expression of one of the worst principles of heathen-
ism— the reproductive power of nature, celebrated at the return of
the sun from the winter solstice. The Hindoos celebrate their Utta-
rayana at this time; have their twelve days, sending of presents, and
wishing many happy returns. So the heathen Romans, so the Teu-
tonic nations.”—Wilson's Religious Festivals of Hindoos, //, 74.
2	The influence exercised by the worship of the Virgin was the
great element of force made use of by the priesthood to conquer
the resistance of the last Pagans. After the Council of Ephesus,
which decreed that Mary was the mother of God, we see in Sicily
its eight finest Pagan temples become in a very short time churches
under the invocation of the Virgin.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
85
the populations entered in crowds, they gave them Christian
festivals, so-called, to replace the heathen ones. It is the
establishment of an immense system,—paganizing Chris-
tianity, first in doctrines, in Alexandria, then in cere-
monies everywhere.
Gregory Nyssen, in his life of Gregory Thaumaturgus,
says:	“ But when, with the Divine help, that tyranny
had been overthrown, and peace had again accepted human
life, service towards God, which lay before them, was free
to every one, according to his ability; descending again
to the city, and going round the whole district in a circle,
he made an appendage for the people everywhere to their
divine service. Having instituted the general assemblies
for those who had been in the combat of faith, and as
they had taken away different persons to different places,
the bodies of the martyrs going round in a procession,
they celebrated festivities in a yearly anniversary, holding
a general assembly to the honor of the martyrs. For,
indeed, this was a demonstration of his great wisdom,
that, remodelling to a new life, in a mass, the whole gen-
eration of his day, set as a charioteer to nature, submitting
them securely to the reins of faith and the knowledge of
God, — he allowed what was subject to the yoke of faith
to caper a little in enjoyment. For, perceiving that the
childish and uninstructed mind of the many remained,
through bodily hilarity and enjoyments, in the errors of
idols; that the principal thing with them should be specially
set right, — their looking to God, instead of vain objects,
for worship, — he allowed them to make merry at mem-
ories [tombs or places consecrated to them] of the martyrs,
and to enjoy themselves, and to celebrate festivities, that
some time or other their life might be changed to what
was more seemly and exact.”86
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
It is said he left only seventeen heathen at his death.
This part of the history gives the decay in doctrine and
spiritual state, till on the fall of paganism its ceremonies
and feasts were deliberately transferred to the Roman
Church. Many went on with their heathenism. This was
condemned by the hierarchial authorities, but long perse-
vered in. Gregory I condemns it in England, but directs,
as Gregory Thaumaturgus did, similar feasts among the
professing mass that had been brought in, to keep their
fleshly minds contented.
PRIMITIVE PRIESTHOOD—SECULAR AND DRUNKEN.
Cyprian (251), when accounting for the Decian perse-
cution, says it is only too light a chastisement (“ Exploratio
potuis quarn persecutio videretur”). All were devoted to
increasing their patrimony. There was no devoted religion
in the priests, no upright faithfulness in ministers, no
piety in works, no discipline in morals; men’s beards
false, women’s faces painted, eyes adulterated from what
God had made them, their hair falsely colored, cunning
frauds to deceive the hearts of the simple, artful deceit
(,subdola voluntatis) in circumventing brethren, marriage
with unbelievers, prostituting to gentiles the members of
Christ; not only rash swearing, but perjury, too; despis-
ing authority with haughty pretension, to speak evil with
poisoned lip one’s self; mutual discord, with pertinacious
hatred. Very many bishops, who should be an exhortation
and example to others, despising their divinely-committed
service (divina procurations), make themselves agents (pro-
curatores) of secular affairs, leave their See, desert the
people, wandering through others’ provinces, hunt after
markets for gainful traffic.—De Lapsis, 124. Fell's Oxford
edition.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
87
Jerome (394) says: “It is shameful to have to say
the priests of idols, buffoons, charioteers, harlots, receive
inheritance; to the clergy and monks alone it is for-
bidden by law, and prohibited not by persecutors, but by
Christian princes.” Nor does he complain of the law,
but that they should have deserved it. “The cantery is
good, but now the worst is that I should need the can-
tery. The provisions of the law are careful and severe,
and yet thus avarice is not restrained. The glory of a
bishop is to provide for the wants of the poor. The
disgrace of all priests is the pursuit of their own wealth.
Born in a poor home, and in a rustic hut, who could
scarcely satisfy my clamorous stomach with millet and the
coarsest bread, I now turn up my nose at the finest flour
and honey. I know the kinds and names of fishes. I
am thoroughly au fait as to what shore shell-fish are
found on. I discern the provinces birds come from, by
their savor. I hear, moreover, of the base service of cer-
tain to old men and old women without children. They
put the chamber-pot beside the bed, take away with their
own hand the purulent matter from the stomach and
pfilegm of the lungs. They are full of fear at the arrival
of the physician, and, with trembling lips, inquire if the
patient is better; and if the old person is a little more
vigorous, they are in danger, and pretending falsely joy,
— the mind, inwardly, avaricious, is tortured; for they fear
lest they should lose their pains, and compare the living
old body to the years of Methuselah.—Epist. ad Nepotia-
num /, ii: Valarsii. Ed. /, 261.
Drunkenness, Augustine tells us, was universal. The
clergy had lent themselves, he tells us, to the evil habits
of heathens, continuing among Christians in order to win
and keep them. He did not, — he was a godly, faithful88
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
man,—but put it down with danger to himself (Epp■
XXII, XXIX. Ed. Ben.). It had reigned in other places
{Epp. XXII). He would have the Africans set an ex-
ample, but at any rate they should follow it. These are
his words in Letter XXIX:	“ But lest they who pre-
ceded us and permitted, or did not dare prohibit, the
manifest crimes of the inexperienced multitude, should
seem to have some opprobrium cast on them by us, I
explained to them by what necessity those things had
arisen in the Church [getting drunk in Church at the
martyrs’ festivals], namely, that when, after so many per-
secutions and so vehement, it would be a hindrance, when
peace took place, to the crowd of gentiles desirous of
coming to the Christian name; that they were accustomed
to pass festal days with their idols in abundance of feasts
and drunkenness, nor could easily abstain from these very
pernicious and yet very ancient pleasures: it seemed to
those of old that they should spare for the time this
part of infirmity, and celebrate, not with like sacrilege,
although with like luxury, other festal days after those
which they had relinquished; that now, bound together
as they were by the name of Christ, and subjected to
the yoke of so great authority, salutary precepts of so-
briety would be delivered to them, which, on account of
the honor and fear of him who gave them, they would
not be able to resist; as to which it was now time that,
as those who did not dare deny their being Christians,
they should begin to live according to the will of Christ,
and that those things which were yielded to them that
they might be Christians, they should reject, now they
are so.”
Many said their fathers were good Christians, and did
so. However, in that place, Augustine succeeded. ButEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
89
here is a really holy man, — the great light of the West,
— alleging that they had deliberately let the people be
drunk in honor of the martyrs, that they might not in
honor of idols.
MEDIAEVAL PRIESTHOOD —CELIBACY AND FORNICATION.
This was the primitive priesthood, ante-Nicene and post-
Nicene. From this we pass gradually into the mediaeval.
It was a space of nine hundred years, dark — confessedly
dark—for the Roman priesthood. In the end of the sec-
ond and in the third century, it had become a common
habit for the clergy, under pretext of purity, unmarried,
to live and sleep with unmarried persons, consecrated also
to celibacy as above all passion. Hermas, amongst others,
alludes to it thus (the shepherd had commended him to
the virgins who were there):	“I	said, ‘Where shall I
tarry?’ They ■ replied: ‘Thou shalt sleep with us—as a
brother, not as a husband; for thou art our brother, and
we are ready henceforth to dwell with thee, for thou art
very dear to us.’ Howbeit, I was ashamed to continue
with them. But she that seemed to be chiefest amongst
them embraced me and began to kiss me, and so did the
rest. When the evening came on, I would forthwith
have gone home, but they withheld me, and suffered me
not to depart; therefore I continued with them that night
near the same tower. So they spread their linen garments
on the ground, and placed me in the middle; nor did
they any thing else — only prayed.”
In 953 Ratherius, Bishop of Verona and Liege, charges
the clergy with universal incontinency; some being many
times married, a warrior, perjurer, heretic, gambler, and
drunkard. Such a shame to the whole Church could not
be a rebuker of others. He says, in his Itinerary (Fleurygo
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
XII, 193), he held a synod to correct this, but the clergy
kept none of the canons. The synods he held were to
maintain the canons. There were bigamists, concubine-
keepers, conspirators, perjurers, drunkards, usurers. The
cause of the ruin of all the people, he says, is the clergy.
The ignorance of the clfergy was excessive. He says they
must learn the three creeds, and be able to read the
gospel and certain services. No one was fit to be made
a bishop, or to consecrate one. They would not give up
their incontinency, and counted the rest for nothing. The
Italian clergy despise the canons the most, because they
are the most given to impudicity, and minister to this
vice by ragouts and excess of wine.
Damianus, a great friend of Hildebrand (Gregory VII),
the strictest of monks, re-establisher, if not inventor, of
the Flagellators (self-scourgers),—the able champion of
Rome against the emperor, the reducer of Milan (till then
independent) to subjection to the Pope, — given up to de-
votion to Mary; who gave up his cardinalate and See,
to the great pain and offense of Hildebrand, out of piety,
— in a book entitled “Liber Gomorrhianus,” the name of
which betrays its import, addressed to the Pope, com-
plains of the way in which the clergy were given up to
such crimes, it being alleged they could not depose them
for it, as people must have the Sacraments. They com-
mitted them, we read, with their own children — I appre-
hend, those who came to confession. Pope Leo approved
the book. His letter of recommendation is prefixed to it.
Damianus refers to canons which gave trifling penances
for fornication; if even with a nun, and habitually, five
years’ penances. (These canons he alleged to be forged,
or of uncertain authority, though amongst the canons.)
Damianus demanded the deposition of those guilty ofEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
91
these things. The Pope answered, they deserved by the
canons to be deposed, but out of clemency he would
depose only the most immoral. On which Fleury remarks,
“Which leads us to suppose that the numbers of the
guilty were too great to treat them with rigor.” The
next Pope, Alexander II, got the book and hid it,
of which Damianus complains bitterly. In the Romish
Council of 1059, he wished them to take it up, but it
was refused, as likely to produce scandal. — Fleury, XII,
532 Dupin.
Already, in 888, in two Councils (Mogunt et Meleus,
Hardouin, Vol. VI), the clergy are forbidden to have a
mother or sister in the house, though it had been allowed.
In the latter case examples of vice had given occasion
to it (Con. Mog. Cap. X). Renolf of Soissons gave like
orders (889). In the Council of Aenamheuse (1009), con-
nection with women is forbidden; but it is added (ci),
“ but it is worse that some should have two or more,
and (non nullus) such an one, although he had sent her
off whom he lately had, during her life should marry
another.”
In 910 and 927-941, Clugny (that is, the reformation
of the monks) began. Before, in the confusion of the
empire, laymen and women had the monasteries as inher-
itances ; Abbots had their wives, as Campo, who had
seven daughters and three sons, and his second, Hilde-
brand, and all their monks. Pope Benedict VIII (1012)
rages against the licentiousness of the clergy (forbidding
marriage), but more because the clergy, who were serfs,
had children by free women, and the Church lost her
property in serfs. Still he declares, in language which I
do not transfer to these pages, the universal and open
profligacy of the clergy, more shameless than the laity.92
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Between the years 1012 and 1014 (Hardouin, Vol. VI).
It was at this epoch that the prohibition of the clergy
to marry was rigidly enforced, and, as is known, by
Hildebrand. The wives were treated as concubines by the
Popes; but they were married, and openly, with ordinary
solemnities very often. In England, it appears, few were
not, but the kings made them pay for it {Hard. Con.
Lon. VII, 1147). Lanfranc allowed it; later, Anselm
raged against it. It shows the state of the Roman clergy,
that many of the synods forbid the children born of the
priests inheriting their cures. They gave them as portions
even to their daughters. Pope Pascal (died 1118) ordered
men on their death-beds to receive the Sacrament from
them, rather than from none; and that their sons should
be admitted to the priesthood in England, as almost the
major part of the clergy, and the better part were in this
case {Pascal’s Letter in Hard. VII, 1804-1807). In the
canon law {Distinctio LXXXI, c. VI) it is said that a
clergyman, convicted of having begotten children in the
presbytery, is to be deposed. The gloss on this is: “ But
it is generally said that a clergyman is not to be deposed
for simple fornication, because few can be found without
that sin.” Later again, W. F. Picus, Lord of Mirandola,
that is the nephew of the famous Pic de Mirandola, as
quoted in a literal extract which I can not verify, not
possessing his works, says that priests left the natural
use of women, and good boys were given up to them by
their parents, and when grown older, then were made
priests of. I give it literally, only in Latin : “ Ab illis
{sacerdotibus) etiam {prolepudor) foemince abiguntur ad eorum
hbidines explendas, et meritorii pueri a parentibus commen-
dantur et condonantur his, qui ab omni corporis etiam
concessa volnptate sese immaculatos custodire deberent. HiEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
93
posted ad sacerdotiorum gradus promoventur octatis Jlore
transacto jam exoleti." This was an address to Pope Leo,
in 1517, the year Luther began the Reformation. The
literature of these ages teems with the bitterest reproaches
against the clergy, as setting an example of licentious
morals, brawls in taverns, unnatural crimes impossible to
be quoted, increased by the doctrine of celibacy, a pro-
hibition to marry, a measure not, however, fully carried
into effect for two centuries, and long resisted in the
north, — as in England, Denmark, and Sweden, — the peo-
ple often insisting that the priest should have a wife.
MODERN PRIESTHOOD—THE SIMONY OF THE CLERGY.
I come now to a later state of things, when simony,
or money-getting, became the general practice of the
clergy. The bishops received money regularly to allow
the priests to keep women. Theodoric, Archbishop of
Cologne, ordered the priests to dismiss their concubines,
and then took money from the priests for it. In the
Council of Paris they complained that money was paid
for the concubinage of the clergy, — that they were held
in derision, abomination, and reproach by everybody. Just
before the Council of Pisa, money was needed to support
the claims of two Popes. Clemangis was rector of the
University of Paris, the most famous then in the world,
the correspondent of Popes and Kings, earnestly seeking
the healing of the schism. This led to their using all
possible means to make money, — provisions, annates,
tenths, exacting in every shape and every way, giving a
right to their favorites to a living. He attacks the car-
dinals for their pride and insolence; though drawn from
the lowest ranks of the clergy, they had up to about five
hundred benefices. The oppression of the bishops was94
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
intolerable: if any ecclesiastic was put in prison for any
great crime, on payment of a certain sum of money he
came out as white as snow.
Then the doctrine of indulgences was a money-getting
doctrine. We are told it is only the remission of the
temporal punishment of sin. But if a man died with the
Sacraments, he never could have any other. It was Pur-
gatory that was feared.1 A good Catholic has nothing
else to fear; besides, the ignorant masses were not so
nice as to this. The terror of sin was on their con-
sciences, and the Roman clergy helped them to get rid of
this terror by pardons bought with money. It was used
to build and adorn churches: farmed out to bankers. A
money-tariff was made for sins, or the commutations of
them, and thousands of years of Purgatory avoided by
paying money. It was a traffic of sin and security as to
future sins. The Roman Church had returned to Pagan
vices. Corruption had its way in Paganism. But Papal
Rome systematized it and made a tariff for sin.
When St. Peter’s was being finished money was raised
to finish it by the sale of special indulgences. This was
an old expedient, by which the piety of the ignorant had
been before that imposed on; but on the occasion of
finishing St. Peter’s Cathedral it was resorted to with a
recklessness which passed all bounds. Indulgences were
issued, as to which there are very pretty theories,
but which are allowances to commit sin for money. I
know well it is said to be commutation of penance, and
shortening consequently the duration of purgatorial pains;
1 An Australian merchant recently bequeathed to the priests seven
thousand dollars “ for the deliverance of his soul from Purgatory,’’
but the executors refused to pay the money until proof was given
that his soul had been released.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
95
but penance had taken place of the need of holiness, and
as a man with the Sacraments would not go to Hell,
Purgatory had taken the place of Hell, and when a man
wanted to sin he got rid of the Purgatory he was afraid
of by paying a sum of money; he wanted to sin, and
paid so much money to do it with impunity. Guilt {culpa)
was settled by Sacraments, so that he did not much
trouble himself about it; the pains which remained, about
which he did care, by money. Now, too, it was not pro-
vided for troubled sinners, but offered everywhere to bold
ones who wanted to sin. Each sin had its price. The
object was to get money. Grace, or holiness, or any
doctrine, no matter which, was not thought of. Albert,
brother of Joachim, of Brandenburg, a young, elegant,
sumptuous Archbishop of Mayence, and elector, spent
more than he could afford, and applied to the Pope for
t
the farming of the indulgences; but he had paid for his
pallium, or archepiscopal robe, some thirty thousand florins,
and could not have it without; for the Pope wanted
money, and Cardinal Pucci had suggested this means of
getting it. The Fuggers were bankers of Augsburg, and
Albert owed them money already; however, the affair
seemed a good one, and they advanced the money for
the pallium, and became bankers for the indulgence-money.
A certain Tetzel, whose life it is said the Elector of
Saxony had already saved, when Maximilian was going to
put him in a sack and throw him into the Inn, and who
had before preached indulgences with success, undertook
the matter for Albert. It is stated that he declared that
if a person had violated the Virgin Mary, he could give
him pardon; that as soon as the money was in the box,
the souls were out of Purgatory. It is certain, from his
own statement, that he urged that when a man had96
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH QF ROME.
pardon (plenary remission, says the instruction) for his
sins on confession and contrition, which he got on con-
fessing them, or undertaking to do it, still for mortal sin
there was seven years’ penance on earth ; and men com-
mitted countless ones, and God knew how long they
would be in Purgatory; and that, save for four cases re-
served to the Pope, he could give pardon for every thing
now, at any time on confession,1 and plenary at the hour
of death, so that they would slip Purgatory altogether
for a small sum. As to condemnation, the confession,
contrition, and absolution, had put all that out of the
question.
The Jesuit, Maimburg, does not attempt to conceal the
iniquity of what was, and had been, going on. Before
this indulgences had been largely used to make money —
farmed out to questors, who made all the money of them
they could. It was one of the charges against Pope
John XXIII, giving power to his legate to appoint con-
fessors, and free every one from sins, and all the penalty
besides, if they paid what they were rated at. Still,
Maimburg admits, it went on with Pope Leo all the
same; that Tetzel was employed because he had got in
great sums for the Teutonic Knights; that the agents
made people believe they were sure of their salvation,
and souls were delivered out of Purgatory as soon as the
money was paid; and as they saw the clerks of these
same agents carousing in taverns on their profits, much
indignation was created (Maimburg’s History of Lutheran-
ism, 3d edition, i2mo., Paris, p. 9, et seq.). No doubt
1 The instructions themselves to Tetzel are in Gerdes’ Hist., Ev.
Ren., Vol. I, document 9. These say once in life, and in the hour
of death, even, for reserved cases; for others as often as need was.
— Sec. 30.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
97
priests had made money of indulgences before. It was
now an habitual resource; that is, religious iniquity of
the profoundest kind. The sale of liberty to sin was the
settled practice of the Roman Church, the authorized
practice and doctrine of its priests and leaders. It will
be said that Tetzel’s conduct was a gross abuse. Be it
so. To a rightly-constituted mind, the principle is far
worse than the abuse. The priests, getting money to
build or ornamant a grand church, by a universal com-
mutation of godly discipline (if we go no farther) for
money, — really for an allowance of all sorts of sin for
money,—is worse than the abuses that an ignorant or
reckless agent may be guilty of.
The priesthood, since the Reformation, have been very
shrewd and politic, and have managed to get immense
sums of money donated to them by almost every govern-
ment in Europe and America. In the United States they
have accumulated a vast amount of property from the
different legislatures, and have drawn thousands of dollars
annually from the public treasuries of New York and St.
Louis. Under the American Republic the priesthood have
increased very rapidly, until there are five thousand nine
hundred and eighty-nine priests, with one thousand one
hundred and thirty-six students whom they are educating
for the priesthood. Besides these there are one cardinal,
ten archbishops, fifty-six bishops, one prefect apostolic,
one abbot with the title of right reverend, six mitered
abbots, — four Benedictine and one Trappist. The Eastern
States have. a Roman Catholic population of eight hund-
red and thirty-six thousand; the Southern States, eight
hundred and eighty-three thousand; the Middle States, one
million nine hundred and ten thousand; and the Western
States, two million five hundred and fourteen thousand98
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
two hundred and twenty-two. The priesthood have under
their control twenty-four seminaries, six hundred and sixty-
three colleges and academies, and two thousand two hund-
red and forty-six parochial schools, with four hundred and
five thousand two hundred and thirty-four pupils.
During the last twenty years the priesthood have in-
creased three thousand seven hundred and fifty-four; in
population, three million eight hundred thousand; and in
churches, four thousand and twenty-two, as shown in
Sadler’s “Catholic Directory” for 1880, by the following
figures : —
Year.	Priests.
178S	... 40 .
1791	... 50 .
1808	... 68 .
1830	... 232 .
183S	• • • 347 ■
1840	... 499 •
1845	... 709 .
1850	. . . 1,081 .
i860	. . . 2,235 •
H 00 0	• • • 3,756 •
1879	• • • 5,75° •
1880	. . . 5,989 .
Churches.	Population.
12 .	. . . 80,000
80 .	
230 .	
272 .	
4S4 •	
675 •	. . . 1,071,800
i,073 •	• • • 1,433735°
2,385 •	. . . 2,300,000
3,995 •	... ....
5,589 •	• • • 6,175,630
6,407 .	. . . 6,143,222
Within these last twenty years the priesthood have
secured millions of dollars of property in every part of
the country, from states, cities, and private individuals.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
99
CHAPTER VI.
THE HISTORY OF THE POPES—366-1886.
dE absence of the emperors from Rome, and
their presence at Constantinople, made the
Bishop of Rome a post of great importance
and political power. Its ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion was really comparatively small. It was respected as
the See of the Capital, and had a primary rank, which
Constantinople contested with it as the new capital. But
Augustine, the great Western bishop, and the African
Council, forbade appeals to Rome as intolerable. Already
in the Fourth century intrigues for the possession of
papal power became a source of public trouble. In 366,
Pope Liberius died, and contests for the See began.
Damasus was elected by a majority, Ursicinus by a large
party, and both were consecrated Bishops of Rome. The
emperor banished Ursicinus; but his partisans met in
the churches they possessed, and refused communion with
Damasusv The emperor took away the churches. They
met outside Rome, and were banished from the country.
In the dispute the parties fought for victory, and a vast
number of Christians were killed, even in the churches.
But the origin of the violent feud is more important than
the feud itself. The Emperor Constans was an Arian
persecutor. Liberius had condemned Athanasius, and com-
municated with the Arians. When called on to subscribe100
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
an Arian creed, it appears he repented and recalled his
condemnation. The emperor summoned a council at Arles,
where the legates of Liberius signed a semi-Arian creed.
Afterwards, at the Council of Milan, hesitating, he was
banished, and Felix consecrated Pope by an Arian minor-
ity. Rome murmured, and Liberius was restored, after
three years’ exile at Beraea, but signed an Arian creed,
which a synod at Sirmio had drawn up, and there were
two Popes, one said to be Arian and in communion with
Arians (Epictetus of Centuncellse, and Auxentuis of Milan)
who had made him Pope; the other who had signed an
Arian creed against his conscience. Felix was driven out
by the people, who favored Liberius, though the clergy
had mainly submitted to Felix. Liberius wrote to the
Eastern bishops, who had condemned Athanasius, to de-
clare his agreement with them, and that he never agreed *
with Athanasius.1 Osius, of Cordova, the president of the
Council of Nice which condemned Arius, had given way
to the emperor before Liberius. Felix is counted among
the Popes as Felix II. Damasus was of the Felix party,
and hence the riots. It is stated, that in the riots about
Felix, which were very great, many were killed; that
there were real massacres in baths, streets, and churches,
of laity and clergy who favored Felix.
Zosimus became Pope (417). He formally approved
Pelagianism. The synod at Lydda accepted Pelagius’ con-
fession of faith. Augustine and the African bishops had
condemned him. Zosimus reproves them sharply. The
1 There is some obscurity as to the history. Efforts have been
made to screen Liberius, by questioning what Sirmian creed he
adopted. But if we are to trust Hilary, there can be no mistake as
to Arianism; nor does Tillemont nor Dupin defend him from this
accusation, nor Jerome either.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	IOI
African churches met (418); Pelagius was condemned and
anathematized^ and they add, if any one presume to ap-'
peal beyond sea, no one was to receive him into com-
munion. There is as to what follows some conflict of
dates; but a decree of the Emperor Honorius was ob -
tained, Pelagius and Celestius banished from Rome, and
Zosimus then condemned what he had approved, and cut
them both off from communion. On the death of Zosi-
mus (418), two Popes, Boniface and Eudalius, were elected.
Boniface attempted to maintain his place by force. The
prefect kept the peace, and reported in favor of Eudalius
to the Emperor Honorius. Honorius confirmed Eudalius,
and banished Boniface from the city. Boniface maintained
his ground outside, and his partisans appealed to Honorius.
The emperor cited both before him. The Prefect told
him neither could be trusted in their statements. Diffi-
culties arose in the decision. Honorius forbade both to
go into the city, and sent a bishop for the Easter cere-
monies. However, Eudalius went in; his adherents were
unharmed. Boniface’s adherents, who were of the popu-
lace, made a violent attack, and the prefect hardly
escaped. But Honorius, glad to terminate the matter,
condemned Eudalius for going in, and appointed Boniface.
Eudalius was driven out of the city by force.—Baronius'
Annals, 419.
It was about this time that the Popes alleged forged
canons of the Council of Nice to maintain their author-
ity in Africa. The African bishops had the records of
Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria, besides their
own, searched; found they were forged, and refused to
submit, reproving Pope Celestine, and denying his right
to send his legate. These appeals of evil persons the
Popes were constantly receiving as a means of establish-102
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
ing their authority.1 The letter to Celestine is very strong
indeed, Faustinus, the legate’s mission, being wholly re-
jected.
Symmachus and Laurentius contended for the papacy
(498). It was a violently contested matter. Both were
ordained Pope the same day, and they appealed to The-
oderic at Ravenna, the Gothid king, an Arian, to decide.
As most were for Symmachus, he was to be Pope. He
was accused of all sorts of crimes and never was cleared.
There was fighting in the streets for a length of time,
and many killed and wounded. The only godly man we
hear of was on the other side. Symmachus made regula-
tions to hinder these contests. In vain, however; for men
will be ambitious. The clergy had in other cases sold all
the Church’s goods, and even the vessels of service, by
auctions, for pushing their candidates, so that it had been
forbidden by rescripts and laws of the senate.
Pope Vigilius (540), who was at Constantinople, had
demanded the fifth general council in 553, which con-
demned three chapters of the fourth council at Chalcedon,
(451), then objected to it, and would not assist; was exiled
by the emperor, published a constitution condemning the
chapters, saying that he did not condemn the Council of
Chalcedon (the fourth), on whose authority they rested.
The Romans wished him back. The emperor agreed, and
said they might have him or Archdeacon Pelagius for
Pope, or the latter after Vigilius. They wished Vigilius,
and said they would take Pelagius afterwards, and the
emperor let him go on his confirming the council which
condemned the three chapters. He died in Sicily on the
way. Pelagius, who was suspected of poisoning him, suc-
1 Hardouin’s Councils, I, 934; Prohibition to Appeal, Can., 125;
Letter to Boniface, 939; and to Celestine, 947.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
103
ceeded	him,	publicly declaring	his	innocence. Vigilius
himself	had	climbed over the	wall	into the papacy,
Belasaris having, by the emperor’s orders, sent off
Pope Silverius, who would not submit to the emperor’s
theology, and put in Vigilius. Silverius, however, re-
turned.	Belasaris gave him up to	Vigilius, who sent
him to	‘the	island of Palmaria, in	guard, where he
died.1
Pelagius’ own election was very uncertain. Vigilius had
promised one thousand dollars to Belasaris and would not
pay it. He had at first condemned the three chapters
in his judicatum. Therefore the Roman clergy separated
from him. The Africans excommunicated him. He, seeing
he had condemned a general council to please the em-
peror, and that the clergy had turned against him, re-
tracted; but, meanwhile, it seems the Roman clergy
elected Pelagius. Then Vigilius yielded, and got in favor
again, and the emperor told the Romans they might have
which they liked, and Pelagius, who came back with
Vigilius from Constantinople, certainly joined in ill treat-
ing him. Baronius says no day or month is named when
he succeeded, and complains bitterly of all this. Vigilius
had condemned the Council of Chalcedon, and written to
the three other patriarchs (who were heretics according to
it), anathematized the doctrines of the Council of Chal-
cedon, and Pope Leo, in his famous letter, adopted by
it, and renounced communion with those who defended
it. Baronius denies the authenticity of these letters, but
Pagi and Fleury both admit they are genuine. Silverius
was really murdered by want and starvation. “ He died
of hunger,” says Fleury; and, indeed, all historians re-
mark that Vigilius was chosen Pope when Silverius was
1 Fleury, 537—558; Vol. VII, 356,- 482; Baronius, sub. an., 538.104
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
alive, and never afterwards. Baronius tries to get out of
it by supposing Vigilius was re-elected after Silverius’
death; but it is merely because it ought to be. Silverius
was son of Pope Hormisdas. Vigilius Ordained eighty-one
bishops.
Pope Honorius (625) was condemned as a heretic by the
sixth oecumenical council (680). Baronius laboriously seeks
to prove that Theodoret did it, and left his own name
out, and put Honorius’ in; but Pagi, his annotator, has,
in very few words, and by facts, shown the absurdity of
his attempt. Pope Adrian II refers to it, and says
heresy was the only ground for resisting thus such a
superior authority. He was anathematized also by Pope
Leo II.
The history of papal influence was this: when there
were emperors they ruled; but the Pope’s influence was
growing ecclesiastically, though often resisted. When the
empire fell they were the chief influence (except the
Arian Goths in Italy), and did pretty freely what they
pleased, increasing in power in respect of Constantinople.
However, the Gothic kings confirmed them, and interfered,
and were appealed to, as we have seen. When, for a
time, the Eastern empire recognized Italy, the Popes were
servile and submissive to the emperors; could not help
it. When these were driven out again, they were op-
pressed by Lombards, but established in Rome by the
Franks; Charlemagne, however, fully holding his own, and
ruling at Rome. Powerful emperors contended for the
right of confirmation of Popes and local investiture of
prelates; and the history of the middle ages is the his-
tory of this conflict. The Popes raising Italy against
them (Guelphs and Ghibellines), and the emperors some-
times doing as they pleased; but the German emperorsEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
105
having to contend with subject princes as powerful as
themselves, and jealous of them, the Pope and they
coalesced against the emperors. The Popes even supported
the rebellion of £ son against his father, the emperor.
In the time of Boniface VIII, they laid their hands on
France, but this was more united, and there was a sig-
nal failure; the Pope had to give way. The next Pope
had his seat at Avignon, under French influence,—the
Avignon Popes and the court being degraded to the last
degree. At the end they had one Pope at Rome and
another at Avignon, this giving rise to the question
whether the authority of a council were not superior
to that of a Pope and the three councils of Pisa, Basle,
Florence, Lausanne, and Constance, which so puzzle
Roman Catholic theorists. There was a universal cry for
reformation in head and members, always avoided.
At last came the reformation, which threw the whole
power into the Pope’s hand, the bishops holding only under
him. And though Louis XIV maintained Gallican liberties,
as they are called, yet the clergy were simple slaves to
the Pope. The Jesuit society sprung up at that time more
powerful than the Pope himself, and recovered Southern
Germany to popery.
I should mention here the history of Pope Joan.1 A
woman who had received a learned education at Athens,2
became, it is said, Pope in 855. She is said to have
died in childbirth, having been taken with pains of labor
in the street, going to the Lateran church; so that the
1	Besides Joan, or Joanna, she is also called by different writers
Agnes, Margaret, Isabel, Dorothy, Jutta, and Gilberta, or Gerberta.
2	The papal secretary, Dietrich von Niesn (1413), professes to give
the very school in which she taught, viz.: that of the Greeks, in
which St. Augustine taught.io6
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Popes never pass that way.1 That seems unquestionable,
and it is certain that the sex2 of the pontiffs was exam-
ined for long years,	and the story believed	till	the time
of the Reformation — that is for many* centuries. She is
put by Platina, who	speaks of	the story as	of	uncertain
authority, but would not omit it,3 between Leo IV and
Benedict III. The circumstances of the woman-pope were
published generally until 1540 or 1550; and for centuries
no one ever thought of having the story expurgated from
works. John Huss, when before the Council of Constance,
speaks of the woman-pope,4 whose name was Agnes, and
who was called Johannes Anglicus. Stephen de Bourbon,
a French Dominican, mentions Pope Joan in 1250, and
he found it in some chronicle:	“Accidit antem, mirabilis
audacia, mio insana,	circa ann.	Ut dicitur	in	chronicis.
Qucedam midier literata, et in arte nondi (notandi f) edocta,
absunto virili kabitu, et viram sefingens, venit Romam, et
tarn industrial quam	literatura	accepta, facta	est	notarizes
curice, post diabolo procurante cardinalis, postea papa. Hcec
impregnata cum ascendent peperit. Quod cum. novisset
1	"Dominus Papa, quum vadit ad Lateranum, eandern viam semper
declinat." The avoided street was, moreover, pulled down by Sixtus
V, on account of its narrowness. The spot where the catastrophe was
said to have taken place is between the Colosseum and St. Clem-
ent’s.— H. B. S.
2	According to Hemmerlin {Dialog, de Nobil. et Rust ids), the inves-
tigation was made by two of the clergy:	“et dum invenvientur
illcesi (testiculi), clamabant tangentes alta vocej testiculos habet. Et
reclamabant clerus et populus: Deo gratias."
8 “Ne obstinate minimum et pertinaciter omisisse videar, quod fere
omnes affirmant." 1460.
4 Huss does not think that the Roman Church has remained im-
maculate: “Quomodo ergo ilia Romana Ecclesia, ilia Agnes, Johannes
Papa cum collegio semper immaculata permansit, qui peperit.”EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
107
Romana justitia, ligatis pedibus ejus ad pedes equi distracta
est extra itrbem, et ad dimidiam leucam a populo lapidata,
et ubi fuit mortua, ibi fuit sepulta, et super lapidem super
ea positum scriptus est versiculus. Parce pater patrurn
papissce edere partum." Martini Poloni writes (1278) that
she was Pope for more than two years, became pregnant
during a procession, died immediately, and was buried at
once. The whole controversy is fully gone into in
Basuage VII, 12, and Schrock XXII, 75-110. Baronius
and Fleury pass the Joan of Platina over in a suspicious
silence, and make Benedict elected on the death of Leo
IV.
THE POPES AND THE ITALIAN NOBLES—887-1000.
From 887 the Popes were engaged in the strifes of
the Italian nobles, when the power of the empire fell.
Another circumstance has to be introduced here. A num-
• ber of forged decretals were produced at this time, which
formed the foundation of the Pope’s pretensions subse-
quently,— the Isidorean collection. No doubt political
circumstances were a means of the Pope’s power, but
their canonical pretensions leaned on these forged decre-
tals. They declare the notable falsehood that all churches
had their origin from Rome, — “ A qua omnes ecclesias prin-
cipium sumsisse,” — and then go on to state its consequent
rights. It is said they were written between 829 and 845,
appeared at Mentz in the time of Archbishop Antcarius,
and alleged to be brought from Spain at the end of the
Eighth century or thereabouts. Some think they were
forged by Antcarius himself, at Mentz, and that there were
some old decretals which gave rise to them, or, as some
allege, introduced to accredit the forgeries. At any rate,
what gave legal (not political) force to papal authority108 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
I
from this date was the forged Isidorean collection. It is
admitted on all hands they are forgeries. They were not
detected till the Reformation. Calvin stated it, and fully
demonstrated it. Bellarmine says that they are ancient,
but does not dare defend them as genuine; and Baronius
gives them up. Hincmar combatted, in 870, the authority
of the decrees, but used them, too. However, no one
denies their spuriousness, but they served their purpose
when wanted. They were used by Pope Nicolas I, in
864. After the death of Formosus (897), Boniface took
possession of the See, and held it for fifteen days. Stephen
VI (VIII 896) drove him out and took possession. He
dragged Formosus out of his tomb, clothed him in pon-
tifical robes, and put him on the throne; charged him
with intrusion into the See, stripped him then of his pon-
tifical robes, cut off the three fingers which were used to
bless with, and had his body thrown into the Tiber, and
re-ordained all the clergy he had ordained. Baronius says,
he should not dare to count him among the Popes, if he
had not found it done by those of old. Stephen was put
in prison and strangled. Baronius owns he had only the
fact of subsequent recognition by the Church to accept
such or such a Pope.
After the death of Stephen, the Roman faction having
the upper hand at the time, Romanus was Pope (897)
somewhat more than four months. Romanus disappeared.
Theodorus was Pope twenty days (897). Benedict IV (900)
succeeded, of whom nothing is known; he seems to have
been a respectable man. Leo IV (903) succeeded. After
forty days he was driven out and put in prison by Chris-
topher (903). He was, after seven months, driven out,
put in prison, and obliged to retire to a monastery by
Sergius III (904), who was all-powerful, through Adelbert,EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
IO9
Marquis of Tuscany. It is to be added that these Popes
undid the ordinations of their predecessors, as having no
legitimate title. One Auxilius wrote a dialogue, to, guard,
by decrees and canonical examples, against the intestine
discord of the Roman Church. The most powerful and
basest harlots ruled at Rome, at whose will Sees were
changed, bishops given, and, what is horrible and unutter-
able to hear of, their lovers were introduced into the
See of Peter, who are only to be written in the cata-
logue of Roman pontiffs to mark such times. For who
can say that persons, intruded without law in this way
by harlots, can be said to be legitimate Roman pontiffs ?
The clergy never elected, and yet succession depends
upon this!
On the death of Lando (913), Theodora, who lived
with Adelbert, Marquis of Tuscany, and whose daughter
Marozia was concubine of Pope Sergius III, makes John,
son of Sergius and Marozia, Pope (John X). Marozia be-
came wife of Guido, Marquis of Tuscany. She being
angry with his brother Peter, had Peter killed, • and John
seized and put in a dungeon, where he died, — they say
suffocated. The Marquis of Tuscany and Marozia made
another of hers, by Pope Sergius III, Pope by the name
of John XI; but Alberic (son of Adelbert, Marquis of
Tuscany, by Theodora, not his wife), who ruled at Rome,
put John in prison'. There he remained three years, and
there was no other Pope made.
In 936, Leo VII became Pope. Octavianus, son of
Alberic, was a clergyman; and as he governed at Rome,
made himself Pope John XII, being at the outside not
eighteen years old. Though not of an age to be made
bishop, or even deacon, he was owned afterwards in the
succession, the clergy being supposed to consent, not toIIO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
have schism. However, the emperor, Otho, came to Rome
(963) and held a council, which deposed John XII and
elected Leo VIII (963). But Otho, having sent away
some of his troops, the Romans rose against him and
tried to kill him; but he knew it, and had the advan-
tage ; but when the emperor left Leo had to fly, and
John XII, was Pope again. However, being one night
out of Rome with a married woman, he was caught
in the act of adultery and had his head smashed, and
died without the Sacraments. The Romans chose Ben-
edict V Pope (964). Otho came and besieged them, and
they were forced to give up Benedict V to him, and
Leo VIII re-enters. The emperor committed Benedict V
to the keeping of the Archbishop of Hamburg. The
emperor held a council at Rome. Benedict appeared;
owned he had sinned; was stripped of his robes, and his
pastoral staff broken; he had joined in deposing John,
and sworn fidelity to Leo. The next Leo was. Leo IX.
After Leo’s death the% sent to Otho to know whom he
would have, and he sent ambassadors to Rome, and John
XIII was chosen. He was followed by Benedict VI (972).
He became odious to the Romans. Crescentius, son of
Theodora and Pope John X, took him, shut him up, and
afterwards strangled him while yet alive. Boniface VIII
became Pope. After the death of Benedict VI they drove
out Boniface, and Donus became Pope, though some do
not count him among the Popes.
THE POPES AND THE GERMAN EMPERORS —1002-1300.
The German emperors now decided papal elections, and
they were more respectable than the Italian nobles. In
1002 or 1003 we have John XVI (called also, and com-
monly, XVIII) for a few months, and then John XVIIEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
Ill
(usually XIX). Crescentius had expelled Gregory V
from Rome and made a Greek Pope. The emperor and
Gregory V marched together on Rome. But some ser-
vants of the emperor, fearing his clemency (John was a
favorite at court), followed, and caught the Pope, and put
his eyes out, and put him in prison. Benedict VIII
(1012) took the See after Sergius IV, but another party
chose Gregory VI. But Benedict, being son of the Count
of Tusculum, carried the day; but the party of Gregory
VI raised itself, and Benedict fled to the emperor. How-
ever, Benedict was restored in less than two years. After
Benedict, John, a layman not in orders at all, had
the papacy. He was Benedict’s brother, another son of
the Count of Tusculum. He got the papacy, says Fleury,
partly by money — evidently family influence, too. The
Patriarch of Constantinople very nearly succeeded in buy-
ing the universal papacy of the East. The Romans drove
John XIX out, but Conrad, the emperor, came with an
army and set him up again; he died that year (1033).
His nephew, son of Alberic, Count of Tusculum, was
made Pope, a boy about twelve years old, by money
also, and intrigue, too. Benedict IX (1033): his wife was
infamous, and through his plunderings and murders be-
came so odious that the people drove him out. Sylvester
III became Pope, but only held it three months. But
Benedict, with the Tusculum family, attacked Rome, and
was reinstated. But his conduct became insupportable, and
he agreed to leave for a sum of money and the papal
revenue of England, to follow his pleasures freely; and
they made John Gratin Pope, as Gregory VI (1044). But
all three called themselves Popes. Gregory VI gave up
the papacy, in a council called to settle matters, as having
entered on it unlawfully, — as Benedict was paid to go out.112
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
The number designating the Pope is constantly uncer-
tain, because whether such or such an one was really
Pope is unfcertain. He who is called John XIX is also
called XVII. Benedict is VIII or IX, and so Stephen.
But when things are at the worst they mend. The em-
peror came, gathered the clergy and nobles of Rome;
they agreed to have things done decently, and the em-
peror took up Suidger, Bishop of Bamburg, and he became
Clement II (1046). No fit person, it is said, was found
in Rome. However, Clement II died in nine months, and
Benedict IX came back and held the papacy for nine
months, then, as it seems, repented and gave it up.
Sylvester went back to his See. What became of Gregory
I know not. The emperor sent Poppa, Bishop of Brixia,
to be Pope. He lived as Damasus II (1048) twenty-three
days, — said to be poisoned,—and Bruno, six months after,
in a diet held at Worms, was chosen Pope. A circum-
stance is to be	noted here.	Hildebrand,	afterwards
Gregory VII, came with Bruno. The Romans had sent
to the emperor and asked him to give them a Pope,
through dread, it	appears, of	Benedict; and	after	his
choice at Worms,	Bruno (Leo	IX, 1048) came in	his
pontifical robes. Hildebrand got him to take them off,
and be again chosen at Rome. He it was who established
the modern papacy. Every one who searches for himself
must look to the facts,—not the title of the Pope, — as
the succession is so uncertain that VIII in one is IX in
the other, and sometimes, as	in the Johns,	there	are
three enumerations.
GREGORY VII. —THE FOUNDER OF MODERN PAPACY.
The buying and sale of benefices was universal even
among the Popes, and immorality the most degraded. TheEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
113
chase and pleasure were their occupations. On the death
of Leo IX the Romans sent Hildebrand to the emperor
to choose a Pope in Germany; they had no one fit in
Rome. The emperor assembled a council at Mayence,
and Hildebrand got them to choose Gibbard, Bishop
of Eichstadt, a near relative to the emperor, who did
not wish to lose him.	However, he went, kept his
bishopric, too, and became Pope. He was very near, be-
ing poisoned by a subdeacon in the Sacrament, but could
not lift the cup. They say another devil openly seized
the prisoner.
Hildebrand was now the soul of the papacy at Rome.
A great change took place under Nicolas II (1058). On
the death of Stephen VII, the emperor who kept things
in order, the Roman nobles, the Alberic family, and
others, chose the Bishop of Veletri as Pope Benedict X
(1058). The cardinals opposed, but he held the papacy
nearly ten months; but Hildebrand got the Bishop of
Florence chosen at Florence (1058). When he had arrived,
the Romans sent to the emperor, who sanctioned the choice
of Florence. This Pope was Nicolas II. He recognized
publicly the emperor’s rights, but decreed, when Pope,
that the cardinals should choose the ’ pope, thus excluding
the emperor and the Roman people. This laid the foun-
dation of the modern papacy, which was born ih Hilde-
brand, Gregory VII.	Therefore it is I have noticed this
part of the history.	Alexander II was the first chosen
by the cardinals (1061). Another was chosen at Basle,
and consecrated through Lombard influence, — Pope Ho-
norius. He came to Rome in arms, was at first victorious,
but was afterwards beaten, the German princes deserting
him to weaken an infant emperor. He was deserted by
his soldiers, got into the castle of St. Angelo, was be-114 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
sieged two years by Alexander, and then fled. But Ho-
norius never came up to his claim.
One great means of the depression of imperial power
was, that the Archbishop of Cologne stole away the young
emperor from his mother, who had maintained his author-
ity, and went over to Pope Alexander’s side, so that the
emperor was null, though nominally saved. There was a
council at Mantua, where the archbishop appeared, as
did Alexander, who was charged also with simony, and
Honorius. Alexander was recognized Pope, Honorius par-
doned, the emperor nominally saved, and some of the
German party promoted. The archbishop charged Alex-
ander with having despised the emperor’s rights. After
Alexander, Hildebrand was Pope, as Gregory VII (1073).
He decreed absolutely the celibacy of the clergy; was
resisted everywhere in the north of Europe, where there
was some more respect for morality, but persecuted it
earnestly.
The papal system was now established. From this we
notice the dying struggles of the imperial power which
had given Rome Popes for near a century. Gregory VII,
in his account of the state of the Church, says: “Alone
with my mind’s eye, I look at the West, Sotith, and
North. I scarcely find bishops, legally such by their en-
trance and life, who rule the Christian people for the
love of Christ, and not secular ambition; and among all
secular princes, I know none who put God’s honor before
their own, and justice before gain. As to those amongst
whom I dwell, as I often tell them, Romans, Lombards,
and Normans, I denounce them as, in a certain way,
worse than Jews and Pagans.”1 Gregory VII, having ex-
1 As Abbot Transmundus had put out the eyes of some monks
accused of rebellion, and torn out the tongue of one of them, De-EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	US
communicated the emperor, the emperor and his bishops
chose Guibert (Clement III) Pope. Gregory would have
attacked him at Ravenna with an army. He sought the
help of the Normans. The Italians (Lombardy) and Ger-
many being for the emperor, the emperor entered Rome,
set Clement III on the papal throne. Gregory retired to
St. Angelo.	The emperor besieged him there. Robert
Guiscard, the Norman, freed bini, and after staying awhile
in Rome, he retired to Salerno, under the protection of
the Normans. Gregory VII died at Salerno. The small
papal party secretly elected Desiderius Victor III. Clem-
ent III returned to Rome; he had been expelled in
1089, and came back in 1091. Didier refused to be Pope,
and, when chosen, went back to Mount Casino, and would
not be ordained, but at last yielded. The Normans and
others came to Rome, and turned out Clement III from
St. Peter’s by force. Still it appears he held the upper
hand there, for after the death of Victor III (Didier),
Urban, named by him, was chosen at Terracina, under
the influence of Mathilde, the great protectress of the
popedom then, by a small assembly, forty persons, clergy
and laity partly, by proxy, John, Bishop of Porto, having
their authority.
It is important to notice at this part of the history,
that what destroyed the power of Clement and the em-
peror in Italy was, that Urban got up the crusades
through Peter the Hermit, and when that took effect,
Clement was rejected. He was driven, it appears, from
Rome by the Crusaders. Pope Urban the Second says:
siderius, Abbot of Casino, put him to penance. Gregory, then cardi-
nal, approved the act, got him out of the abbot’s hands, gave him
an abbacy, and afterwards made a bishop of him. Anything for
power.116 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
“Enjoin a measure of suitable satisfaction to those who
had killed the excommunicated, for we do not consider
those as guilty of homicide who, burning with the zeal
of their Catholic mother against the excommunicated, shall
have happened to have slain some of them.” At this
time this was the greater part of Europe.
The remaining facts of this period may be briefly stated.
Pascal II roused the emperor’s son against him. That
son banished him from Rome, and Gregory VIII was set
up as Pope (i 187). The Roman Pope died in exile, or
two days after his return. Gelasius was elected as Roman
Pope, but died in exile also soon after. Calixtus II fol-
lowed as Roman Pope. He treats of peace with the em-
peror. Gregory VIII was his prisoner. Calixtus was not
elected; he was chosen by a few cardinals and clergy,
at Cluny, when Gelasius • died, as trusted by him. After
him the cardinals chose Innocent II. Other cardinals and
the people chose Peter, Anacletus II, favored by the
laity. Innocent II had to leave Rome, went to France,
owned by Bernard, and in general in Europe ;	but
Anacletus was Pope at Rome. On Anacletus’ death, the
schism for the moment was ended by St. Bernard’s influ-
ence. The Emperor Lothair brought back Innocent, but
as soon as he was gone Innocent had to go back to
Pisa. Gregory was elected in Anacletus’ stead as Victor
and submitted to Innocent, but the Romans renounced
obedience to Innocent. Celestine followed quietly. The
next, Lucius, was killed in a rebellion of the Romans, by
a blow of a stone, when assaulting the capital.	His
successor, Eugene, fled from Rome, but returned. Then
came Anastasius IV. Adrian IV followed. Then a dis-
puted election — Alexander and Victor; Victor given up
by the emperor when beaten by the Lombards. LuciusEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
II7
III and Urban III sat at Verona, not at Rome. Lucius
fled, being hated and. despised by the Romans, who at-
tacked his territories, and he finally settled at Verona,
when Urban was chosen. From Urban III on to Boni-
face VIII, that is, taking in Lucius, from 1181 to 1294,
the history of the papacy is that of a worldly power, yet
using excommunication as its weapon, contending against
the emperors, using both Sicily and Lombardy as their
main arms against him, with various success, but in re-
sult successful. But it wearied the world, and when Bon-
iface VIII attempted to use the acquired power against
Philip of France, he signally failed. His successor re-
peated his acts. And the next Pope, chosen by French
influence, removed to Avignon, in FrancC.
The most remarkable Pope of this period was Innocent
III (1198), who held the fourth .Council of Lateran (1215),
when Transubstantiation was for the first time decreed.
He established the Inquisition in the crusades against the
Albigenses. We may notice that, the See having been
• •
vacant three years through election in intrigues, there
was a compromise, and Gregory X made a decree for
what is now practised, that the cardinals should' be shut
up till they chose a Pope. Celestine V (1294) reserved
it, and then resigned, as the cardinals were two years
and a half before electing him. The person who got
Celestine to resign got himself chosen in his place; it
was Boniface VIII (1294). Celestine gives a curious
reason to justify his abdication. He says Clement, who
was named by St. Peter, resigned, that no Pope might be
named by his predecessor. And then Clement came third
after Lucius and Anacletus. So St. Peter made a blunder
in beginning the matter. It is known the succession of the
first three possessors of the See is hopelessly embroiled.Il8 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
THE POPES AND THE FRENCH PROTECTORATE —1309-1870.
From 1309 the Pope lived at Avignon, under French
influence and protection, proclaimed his rights over others,
and submitted to France. The struggles with the em-
peror went on. Lewis set an anti-pope at Rome, Nicolas
V, but he was soon given' up to his competitor at
Avignon. The friar Minorites and Italian cardinals sided
with the emperor, who was preparing a general council
against the Pope, who meanwhile died. Benedict XII
succeeded at Avignon (1334). France would not allow
him to make peace with the emperor: he was deprived
of the Sacraments by the Pope, but the clergy who would
not administer them were banished. But Lewis took
ecclesiastical matters in hand, and lost influence. Clement
VI succeeded Benedict .XII (1242), and anathematized
the emperor, and set up an anti-emperor, who was forced
to fly. But the conduct of Clement VI, who had de-
posed an ecclesiastical elector to gain voices for* his anti-
emperor, had wearied men of the Popes. Clement VI
got the upper hand, but injured the papacy. The electors
of the empire met and declared the King of Rome re-
ceived his power from electors only. From 1313 to 1316
the See was vacant; the cardinals would not elect.
During this time, from the universal corruption and squeez-
ing for money, the consciences of good men were rising
up against the state of things. Miliez, Matthias von
Jannow, both Bohemians before Huss. In England Wyc-
liffe (1360). Gregory XI died at Rome, and a Pope was
elected in a riot. All was violence and confusion. The
cardinals elected another, Clement VII (1378), who went
to Avignon, and there were two Popes, who divided
Europe between them. Benedict XIII succeeded at AvignonEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	119
(1384), Boniface IX at Rome (1390), and then Gregory
XII	(1406). This brought on the Council of Pisa, which
put down both. The council chose Alexander V (1409).
_ *
He dissolved the council, and did not reform.
There were now three Popes. The exaction of money
became ’intolerable, selling of public benefices. It was said
it was allowable, as the Pope could not sin in it. This
brought on the Council of Pisa, — "a council,” says Cardi-
nal Bellarmine, “neither manifestly approved nor manifestly
condemned.” That it was approved, the succeeding Alex-
ander, being called VI, shows, for Alexander V was made
Pope by that council, and the same circumstance John
XXIII (1410), to be confessedly a true Pope, though
moderns say no. John XXIII being obliged to fly, Rome
consented to a new council, which met at Constance
(1414). Here first they voted by nations. John was de-
posed, accused of every sort of horrible crime. He had
first fled the council.	Gregory XII resigned. Benedict
XIII	remained determined, was deposed, and finally de-
serted by all but the Spanish town he lived in. Martin
V was elected by all (1417). The council had formally
decreed a council superior to the Pope, and' had acted on
it. Martin condemned all appeals from Popes, and after
a little reformation dissolved the council. It was here
John Huss was burnt at the stake, and it was declared
that faith was not to be kept with a heretic. He had
had letters of safe conduct. Martin confirmed the articles
of faith of the Council of Constance. Martin V quar-
relled with cardinals. He appointed a council first at
Pavia, then at Siena, but which met afterwards at Basle,
under Eugenius. But there was no reformation really, and
the universal complaint continued. France made regula-
tions for herself. Eugene IV succeeded Martin V (1431).120
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Th£ iniquities with which John XXIII was charged were
so dreadful that when presented to the chief men of the
Council of Constance they thought it better not to have
him called to account; the Apostolic See would be dis-
credited altogether, and all his promotions of ecclesiastics
held void. The Council of Constance had ordered that a
council should be held within a limited time, and a second
within seven years, and these were held in consequence.
Eugenius IV, fearing reformation from the first, sought to
dissolve the council. The council under his own legate
resisted, confirmed the decrees of Constance, that a coun-
cil was above the Pope, and could decide so as to subject
all, the Pope included, in articles of faith, schism, and
reformation.
The cry was universal, echoed in these councils, for
reformation in head and members. The French held a
national council to back up the Council of Basle against
the Pope’s effort, and even the emperor, though yielding
to the Pope for a time to get crowned, returned to
the council. But this Pope tried it out. It condemned
the Pope, and deposed him, and elected Felix V. Mean-
while, the council having cited the Pope (1437) to appear
before it, he appointed a council at Ferrara, and the two
sat together. The Council of Ferrara condemned that of
Basle. From Ferrara it was transferred to Florence. The
Council of Florence ended in 1442. The Pope appoint-
ing one in Rome; that at Basle, in 1444, appointing one
in Germany. Felix V had one at Lausanne, but sub-
sequently resigned the papacy on condition of having all
his cardinals and promotions to benefices owned, and
certain personal privileges. Nicolas V, the other Pope,
withdrew all his acts against him and the Council of
Basle.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
121
GALLICAN LIBERTIES AND DECLINE OF THE PAPACY.
The Pope of Rome had thus seemingly gained uncon-
tested supremacy; but the fact that all the respectable
clergy had met, condemned deposed Popes, and named
others, 'whose successors all subsequent Popes have been,
made their positions very different. All this theologians,
avoid, if possible, pronouncing a judgment on those coun-
cils, even when they held the supremacy of the Pope in
the highest way. Bellarmine admits that the Council of Pisa
can neither be approved nor condemned. If it be condemned
the Pope is not Pope, for the Popes are the successors of
the council’s nominee; if it be approved, then a council can
depose a Pope. Neither proposition would do. The like
is the case of the Council of Constance. That council
deposed three Popes, and chose another. But then, it
openly declared that a Pope was subject to a general
council, and that a council represented the universal
Church, and could act in its name, and was infallible;
and it acted on it; and again, the succession depends
on their act. Moreover, Martin V sanctioned the doctrine
that a general council represents the whole Church.
Bellarmine recognizes the power of a council to settle
schism. "He refers to Popes Cornelius (251), Symmachus
(498), Innocent II (1030), Alexander III (1159), and the
Pisa and Constance councils.	No remedy, he says, is
more powerful than a council.	So for false doctrines in
Popes, as Marcellinus (296), Damasus (366), Sixtus III
(4^2), Leo III (795), and Leo IV (847). Marcellinus, he
says, had to confess it; and the rest purged themselves.
Now, though the Popes had the upper hand, the universal
conscience of the Church was roused; the weightiest,
godliest doctors declared there must be reformation in122 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the. head and in the members. This became the universal
cry all over Europe; whenever the Pope went too far
there was an appeal to a general council.
France maintained, in what are called the Gallican lib-
erties, the doctrine of Constance. The Popes themselves,
instead of governing an ignorant and prostrate Europe,
whose princes, being divided and jealous of one another,
were glad of the Pope’s help, while he was himself and
one in his purpose and scrupled at no weapons, were
now judged by laity and clergy, who were subject to
them, and gave themselves up to mere petty local ambi-
tion. France and Germany were considerably emancipated
in the spirit of men’s minds; deliverance was looked for
anxiously, and though disappointed in their hopes of re-
dress from the councils, were groaning so much the more,
though hopelessly, under the burden. Spain and Portugal
were more content, because they liked that title of the
Pope which divided the New World between them. But
men’s spirits craved deliverance, threatened councils, ap-
pealed to them, and were ripe for some deliverance. The
unheard-of infamies of Alexander VI, and even the crimes
and conduct of Sixtus IV and Julius II, only sunk the
papacy lower, though none opposed it; and the shameless
sale of indulgences,—practically an allowance to sin,—
gave the last blow to man’s conscience and opened the
door to the testimony of an offended God.
Nicolas V (1447) arranged matters peaceably with
Felix V, the Lausanne Pope, who was, during his life,
to be respected as such, though without power. Calixtus
IV (1455) followed him. They succeeded in gaining influ-
ence in Germany; but the attempt to arouse the people
to a crusade against the Turks utterly failed. Pius II
(1458) failed in like attempts; he condemned appeals toEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
123
a general council, when we see it was become a general
thing. This same Pope, as ./Eneas Sylvius, had been a
great adherent of the Council of Basle. Paul II (1464)
was arbitrary.
The cardinals at this time bound themselves all when
in conclave, as in the case of Eugenius, to reform the
papal court in head and members, hold a council, and
to many other points. Eugene confirmed this by a bull.
Paul bound himself in the same way, but by a decree
rejected it all, and by cajoling and violence forced all
the cardinals but one to join him, though some very
reluctantly. Platina complains bitterly of his undoing
iniquitously all Pius II had done, threatened to complain
to kings and princes (for parliaments, universities, kings,
and everybody did so then), and have a general council,
and got put in prison and in the stocks for his pains.
Sixtus IV (1471) succeeded. He occupied himself with
low Italian intrigues and conspiracy to advance his family.
Innocent VIII (1484) came after him. He was famous
for promoting and enriching* illegitimate children, though
one of the conditions (in conclave) of election was not to
do it. He was the subject of pasquinades on this ac-
count. Rome, they said, might well call him father. It
appears he had seven children while Pope. He received
pay from the sultan for keeping a rival brother safe
when the Turks were invading Europe. To Alexander
VI (1492) one hardly knows how to refer. He is recog-
nized to have been,—except it be his own second illegit-
imate son,—the most horrible fiend who has come under
public notice. A thorough debauchee at all times, so as
to attract notice and reproof even at the papal court;
elected Pope by bribery and promises, he got rid in one way
or another of those who promoted him. His second son killed124
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
his eldest brother, and the Pope’s other favorite, Peroto,
who had hid himself in the Pope’s mantle, so that the
blood spurted up in the Pope’s face. France made him
Duke of Valentinois, to reward the Pope for his divorce.
Alexander made a cardinal of him when quite young, but
he left the clerical order to be a prince in Italy. He
killed his sister’s husband to marry her better. This
same sister, when the Pope was away, kept the papal
court, and opened the dispatches, consulting the cardinals.
She was one of the Pope’s five illegitimate children. Her
marriage was celebrated with pomp in the Pope’s palace.
Infessnia’s language is bitter to a degree on the occasion,
and he declares that the universal corruption of the clergy
through Innocent’s and Alexander’s care of their children
made men fear it might reach the monks and people of
religion. “Although,” he adds, “the monasteries of the
city were all but all (quasi omnia) turned into brothels,
no one gainsaying it.”	The current lines on him were,
“Alexander sells kings, altars, Christ. He first bought
them, he has good right to sell them.” Engaged with
his second son Borgia in poisoning ('as he had poisoned
others already) $ome rich cardinals, to get their money,
at a feast prepared for it, he took, being very hot, the
poisoned wine and died.
The very brief pontificate of Pius III (1503) needs no
notice. Julius II (1503) was engaged in wars. The car-
dinals had all sworn to reform, and have a general council.
He was occupied fighting against the Venetians, and after-
wards the French. Louis XII had a council at Tours.
Germany prepared her griefs, and sought a pragmatic
sanction like France. The French council held that the
king could renounce allegiance to the Pope. He should
keep the decrees of Basle, and appeal to a future council.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	125
If Julius, armed, pronounced sentence upon him or his
allies, it would be of no force whatever. The king and
emperor summoned a general council at Pisa, but it was
mainly composed of French bishops. The Pope convoked
another council at the Lateran. The Pisan Council came
to nothing, though it deposed the Pope by a decree. A
number of cardinals were engaged in it, founded on Julius’
promise to have a general council within two years. I
only refer to it to show the confusion all was in. The
emperor ' and king of France adhered afterwards to the
Lateran Council. Francis I and Leo X (1513) made a
treaty. The Pope by that had again quietly the upper
hand. The councils of Constance and Basle, on the first
of which the succession of the papacy depends, maintained
the authority of councils and bishops. France held
strongly to this. The councils of Florence and Lateran V
set up the Pope. In result half Europe broke off, and
the Pope by the Council of Trent remained absolute in
the rest, if we except the Gallican liberties.
In Leo’s time light had come in, the condemning of
Popes by councils had weakened confidence; papal author-
ity had lost a great deal of its- influence, and the exces-
sive insult to conscience in Tetzel’s sale of indulgences
had filled the cup. The princes were angry at their
oppression by the Pope; they had long complained, though
they	had not dared to stir. But	when God	raised	up
Luther to show the iniquity of all this, and after some
time	the want of foundation for	the Pope’s	power,	all
was	providentially prepared. People came to	confess	to
him,	guilty of all sorts of crimes.	When he	insisted	on
putting practical penance on them, they produced their
letters of indulgence, and were easy in their sin. But a
protest against Rome could not have been delayed. It126
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
had been going on at Pisa, at Basle, and at Constance,
by legal attempts, by the centum- gravanuna, by the com-
plaints of Bernard and Messalas, and holy men of times
previous to the Reformation. All the difference was, that
God then raised up men of sufficient faith to brave the
Pope;1 whereas, previously, the reformation had been left
to the Popes, and all was worse than ever. The king
and bishops of France adhered to the Gallican principles
and were in constant collision with all the Popes from
Pius IV (1560) to Pius IX (1846). They opposed Roman
centralization; rejected the yoke of Ultramontane preten-
sions, and held the authority of a general council to be
superior to that of the Pope. The great principles of the
Gallican Church have been held by Lacordaire, Montalem-
bert, Gratry, Affre, Sibour, and Darboy, late Archbishop
of Paris. Dr. J. J. I. Von Dollinger, Professors Reusch,
Langen, Menzel, and Bishop Reinkens, of Germany, Bishop
Herzog, of Switzerland, and P&re Hyacinthe Loyson, of
France, in our own day, have attached themselves to the
same ideas. These men would not be partisans of Ultra-
montane doctrines, and sacrifice their reason in submitting
to the arbitrary authority of Pius IX. Pius IX (1846),
when compared with Gregory XVI (1831), was a good
man, but not a great man. He commenced by introduc-
ing some reforms. Taxes were reduced, political offenders
were pardoned, and civil offices were given to laymen,
but soon returned to conservatism and absolutism. He
framed into dogmas the Immaculate Conception and Papal
Infallibility, but by the irresistible force of events he lost
his temporal power, and the French protectorate ceased
1 Luther wrote his famous letter to Pope Leo X (1578), and in
company with Melancthon and Staupils began the Reformation in
Germany.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
127
with the defeat of Napoleon III at Sedan, in 1870.
Pope Leo XIII (1878) is a scholar, theologian, and poet,
and like his predecessor, Pius IX, began with reforms. •
He favors the sciences, and recommends the philosophy
of Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and other school-
men. He possesses great dignity, amiableness of charac-
• ter, and executive ability; and, though apparently opposed
by the Ultramontane Jesuits, he has already made some
headway in harmonizing the differences existing between
Church and State. He accepted, what Pius IX impotently
opposed, the unification of Italy; permitted what Pius IX
solemnly forbade, the election of priests by parishes in
Switzerland; counselled the Belgian bishops not to oppose
the Constitution, and the German bishops to obey the
laws of the land. Leo XIII is a very popular Pope, and
the indications are that he will bring about a better feel-
ing between the papacy and national governments.128
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
CHAPTER VII.
THE GENERAL COUNCILS-325-1870.
r the early councils scarce any Western bish-
ops were present. The West had not the
mental activity of the East, and they did not
raise useless questions as the Easterns did.
In no one of the first six general councils were a dozen
Western bishops; in many not half that number. Three
were found in the first one. A note, said to be of
Dionysius Exiguus, says they did not sign at Nice, be-
cause they were not suspected of heresy. If this were
so, it gives a curious character to the decrees a.nd signa-
tures. It was to force the suspected bishops to declare
and bind themselves. The number of prelates is uncer-
tain; Eusebius says two hundred and fifty. In Hardouin
we have three hundred and eighteen names, which after-
ward was held to be a mystical number. The late coun-
cils were, on the contrary, wholly Western, and of the
Latin Chui'ch. There were no Easterns. At Florence,
Pope Eugenius attempted it, but it was a complete fail-
ure. The assent a few Greek prelates did give was
utterly repudiated by their Church when they went home.
All these late Western councils, save Pisa, Constance, and
Basle, were assemblies called and managed by the Popes
for their own purposes, with, in general, a vast majority
of Italian bishops, Pisa, Constance, and Basle were the
1				[|U
	1			
H|||l!llllll|!|lllllllli!lll!				If?EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
129
fruit of the struggles of the. conscience of Christendom
against the hopeless wickedness and oppression of the
papacy and the Popes. There has been no council since
which represented East and West. It was attempted at
Sardica, and failed; they split and held two. The most
complete one was Ariminum, under Constantius, whose
four hundred bishops undid the work of Nice, but it did
not succeed. The Westerns had been dragged in, and
afterwards protested.
I-VIII. IMPERIAL (EASTERN) COUNCILS —325-869.
I. The Council at Nice—325.
Constantine, the first Christian emperor, meddled, as did
his successors, largely in ecclesiastical matters. As a
political man, he felt his government hindered by the
dissensions of the bishops, which roused the whole Chris-
tian world. He took up the Donatist question; he directed
certain bishops to hear the same a second time, others
to rehear it, and at last heard himself, and put the Don-
atists down. Meanwhile, the Arian question or controversy
raged in the East. It had spread from Alexandria over
the whole Eastern world, and divided the people into two
factions. Thereupon the emperor writes a letter, saying
the East had been the source of light to the world; how
grieved he was, and so on; that as they were one in
faith (Alexander and Arius), they ought to hold their
tongues on nice points, and not let such delicate questions
go out before the ignorant, and make confusion. But in
vain; so he summoned a council at Nice (325), in the
hope of settling it. The invitations came from himself,
and he provided horses for the bishops to come, or allowed
them to use the public posts; had them to meet in the
9130
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
palace, and presided himself. A glowing description is
given by Eusebius of his coming into the assembly and
taking his seat at the head of it. When the bishops had
bowed, and said a few complimentary words, he sat down,
and the bishops too. Then he made a long harangue to
them, and gave liberty of speech afterwards to the bish-
ops, soothed them, answered .objections, reasoned with
them, and brought them, though with difficulty, to some
kind of quietness, and got all but five to sign, who were
banished. The emperor held thus a strong hand over them;
having once made a decision in a council, little or big,
he enforced it for peace’s sake by his own authority.
The orthodox suffered as others, if they were not quiet,
Athanasius among the rest. That Constantine convoked
and managed the council is beyond all question; Eusebius,
Ruffinus, and Epiphanus all agree. That he presided is
equally certain; he sat in a little golden seat at the head,
the bishops down the sides of the apartment. Alexander
of Alexandria, Epiphanus tells us, got him to convoke it.
Hosius subscribed first, then the two presbyters sent by
Sylvester of Rome, then the rest.
II. The Council at Constantinople—381.
The Second (so called) General Council of Constantinople
(381) consisted of one hundred and fifty bishops, called
together by the Emperor Theodosius; and the bishops so
declare in their letter, which precedes the decrees, and
ask expressly the confirmation of the emperor of what
they had decreed. They communicated their decrees and
canons to the Western bishops in common, then assem-
bled at Rome, giving Constantinople the second rank after
Rome, but on grounds which refer merely to civil rank
in each. They confirm the sixth canon of the CouncilEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	131
of Nice as to the independence of the larger divisions of
the hierarchical system. Their creed is the now-accepted
Nicene one, an article forbidden by Pope Leo being
added. But the Pppe had nothing to say to the council;
the Popes did not accept its canons, but they are re-
ceived in the universal church. Baronius seeks to invali-
date one, but is corrected by Pagi, who shows it to have
been universally received. It is worthy of note here, that
the article added to their creed is still rejected by the
Greeks, who hold the creed as settled by the Council of
Constantinople. And it is further to be remarked, that
the General Council of Ephesus forbade any other creed
to be proposed to any one, and the great Pope Leo this
very article in particular. This added article, which came
from Spain and France, is the great subject of division
with the Greeks, though they do not believe in Purgatory
either, nor, of course, recognize the Popes. Not only did
Pope Leo formally forbid its being inserted, but had the
Constantinopolitan creed engraved in Greek and Latin on
silver plates on this account in the church.
III. The Council at Ephesus—431.
The next Council of Ephesus (431) was convoked, as
the previous one, by the emperor; the Pope’s representa-
tives were in it. But Cyril’s violence against Nestorius
had left Eutychian sects at Alexandria, and bore its
fruits. The Archbishop of Alexandria presided, as before.
They beat the poor old Archbishop of Constantinople in
such a way that he died of it in a few days, and oth-
ers were severely maltreated. Pope Leo condemned
Eutychus in the famous epistle to Flavian, too rhetorical
for such a subject, aud questionable, I judge, in some
expressions, but doubtless a remarkable document, and132
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
substantially sound, and asked for a council in or near
Italy. The emperor refused, but the council first con-
vened at Nice, and then removed to Chalcedon, was
held (451), which also condemned Eutychus, adopting Leo’s
statement and Cyril’s two letters to Nestorius, on the
ground of their intrinsic merits. The legates asked if
this and the other councils agree with Leo. The bish-
ops answered, Leo agrees with them. There was a great
struggle for jurisdiction and rank between Leo and Ana-
tolius, the legates having orders to resist all advance in
rank of Constantinople. But it was maintained and in-
creased to equal dignity and second rank in precedence,
and the contested jurisdiction given it, the legates staying
away that day, then complaining of its being done; but
it was confirmed. Anatolius gave way afterwards in form,
but kept his ground in fact. The canon remains in the
universal canons, but the Popes would never own it. The
Romans were charged with forging part of a canon here
to give supremacy to Rome, as they were convicted of
it just at this time in Africa, which peremptorily re-
jected the pretensions of Rome, and sent off its legate.
But what I mainly refer to in the council is this: that
Theodore and Ibas were declared sound in the faith, and
Leo confirmed twice over the doctrinal decisions of the
council. But in the following council, Pope Vigilius first
gave a judgment in favor of the three chapters, as it
was called; but he had to do with a powerful emperor,
who had now reconquered Italy, and he made the Pope
come to the council, and finally forced him to sign and
confirm its decrees, which condemned the three chapters
which Chalcedon had pronounced sound, by which confir-
mation, moreover, Baronius says, it became a general
council.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND "PRIESTS.
133
In the Council of Ephesus the Pope acted very ably
by his legates, but in which no other Western prelates
were present. The emperor had convoked the council,
and his commissioner forbade them to meet till all the
Eastern prelates were there; but Cyril, and the bishops
of his party, drove him out, took possession of all the
churches, and settled the matter by condemning Nesto-
rius before the Easterns came, Nestorius and his party
protesting, but not daring to go. The Easterns, however,
did not yield. Cyril was excommunicated and deposed by
them; and it was only on Cyril’s giving up some points
that John of Antioch was reconciled some years later
with Cyril, through the emperor’s means.- The result was,
Nestorianism spread through the East, even to China.
The emperor gave up Nestorius to have peace, and he
was banished. But Leo, in his letter subsequently to
Flavian of Constantinople, adopted at the Council of
Chalcedon, does not use the word Nestorius objected to —
Deipara. The whole course of Cyril was a disgrace to
any sober Christian man; he was the true source of Eutychi-
anism, and I judge his soundness very questionable on
the Atonement. This third general council was perfectly
shameful, and really produced lasting disasters to the
Church at large. No one acquainted with history can
deny it. It was really the fruit of the Pope’s jealousy
of Constantinople, and consequent intrigues. Constantino-
ple had not been what was called an Apostolic See; was
raised to eminence by the importance of the city as the
capital. Old Rome could not bear this. These councils
rested the pre-eminence of Rome and Constantinople on
their being capitals, old and new Rome. And general
councils confirmed by Popes have directly contradicted one
another.134
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHU.RCH OF ROME.
IV. The Council at Chalcedon—451.
As to the Chalcedon, the fourth general council, the
Pope wanted to get one in Italy to condemn Eutychus.
The emperor, Theodosius, refused, saying all was settled
at Ephesus. So little did Popes call general councils
then. His successor was well disposed, but refused peremp-
torily to have it in Italy, called it at Nice, and then, in
order to manage it better, brought it to Chalcedon, close
to Constantinople. His commissioners sat in the council
save one day, suppressed the violence of the prelates at
the beginning, saying they ought to show a better exam-
ple, and made propositions, gave their consent; in fact,
presided actively all the time in the council, save one
day. On that day, on which they left the prelates to
settle about the creed, the council deposed Dioscorus,
also Patriarch of Alexandria, for his crimes at the pre-
vious Council of Ephesus. Qn their return the next
day, the commissioners said they must answer for it, they
had not been there. In truth, their consciences need
not have been much burdened. But even as to the creed
to be signed, one was proposed. The papal legates op-
posed, and said they would go if Pope Leo’s letter was
not assented to as it was, along with the creeds of Nice
and Constantinople. The letter was in point of fact in
many respects an admirable one. It was referred to the
emperor, who decided what was to be done, and the
council stated their views in detail for themselves, though
approving Leo’s letter, but would give their own defini-
tion of faith. Afterwards, Constantinople was put on an
equality with Rome, the legates craftily keeping away.
They protested on their return, but the bishops main-
tained it, and the commissioners declared it had passed,EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
135
and the council said, “We remain in this judgment.” In
this Council of Chalcedon, Ibas and Theodoret, favorers
of Nestorius’ views, were declared orthodox. They publicly
recognized the Empress Pulcheria as the person who had
put down Nestorius.
V. The Second Council at Constantinople — 553.
The Fifth General Council is too plain in its history
to need more than the plain statement of facts. There
had been a great contest about the merits of Origen,
and the monks had been breaking into each others’ mon-
asteries, and in the course of the disputes which followed
blood had been shed in the churches. However, they
got the emperor to condemn Origen’s doctrine. He was
a powerful prince, and recovered Italy and Africa from
the barbarians, and liked his own way. A certain Theo-
dore of Caesarea, a great favorite with the emperor, was
fond of Origen and Eutychianism, and determined to have
his revenge, and he engaged Justinian to condemn three
persons’ writings — Theodore of Mopsuestia,1 Ibas, and The-
odoret, all three opposed to Cyril, w*ho had had his way
in the Council of Ephesus. These three persons had
been pronounced to be in full communion in the Council
of Chalcedon, which had rather tended to set up Nesto-
rius’ reputation again, whom Cyril and the Council of
Ephesus had condemned. Justinian published a long de-
cree, condemning the three chapters, as the writings of
the three prelates above named were called. He had a
kind of council, and the Oriental patriarchs and prelates
* His writings were greatly read in the East. Cyril tried to get
them condemned, but the Easterns absolutely refused. He is said
to have been the originator of Nestorianism, and even teacher of
Nestorius.136 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
\yere obliged to condemn them, too. Pope ■ Vigilius con-
demned them and excommunicated the patriarch of Con-
stantinople, and all who had condemned the three chapters.
However, Justinian thought he would be more tractable
at Constantinople, and made	him come.	There,	in fact,
he joined in communion again with the excommunicated
ones, and condemned the three chapters. But then, all
the prelates of Illyrica	and	Africa, in fact, of	all the
West in general, separated from his communion as un-
faithful— a bad business according to modern Romanist
notions. To	get out of	the scrape,	he	acceded to	the
proposal of some of these prelates, of a general council,
and withdrew his condemnation of the three chapters, and
forbade any resolution till there was a council. The em-
peror persecuted him (indeed, he had exiled him and after-
wards brought him to Constantinople); he fled to Chal-
cedon, and the emperor compromised, and he came back.
He then pressed for a	council in Italy.	That	did not
suit the emperor, and	he	refused, but	called	one at
Constantinople. Vigilius	would not	go	there, and	he
signed his private judgment with eighteen other prelates
from the West, while one hundred and sixty or one hun-
dred and seventy sat in the council under the emperor’s
authority. This letter of his, called constitutive, was
given to the	em peror, but	was taken	no	notice of in	the
council. To	say the truth, it was on	the whole the most
sensible paper in the whole miserably business, and he
forbade, by the authority of the Apostolic See, in any
way to contravene what he then pronounced. However,
the emperor went on- with his council, when, save a very
few renegades, there were no Western prelates. The
council altogether condemned the three chapters, which
was quite different from Pope Vigilius’ constitutive letter.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
137
And Vigilius refused to sign, as he had refused to be
presept. Justinian banished him again, and he gave way,
and signed; and it became thereby, says Baronius, a
general council. But universal confusion was the result.
The Nestorians established a patriarchate at Seleucia, were
favored by the Persians in opposition to the Roman Em-
pire, and spread over all the East, Christianity be-
coming very nearly the established religion of China at
that time. And the Eutychians, raising their head through
the activity of a monk, Jacobus, spread too, and the
patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, such as they
are since Mohammedanism overran the East, are in their
hands spread as far as India, and have a primate in
Abyssinia. Both subsist. Not long ago violent persecu-
tions were set on foot against the Nestorians, it is said,
at the instigation of the so-called -Bishop of Babylon in
connection with Rome, the Consul of France.
VI. The Third Council at Constantinople—680.
The Sixth General Council furnishes us with some
curious elements as to the progress of church history.
Eastern Christendom was always discussing points. Rome
was always pushing its power. In the East they got a
new point. Christ had only one will, or at any rate His
divine and human will coalesced, though He had two
natures. The emperor adopted, and Pope Honorius wrote
a letter approving it. However, there was a change;
the Roman legates opposed it at Constantinople, and one
of them, Martin, became Pope; he then denounced all
the holders of it. The then emperor published a rescript,
forbidding discussions, and all men to be left in peace.
The Pope denounced this as sanctioning evil. The em-
peror tried to get hold of him, failed the first time, but138 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
succeeded the second, and brought him prisoner, and kept
him so till he died. The Roman clergy, less staunch
than the people, gave way, and elected another Pope,
whom the emperor confirmed; he never had confirmed his
stern predecessor, Martin. The emperor, who had always
maintained his rescript, died, and his successor proposed a
conference to settle it. Four Popes had succeeded one
another rapidly during his reign, and at last Agathon as-
sembled a Western council, at which, however, no prelates
from Spain, Britain, or Germany, were present, save one
on his own affairs, and three from France. However,
they put themselves forward as representing the whole
Latin Church. In truth, save Scotland and Ireland, and
the north of England, it was at this time pretty well
papalized. However, as the council of the Apostolic See,
as they say, they condemn the Monothelites, as they were
called. Legates went from the Pope to Constantinople,
but they were not to discuss, the Pope said, nor a tittle
to be altered in the confession. The emperor had re-
moved a stiff patriarch, and put in a milder one, and
formed an assembly at Constantinople, and ordered Maca-
rius, the Patriarch of Antioch, the Monothelite leader, to
assemble as many as he could of his party. Thus, besides
other prelates, the Eastern patriarchs, or their legates,
were present. The West was only represented by the
Pope’s legates. Macarius was deserted by most of his
partisans, who found the tide against him, for the emperor
sought peace, though they had pretty well reviled each
other. Macarius, however, insisted on the authority of
Honorius, of Sergius, previously Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, and of Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, but he was
all but unanimously deposed and excommunicated. And
then followed the strangest result. They condemned allEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
139
the writings of these heretics, and their memory they
anathematized—Theodore of Pharan, author of the mis-
chief; Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and two of his
successors; Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria; Honorius, Pope
of Rome, and Macarius of Antioch, and all following them.
In the thirteenth session they are declared out of the
pale of the Catholic Church; that is, lost forever; and,
in the sixteenth session, anathema is pronounced on them
as heretics. This council was accepted and confirmed as
the Sixth General Council, when the result was notified
to him by Leo, the Pope who succeeded to Agathon; and
he anathematizes expressly Pope Honorius and the others.
In this Sixth General Council there were at first some
thirty or forty bishops, at the end one hundred and sixty.
VII. The Second Council at Nice—787.
The emperor, the Isaurian, who had long known the
Arabs, and seen them despise the idolatry of Christendom,
had a strong desire to reform the abuses of image-wor-
ship. He issued in 726 forbidding them to be worshipped,
and the pictures and images were directed to be put high
up, but were not ordered to be taken away. But Ger-
manus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Gregory
II opposed vehemently; the Greeks rose in insurrection,
and, advancing to Constantinople, were defeated. The
emperor now went further, and, in 730, had the images
and pictures destroyed. Thence tumults, murder, and re-
prisals by the government. Germanus and the Popes
sustained their cause by appealing to the most ridiculous
fable, which no one believes now — that Christ sent a
miraculous picture of himself to Abgarus, King of Edessa —
and insulted the emperor in the grossest possible language.
His son Constantine called a council in 754 of three140
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
hundred and thirty-eight bishops of the East, and they
condemned images; they called themselves a general coun-
cil. This went on till one Irene, a widow of his son,
remained with a young child. She wheeled round, and
then three hundred and seventy-seven bishops and the
Pope’s legates authorized image-worship. This was at the
Council of Nice in 787. There were no Western bishops,
but the Pope ratified it. But the West were not, after
all, such image-worshippers as the Pope. They held to
what the great Pope Gregory had written to Serenus of
Marseilles, when he had broken images there, which were
then coming in — that all worship of them was wrong, but
that they might be useful for the ignorant, to recall the
mind to those represented by them. Here, then, super-
stition had made progress, and the Popes had changed
with the times, but it seems the West had not. In the
Western Empire, under Charlemagne, the Council of Nice
was rejected. First of all, this great founder of the new
Western Empire assembled his bishops, and put forth a
book in his own name, in which he condemned the Coun-
cil of Constantinople, which suppressed all pictures and
images, and equally the Council of Nice, which allowed
them to be revered and worshipped. He went through
the Scriptures and the Fathers, and proved that this
worship and reverence was all wrong. But the emperor’s
and bishops’ book goes further. Pope Adrian had sent
them the decisions of the Council of Nice, to which they
had never been called, and they say, “We receive the six
general councils, but we reject with contempt novelties, as
also the council held in Bithynia (that is, the so-called
Seventh General Council of Nice), to authorize the wor-
ship of images, the acts of which, destitute of style and
sense, have come to us ”; and then they refute seriouslyEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	141
all that the Pope had said to the Eastern emperor. They
declared that the Council of Nice was not a general one,
because it was not gathered from all parts of the Church,
and appeal to Gregory the Great’s letter to Serenus.
But this work of the bishops of France and Germany,
then one empire, issued in Charlemagne’s name, was not
all. In 794 he had a council at Frankfort-on-the-Main,
at which were the Pope’s legates and three hundred pre-
lates of Germany, France, and Spain. This council refers
to the Council of Nice as the Council of the Greeks, and
rejects entirely, unanimously, and with contempt, its doc-
trine and decision. All this was sent to the Pope. He
replies in a long letter on the doctrines, and adds, “We
have received the Council of Nice because conformed to
the doctrine of St. Gregory (Gregory the Great which
was not), fearing the Greeks might return to their error.
However, we have yet given no answer to the emperor
as to the council.” So here we have an alleged general
council received by the Pope, disowned publicly by all
the West, except Italy, and its doctrine condemned. All
the assembled bishops of the West, with the Pope’s legates,
declare that the Council of Nice was not a general coun-
cil, and reject with contempt, unanimously [these are the
words], its doctrines and authority; and accordingly it
was not, for a great length of time, received in the
Western Empire as a general council, and this the Coun-
cil of Frankfort was. The Pope’s legates were at both.
The Pope received and defended Nice, but said he had
not written to the emperor, so he only half agreed to
Nice, either; but urged Charlemagne to come and help
him to get back his territory, which the Eastern emperor
had seized on. Gradually superstition advanced, and Nice
was in credit, and Frankfort went down. In Frankfort142
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the emperor was recognized as president. Louis le Debon-
naire’s commissioners, prelates of France, condemned the
Pope in the matter; and they, as Charlemagne—that is,
the Western prelates — had before done, did not admit
any council, or the Pope, to be universal or catholic,
unless they held the Catholic truth according to the
Scriptures and Fathers. Indeed, it is curious enough, for
those that cry up the Fathers, that Augustine, a Father
of, perhaps, the greatest authority of any in the Western
Church, thus speaks of councils, showing how little he
thought them an infallible security. All councils, not
merely (so-called) general ones, claimed the guidance of
the Spirit. After stating that holy canonical Scripture is
superior to all writings of bishops: “So,” he adds, “they
can be corrected by wiser discourse or reproved by
councils, if in any thing they have erred from the truth;
and councils themselves, in particular districts or prov-
inces, are, without any doubt, to yield to the authority
of plenary councils, formed out of the whole Christian
world; and prior plenary councils themselves may be
amended (emendari) by later ones, when by the experience
of things, when that which was. shut was opened, and
what lay hid is known; without any inflated arrogance,
or any elation of sacrilegious arrogance; without any con-
tentions of livid envy; with holy humility, with catholic
peace, with Christian charity.”—De Bapt. Con. Don. II, 3.
Now, which was right: the general council, or Gregory
the Great, or Gregory III ? What a sea of confusion and
contradiction we are in here ! Three hundred and thirty-
eight prelates, all of the East, calling themselves a general
council, vote against images; three hundred and seventy-
five, with Pope Gregory III, vote for them; three hund-
red of the West and the Pope’s legates, appealing toEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
143
Pope Gregory the Great’s authority, and following his
instructions, condemn both, and then the Pope, and de-
clare in the most solemn way that the former council of
the two they condemn was no general council at all, but
a Greek one, which they reject. The Pope takes easy,
because he wants his territory defended. The Greeks con-
tended about it for a length of time, — sometimes one,
sometimes the other party prevailing. In the Council of
Nice there were no Western prelates; in the Council of
Frankfort there were no Eastern. Really, general councils
had ceased, if ever they could have been called so, for
in none of the first was the West represented by prelates;
they were convened by the emperors in the East, to
settle heretical disputes. The only exception was the
Council of Sardica, and there East and West were so
opposed that they separated, and the Easterns sat at
Philippopolis, and the Westerns at Sardica. The emperors
had always convened the councils up to the present time,
and presided in them; and as soon as there was an
emperor in the West, he did the same thing. Nor did
the Popes question it; they assist, and the council states
that the emperor presided. At this time the English and
Irish churches were not under the authority of the Popes
at all, nor for long after.
VIII. The Fourth Council at Constantinople—869.
The Eighth General Council is important to us in this
respect, that the Greeks held one, the Romans another,
for a general council. The Greeks, one in 879, the
Romans, one in 869; the latter, with very few prelates
and pretended envoys from the patriarchs, condemned
Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and set up Ignatius,
who had been driven away. The legates of Rome were144
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
at the former (Greek Council), and it was so far owned
by the Pope that he agreed to Photius being patriarch,
Ignatius being now dead; but as Constantinople would
not give up Bulgaria to the jurisdiction of Rome, the
Pope excommunicated Photius, and he the Pope, and all
the pretension to a Catholic Church ceased. The schism
between the East and West was complete in the Eighth
Council.
IX-XV. PAPAL (WESTERN) COUNCILS — 1123-1311.
IX. The First Lateran Council—1123.
The first Council of Lateran was convened under Pope
Calixtus II. There being no imperial power of any suf-
ficient weight remaining in the West, the Popes held
councils of their own and for their own interests. The
first general Council of Lateran passed decrees about the
Duchy of Benevento belonging to the Pope, and forgave
the sins of those who would go to war to recover Jeru-
salem from the Saracens. They were Western councils,
and entirely under papal influences for some centuries —
centuries, as all admit, of utter darkness and wickedness.
That is, as long as there were emperors, emperors called
the councils (it was first an idea of Constantine’s to make
peace in the Church); and, when emperors ceased to call
them, their power being gone, the schism between East
and West was complete, and no universal Church ever
externally existed since. The East was overrun by the
Mohammedans; the West by darkness and atrocities.
X-XII. The Second, Third, and Fourth Councils at
Lateran — 1139-1215.
The fourth Lateran Council was the most important of
these, and was under Pope Innocent III, and at a timeEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
145
when the papal power was at its height. It was a general
council of a very particular kind, a large number of Western
bishops (four hundred and twelve, it is said) and some eight
hundred abbots and priors, and others, such as ambassadors,
assisting at it. But there was no consulting about any thing.
The Pope had prepared seventy canons or rules, read
them out ready-made, and silence was supposed to confirm
them. They were simply decrees of Innocent III, graced
by the presence of prelates, abbots, and ambassadors. At
this council, for the first time, transubstantiation was de-
creed to be a church doctrine, and confession required
yearly to the parish priest. At this council the horrible
iniquities of the crusade against the Count of Toulouse,
who protected his subjects, the Albigenses, were sanctioned,
and the Inquisition began, perfected soon after as a sys-
tem by succeeding Popes.
XIII-XV. The First and Second Councils at Lyons
and Vienne —1245-1311.
We come now to some important councils, omitting
much by which the Pope sought to strengthen his power,
ecclesiastical and temporal. The papacy, during the coun-
cils of Lyons and Vienne, got so bad that disputes arose
in its own circle, and, in 1378, there were two Popes,
this state of things lasting about forty years. But this
only made matters worse; Europe was divided, and they
could only get money from half, and every sort of eccle-
siastical corruption and oppression was introduced to have
it, which some spent in dissoluteness in their courts,
some heaped up. The University of Paris strove to heal
the matter, and, after long negotiating and intriguing on
all sides, the cardinals of both parties summoned a coun-
cil (provincial) at Pisa for March, 1409. The cardinals
10146 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
are a body formed originally of the principal ecclesiastics
of Rome of different ranks in the hierarchy by a decree
of Pope Nicolas II, in 1059, to elect the Pope, a right
enjoyed up to that time- by all at Rome, and which had
led to all sorts of tumults, violence, and bloodshed, and,
to appease the opposition of the rest, added to by Alex-
ander III; others have been added to them, and now
many out of Rome are named. They form a kind of
court to the Pope; they have the highest rank in the
papal system, though not necessarily in the episcopacy, as
they are from the various orders of the hierarchy. The
council deposed both the Popes (Urban VI and Clement
VII), and after the cardinals had solemnly engaged them-
selves to reform the abuses which existed, Alexander V
was elected, the effect of which was that they had three
Popes instead of two.
XVI-XIX. REFORMING (PRELATIC) COUNCILS —1414-1563.
XVI. The Council at Constance —1414-1418.
Pope Alexander V’s successor, John XXIII, was such a
horrible monster, and a King Ladislaus, of Naples, whom
he had provoked, having forced him to fly from Rome,
the emperor took advantage of it to get him to summon
a council, which was called for November, 1414, — the
famous Council of Constance. Already the state of the
popedom and the writings of the famous Gerson had pre-
pared men’s minds to consider a council superior to a
Pope. The Council of Constance declared its superiority
to the Pope’; tried to get him to resign, which he prom-
ised, fearing his conduct was going to be inquired into;
evaded, and they deposed him. One of the other two,
— for there were three, — Gregory XII, resigned, and theEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
147
third was deserted; and though he had a kind of suc-
cessor, the schism thus ended. But little reformation was
effected, the council leaving it to the Pope whom they
chose, — Martin V. But it is, as Romanist historians say,
the wisdom of Rome to approve nothing at Constance
and to change nothing at Constance. It is a kind of
bridge, but such a broken one for them, that, though it
seems to enable them to cross the river, it is likely to
plunge them only more dangerously into it. If the Coun-
cil of Constance had not the authority it claims, what
becomes of the popedom ? They have no right to call
any one a Pope; there is no legitimate Pope at all, for
the council deposed John XXIII and chose Martin V,
besides setting aside the two anti-Popes. They have no
Popes but those who derive their authority from the
Council of Constance. They scarcely recognize the authority
of the Council of Constance; but if it be not a council,
the popedom has no legitimate foundation at all. John
XXIII confirmed expressly its decrees before he was de-
posed, whatever his confirmation was worth. Martin V,
though he avoided making any reformation in his court,
yet owned the council expressly as a general council.
And the famous decree and the setting aside of the
Pope were decided in the sessions, so that the decree
was confirmed by John XXIII before he was deposed,
and by Martin V when he was made Pope. This decree
declares that every one, even the Pope, is bound to obey
the council, and threatens punishment to the Pope if he
does not.
XVII. The Council of Basle and Ferrara-Florence —
1431-1442.
The Council of Constance was the reaction of the uni-
versal conscience of Christendom against the state to148 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
which the wickedness	of	the Popes	had	reduced	the
Church.	The Council	of	Constance	had	decreed	that
another council should be held at Pavia. Martin called it.
It was removed, on account of the plague, to Sienna;
hence, few were there. However, they began to reform,
and the	Pope ordered	the	closing of	the	council.	The
prelates	protested; it was	not to be	considered broken
up, it would be continued. Basle was the place chosen,
the council to be held in seven years. It was held, but
soon began to be refractory against the Pope. They re-
newed the two decrees of Constance, subjecting the Pope
to a council, word for word, and declared they could not
be dissolved. This was in the second session. The Pope
decreed their dissolution; they rejected it and summoned
him. The Pope was in great trouble, by his local wars,
and sent legates to say he recognized them as a general
council, legitimately continued from the time they had
commenced. They received the legates on condition that
they swore they approved the decrees of the Council of
Constance as to the authority of a general council. The
Pope Eugene decreed the removal of the Council of Fer-
rara. The council declared the decree of a removal void.
The Pope, however, began at Ferrara with some of his
own Italian bishops, the Council of Basle remaining where
it was. The Council of Basle deposed Pope Eugene after
long delay,—the princes seeking some way of peace,—
and chose another,— Felix V. The princes remained
neutral, and when the Popes censured each other, received
the decrees of neither, though many held to the Council
of Basle as a legitimate general council, as France and
England, and would not own that of Ferrara, and sought
to transfer it elsewhere. To this the prelates of Basle
agreed. Felix went to Lausanne. Gradually the interestsEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
149
of Eugene gained the upper hand. Eugene’s council,
already transferred to Florence, was moved to Rome.
The Council of Basle dissolved itself, calling a future
council at Lyons or Lausanne. Felix and Eugene re-
mained Popes. Eugene died; and Nicolas V, at the in-
stance of the princes, agreed, if Felix gave up the papacy,
to revoke all censures against him and those engaged in
the Council of Basle; confirm all its other acts, as well
as those of Florence, and make Felix first cardinal and
perpetual legate in Germany; and this was accordingly
done. Felix, on his part, revoked all his censures and
resigned, and thus this schism terminated.
XVIII. The Fifth Lateran Council —1512-1517.
From 1460 to 1515 the Councils of Constance and
Basle were forgotten. The Roman clergy were delivered
from subjection to secular authority, and in the Fifth
Lateran Council it was ruled “the laity have no jurisdic-
tion over ecclesiastical persons.” The council confirmed
the decrees issued by Innocent III, at the Fourth Lateran
Council of 1215, that no ecclesiastic should take an oath
of fealty to secular princes. It was declared that the
Pope had full authority over councils, and could summon,
suspend, or dissolve them at his pleasure. The Councils
of Constance and Basle had pronounced a council to be
above the Pope. France held to this principle in what
are called the Gallican liberties. Intelligence was increased,
the royal power much greater, by the decay of the feudal
system, and the Popes could not play off one prince
against another, as they had. They sought to aggrandize
their families in Italy. One (for Popes an honest Pope)
declared it was impossible to be one, and save your soul.
He had been a stickler for the Council of Basle, butISO FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
condemned when Pope; appealed to a general council,
for these were becoming universal, but he soon died.
Paul II undid all he had attempted to do in the way
of reform. The Cardinal Antonio Pucci said before the
council:	“Rome, the Roman prelates, and the bishops
daily sent forth from Rome, are the joint causes of the
manifold errors and corruptions in the Church. Unless we
recover our good fame, which is almost wholly lost, it
is all up with us.”1 And in the Fifth Lateran Council,
Bishop Matthias Ugoni describes in his work the contempt
the bishops had sunk into, so that there was no infamy
men did not attribute to them, while they repelled with
scorn any one who so much as hinted at the need of
reform and of a true council, as disturbers of peace, and
hypocrites.
XIX. The Council of Trent—1545-1563.
The Popes became so wicked and so oppressive and
despicable that the clergy at large, in a general council,
deposed two of them at Pisa, electing a third, and, as the
two did not yield, had three, and then succeeded in
deposing all and naming one at the Council of Constance;
but he avoided the reformations demanded, and, forced by
circumstances, his successor was obliged to yield and hold
another council at Basle. The Council of Basle made
many reforms; and then the Pope, alarmed, called the
council, first to Ferrara, then to Florence; the council
deposed him and named another, and at last, both being
tired, and the succeeding Pope conciliatory, he confirmed
the decrees of Basle and Florence, and the anti-Pope
1 Rome or Babylon, ejus que in colas pastores, qui quotidie per
universum terrarum orbem anoniarum saluti preficuntur tantorum
causam erroruml’— Antonio Pucci, Cardinalj Cone. XIV, 240.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	IS1
resigned. Since then, at the Fifth Lateran Council and
the Council of Trent, and up to the Reformation, the
Popes had it pretty much their own way; but their ex-
cessive wickedness destroyed respect for them, and the
last Pope before the Reformation poisoned himself in
seeking to poison his cardinals, to get their money. The
Popes, plunging into such wickedness and oppression,
roused the clergy, supported by the princes of Europe, to
seek to assert the superiority of a council over them,
which they confirmed because they could not help it, and
evaded as soon as the councils were over. At last,
their wickedness, and especially their sale of indul-
gences, which was really selling permission to sin, brought
about the Reformation,—that is, the breaking loose of
half Western Europe from their sway, Eastern Europe
having never been under it. This brought on the Council
of Trent, which fixed the Romanist deeper in error than
ever; gave a deeper character of apostasy from the truth
to the Romish Church, and left the separation of Northern
Europe where it was. The Council of Trent confirmed
the Adoration of the Host, Auricular Confession, Priestly
Absolution, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction,
Holy Orders, and Matrimony. But the Council of Trent
failed to decree any reformation; and the selling of par-
dons, in the grossest way, to get money to build the
cathedral at Rome, and the abominations were such, that
God, arousing not princes nor the hierarchy, but simple
individuals, brought about the Reformation in Germany
and Switzerland.
XX. THE VATICAN COUNCIL—1869-1870.
We have seen that general councils were always called
and presided over by the emperor, as long as the East152 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
had any part in them, and that Popes and councils have
striven for authority when they were called and presided
over by Popes, but the Vatican Council put an end to
this strife by decreeing the Personal Infallibility of Pope
Pius IX. Since the Council of Trent, over three centu-
ries had elapsed before the Vatican Council was convened
in Rome, presided over by Pope Pius IX. It was the
most solemn, marvellous, and imposing council ever held
in the history of the Roman Church. It was the largest
council ever witnessed in Rome, and its pageant was
presented with all the pomp and ritual of the Catholic
Church. The magnificence of the ceremony, and the im-
portant dogma to be decreed, called together seven hund-
red and sixty-four prelates,1 forty-nine cardinals, ten
patriarchs, four primates, one hundred and five diocesan
archbishops, twenty-two archbishops in partibus, four hund-
red and twenty-four diocesan bishops, ninety-eight bishops
in partibus, and fifty-two abbots and generals of Monastic
orders.2 The Vatican Council aimed to destroy the civili-
zation and progress of the Nineteenth century that threat-
ened the foundation of the Roman Church, as the Coun-
cil of Trent aimed to check the movements of the
1 The number entitled to a seat in a General Council is 1,037.
(1)	Eminentissimi et reverendissimi Domini Rom. Cardinals; (a) ordinis
Episcoporum, (b) ordinis Presbyterorum, (c) ordinis Diaconorum, 51;
(2)	Reverendissimi Domini Patriarchi, 11 ; (3) Reverendissimi Domini
Primates, 10; (4) Reverendissimi Domini Archiepiscopi, 166; (5) Rev-
erendissimi Domini Episcopi, 740; (6) Abbates nullius dioceseos, 6;
(7) Abbates Generales ordinum monasticorum, 23; (8) Generales et
Vicarii Generales, 29.
2	There were some fourteen nations represented in the Council: —
Italy, 246; France, 84; Austria and Hungary, 48; Spain, 41; Ger-
many, 19; Great Britain, 35; United States, 48; Mexico, 10; Switzer-
land, 8; Belgium, 6; Holland, 4; Portugal, 2; Russia, 1.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	153
Protestant reformers of the Sixteenth century. The coun-
cil convened December 8, 1869, in the Basilica of the
Vatican, and confirmed, first, the Immaculate Conception
of the Virgin Mary;1 second, the Quanta Curia, or the
papal protest against modern progress and civilization;2
and, thirdly, decreed the new dogma of the Personal
Infallibility of the Pope. There were two documents
before the council, — one from Pio Nono, “Sumus Doc-
torus,” and one from the bishops, “Supremus Pastorus.”
The prelates Darboy, of Paris; Matthieu, of Besangoni
Ginoulhiac, of Lyons; Dupanloup, of Orleans; Ketteler, of
Mayence; Hefele, of Rottenburg; Scherr, of Munich; Fors-
ter, of Breslau; Simon, of Hungary; Rauscher, of Vienna;
Schwarzenburg, of Prague; Strossmayer, of Bosnia; Hay-
nald, of Kalocsa; MacHale, of Ireland; Connolly, of Nova
Scotia, and Kenrick, of the United States, thought the
Pope with the council might be accepted as infallible, and
objected to personal infallibility; but the placet of the
majority decided the matter, and the following dogma re-
ceived the sanction of the council:	“ Wherefore we,
adhering faithfully to the traditions of the Christian faith
1 “ Satisfacturi propterea communi desiderio jam nunc nuncianus,
futurum quando cunque Concilium sub auspiis Diepara Virginis ab
omni labe immunis esse constituendum, et eo aperiendum die, quo
insignis hujus privilegii ipsi collati memoria recolitur.’’
2(i) Pantheismus, Naturalismus, et Rationalismus Absolutus; (2) Ra-
tionalismus Moneratus; (3) Indifferentismus Latitudinarismus; (4) So-
cialismus, Communismus, Societates Clandestine, Societates Biblices,
Societates Clerico-Liberales; (5) Errores de Ecclesia Ejusque Juribus i
(6) Errores de Societate Civilitum in Se, Turn in Suis ad Ecclesiam
Relationibus Spectata; (7) Errores de Ethica Naturali et Christiana;
(8) Errores de Matrimonio Christiano; (9) Errores de Civili Romani
Pontificis Principatu; (10) Errores Qui ad Liberalismum Hodiernum
Referuntur.154
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
as we have inherited them, to the glory of God our
Saviour, to the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and
to the salvation of the Christian peoples, with the
approval of the Sacred Council, teach and define it to be
a dogma of divine revelation, that the Roman Pontiff,
when speaking ex cathedra, that is, as pastor and teacher
of all Christians, he defines any doctrine concerning faith
and morals as necessary to be held by the universal
Church, has promised to him, by the divine assistance in
the person of St. Peter, that Infallibility with which the
Divine Redeemer willed his Church should be provided
in defining a doctrine of faith and morals.”1
The great work of the Vatican Council was its decree
of Papal Infallibility. It met the differences that existed
between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism, which lay at the
very foundation of papal authority; it did away with
the independence of the episcopate, and made it obedient
to the primacy; it destroyed liberalism and rationalism in
the Roman Church; it perfected the system of papal
supremacy, and it made the doubtful theory of Papal
Infallibility an essential article of faith, essential to the
salvation of every Roman Catholic.
1 “ Itaque nos traditioni a fidei Christianas exordio perceptae fideliter
inherendo. Ad Dei Salvatoris nostra gloriam, religionis Catholicas —
exactationem, et Christianorum populorum salutem sacro approbante
Concilio, docemus, et divinitatis revelatum dogma esse definimus:
Romanum Pontificem, cum ex cathedra loquitor, id est, cum omnium
Christianorum Pastoris et Doctoris Munere fungens, pro suprema sua
apostolica auctoritate doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab universa Ec-
clesia tenendam definit, per assistentiam divinam ipsi in Beato Petro
permissam ea Infallibilitate pallere qua divinus Redemptor Ecclesiam
suam in definienda doctrina de fide vel moribus instructam esse voluit.”EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
155
CHAPTER VIII.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY AND EX CATHEDRA.
IE first Popes or bishops have always been
held in great horror. The heathen emperors
ruled then; any prominence they might have
only exposed them to persecution. It is said
that Popes Cletus, Clement, Evaristus (100), Alexander
(no), Sixtus (116), and Telesphorus (128), were martyrs.
This was the bright time for the Roman Pontiffs, but
the Roman bishops, under the eye of the Roman author-
ities and a bigoted populace, had a large share of the
persecution of those times. But afterwards the Roman
bishops were not the persecuted, but the persecutors.
Superstition and heresy began to invade the Roman
Church under the next Pope, Hyginus (138). In his suc-
cessor’s time, Pope Pius (142), the superstition increased.
Hermas, his brother,' with whom he is said to have been
intimate, wrote pretended visions, full of the worst prac-
tice and the worst doctrines, and even blasphemies.1 In
his time arose the dispute of the East with Rome, as to
1 Hermas is quoted by the book of Roman Pontiffs, — if it be the
same, — and the angelic visitation treated as true. Origen, Eusebius,
Jerome, and others say he is the one mentioned by Paul, which is
merely a mistake. His book is treated as excellent by Iren$us,
quoted by Eusebius and Origen, who says some did not value it;
Clemens, Alexandrinus, Tertullian when orthodox and Catholic, but156 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the observance of Easter. The East, alleging the Apos-
tle’s authority, kept it on the 14th of the month. Pope
Victor (185) would have it on the first day of the week,
and take the next one to the 14th. Polycarp had come
to make peace during the time of Pope Anicetus (151),
but Victor refused communion with all the East, and it
remained in abeyance till the Council of Nice (325), which
decided it should be on the first day of the week. So
the day of the week carried it against the day of the
month, and the Church was not divided in spite of Vic-
tor. It	is a curious piece of history,	that	the	Scotch,
Irish, and English churches kept Easter as the Asiatics
did, and it was centuries after, in 664, that the Roman
practice prevailed, after a conference in the north of
England. It was the Scotch churches of Iona who were
not subject to any	bishop,	but	governed	by presbyters,
who evangelized Germany and Switzerland, and the North,
so far as it was done in early years, but it fell under
the power of centralizing Rome. The Saxons were evan-
gelized from Rome, and the Normans, already in subjec-
tion to	Rome. But it was from	the	time	of	Cyprian
only that Rome obtained	the	title	of	Peter’s	Chair.
Baronius gives twenty-five years of Peter’s holding the
See of Rome,1 but all early authors make Linus the first
bishop.	The first author who makes	him	bishop is	Optatis
denounced	when a Montanist; Athanasius	says	it is	a most useful
book; Jerome, following	Eusebius,	very	useful	and	publicly	read in
the churches of Greece,	but not	known	among	the	Latins.	Ruffinus
says they had it read in churches, but not quoted as authority to
establish faith.
1 It is a remarkable fact, that Papal Infallibility and all ecclesiastical
authority refers itself to Peter; the See is Peter’s See, and the au-
thority is founded on him.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	157
(De Schis. Don., Lib. II, 33) in the latter part of the
Fourth century. Eusebius simply says that Linus was
the first bishop after Peter. He may, perhaps, be con-
sidered an earlier testimony than Optatis.	They were
nearly contemporaneous, and Optatis is the first who ex-
plicitly states it. That Peter was twenty-five years Bishop
of Rome is a simple absurdity; because (Christ suffered
in 34) he was in Jerusalem in 49; in Antioch in 56 or
57; and thus he could not by any possibility have been
Pope of Rome till about eleven years before his death,
68 or 69, in the time of Nero. The whole thing is a
fable upon the face of it; and yet it is from this date in
the history of Roman Pontiffs at which it is first called
the Chair of Peter, or Peter, Bishop of Rome, and which
is the foundation of Papal Infallibility. It is said by
Roman Catholic theologians, that the Pope’s authoritative
decision on matters of faith or infallibility is in the Pope
and the whole Church; the consent of the Church univesal
with the Pope; or the Pope and the whole Church repre-
sented in a general council; or the Pope speaking ex
cathedra.	1
THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL WITH THE POPE.
As a source of infallibility, the common consent of the
Church failed very early in the Church’s history. In a
very large portion of the Church, if subject to their
bishops, they must have differed from the Pope. In the
case of the Donatists, the African bishops applied to the
Emperor Constantine, and the civil (not infallible) authority
interfered to settle it. When the emperor turned Christian,
so servile was the Pope, that he, for a time, was the
true Pope. And when Constantine called councils and
regulated every thing, he was not even baptized; was so158 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
only on his death-bed, to be sure to be clear of his
sins. The emperors after Constantine became Christian, in
profession; and when the actual emperor was Arian, all
the bishops, save a few banished ones, and the Popes were
Arian. However, Pope Liberius at first was not, but at
last gave way to the emperor, and signed an heretical
creed. Liberius returned from exile, — brought back at
the intercession of Roman ladies. The emperor wanted
both him and Felix to be bishops together, but Felix was
driven out by the people. However, he got back again
and sought to exercise clerical functions in the city, but
was again driven out, and lived on his own estate. He
ordained twenty-one presbyters and nineteen bishops.
Was he infallible, or not ? What was the infallibility
worth here,—two Popes at a time, and one part of the
Church	holding him	to be Pope, and	the other not.	But
this state of things	was not changed	for the better	with
the death of Liberius. Damasus, who was chosen to suc-
ceed him, had been of Felix’ party. This dissatisfied
many, and they met and chose Ursinus, who was conse-
crated, too. The See of Rome was worth coveting by
men who loved ease and luxury.	Fine chariots, rich
feasts, and regal luxury characterized their life. This is
not only the testimony of Ammianus Marcellinus, but
Jerome informs us that Praetextatus, a Roman proconsul
and of	high family,	when no longer	proconsul, said	that
if they	would make	him Bishop of Rome, he would	turn
Christian directly. Well, there was fighting among the
people of Rome as to who should be Pope. Juvenitius,
Prefect of Rome, and Julian, Prefect of Provisions, ban-
ished Ursinus’ party, shut themselves up in a church of
Licinus, where he had been consecrated; and they were
attacked there, and one hundred and thirty-seven personsEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
159
were found killed in the church. The prefect, unable to
appease the tumultuary violence, had to go to the country.
Ursinus was banished again, and Damasus could amass
wealth and leave costly silver vessels to the Church at his
death. Ursinus then tried again, but the people would not
have him, and Siricius was chosen. And how can any
one soberly think that securing power in an office that
vied with royalty by fighting and slaughter that mag-
istrates could not stop, is a security in matters of faith
and a mark of Papal Infallibility? This closed the Fourth
century.
In the beginning of the Fifth century, the greater part
of the clergy and people chose Boniface, and the other
part the Archdeacon Eudalius, who was consecrated by
the prelate of the See of Ostia, who always regularly
consecrated the new pontiff. Boniface was consecrated by
others. The prefect wrote to the emperor in favor of
Eudalius, who convoked a number of bishops to decide,
but there was great division. On a fuller report of the
prefect, who said neither was to be trusted, both Boni-
face and Eudalius had to stay outside of Rome, and sent
another prelate of neither party to celebrate Easter, which
was just going on. Boniface had tried to get in, but
was, after first driving back the civil officers, driven back
by a larger number of them. Eudalius got in and would
not leave, on being warned; but Boniface’s friends, armed,
attacked Eudalius’, who were not. The emperor banished
the latter for being in the city against orders, and let
Boniface have the See. There were the usual tumults
and battery and violence on either side. What kind of
infallibility is this ? But towards the end of the same
century the difficulty is still greater, and the Church is
still divided against the Pope. Symmachus and Laurentiusl6o FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
were both elected Popes the same day. Some of the
clergy and the people communicated with Symmachus and
some with Laurentius. The king decided in favor of
Symmachus, and so he remained Pope. King Athelric
appointed Boniface II to be Pope, but a majority of the
Roman people, wishing to have a Pope of their own,
chose Dioscurus, and hoth were consecrated.	But Boni-
face was obliged to use every effort to reduce the clergy
to subjection, and was never rightly and canonically Pope
by the consent of the Church, and, therefore, infallibility
failed.	*•
After the short pontificates of John II and Agapetus,
we arrive at a case in which all pretense of infallibility
fails. The Emperor of Constantinople was, by means of
Belisarius, engaged in the reconquest of Italy, and the
king of the Goths, Theodotus, distrustful of influences not
his own at Rome. The clergy met to elect a Pope, but
he would not allow them to elect the one they desired,
but obliged them, under penalty of death, to establish his
nominee Pope, which they did. Baronius speaks of their
wisdom and ^divine guidance and approbation, that they
all consented to nominate Silverius, whom Theodotus had
forced upon them. He was charged with bribing the
king, to have him made Pope. It is also said this was
a calumny. It is possible; things were in such a state
that they were as capable of false accusation as he of
bribery. It is the statement of the historian, Anastasius.
But h^ was a Pope, — supposed to be infallible. The
Goths had returned to besiege Rome; Silverius was ac-
cused of treachery with the Goths. They at last raised
the siege, and Silverius was banished by Belisarius to
Patara, Lycia, who took off his vestments and made the
clergy elect Vigilius, and Vigilius sat as Pope. SilveriusEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	l6l
went to the emperor, who sent him back to Rome, say-
ing, if he had engaged in treacherous correspondence with
the Goths, he was not to be reinstated; but if innocent,
he should be. But Belisarius delivered him up to Vigilius,
and he was sent off to the island of Pontecune, where
he died, Vigilius remaining Pope. This is the Pope^ who
had to do with the emperor, and co^emned and retracted,
and retracted his retraction, and at^last Was let gcr by
the emperor. Vigilius died, and Pelagius was accused of
poisoning him, and could only get two out of the prelates
of Italy to consecrate him; all the rest refused. But he
purged himself, on oath, and was the next Pope. This
is nice work to secure faith in the Pope and give a sure
mark to the simple of Papal Infallibility. And why the
Bishop of Ostia (who was the regular person to do it),
laying his hands on a man chosen to be Peter’s suc-
cessor at Rome, should convey authority from Peter, it
is hard to tell.	If Peter had done so, and then his
succ^or, or his successor before his death, and so on
(I ntoht not believe it), I could understand it; but it is
not wT As the case is, the Pope, who <*fensecrates ever
so many prelates, never confers Peter’s authority; and a
prelate, who has it not, nor any pretension to it, confers
it on the Pope. Infallibility here—there is none!
THE POPE AND THE WHOLE CHURCH REPRESENTED IN A
GENERAL COUNCIL.	•	-f?
The history of councils proves that the Pope of Rome
is not an infallible guide in matters of faith j|pd morals.
Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibuj^creditum est,
is not sustained by history. The histoafe of Arianism
clearly proves that this is not spf'and t half ('the Pope can
not be trusted. What becomes;';1 of the jrule what was
■r,
iii62
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
always, everywhere, and by all, in the case of image-
worship ? Is it not true that for centuries there were
none ? The great dogmatist, Petavius, admits that none
were used for four hundred years, and gives as a reason
that there was danger of their being confounded with the
heathens; but that in the Fifth, when Rome got her
liberty, she began to have them openly. Epiphanius, find-
ing an image on a curtain in church, tore it with his
own hands.	He charges their introduction on heretics,
as does Augustine, and declares that the Church con-
demns such habits. The Council of Eliberius, in Spain,
that pictures ought not to be in churches.
fttf*time they were rejected in the East, and
ed 4>y the Popes ; solemnly in a council of three
hundred and thirty-eight prelates at Constantinople in 754;
approved by a council of three hundred and fifty, in 787;
and /condemned in England in 792.
How are we to learn any thing certain from the con-
sent of councils* or hold what is held always, everywhere,
-and by all?!*These are only examples on the most impor-
tant ' pointsjpff doctrine and practice. The truth is, that
for some hundred years, from the Third to the Seventh
centuries, there was an endless war of opinions, and
the emperors tried to keep the peace by their own
decrees, or by convening councils. Then, if we come
down lower, after bitter and prolonged conflict and mutual
f
excbramunication, the Greek and Roman, or Eastern and
Westell, Christendom finally separated in the Tenth cen-
tury, and all the most ancient councils condemn the
Pope. And where can we get infallibility with the Pope
and the whole Church represented in council ?
Passing over John III, Benedict, Pelagius II, Gregory
(a really great man, who just hints at the possibility ofEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
I63
a Purgatory for extremely small faults, and who reformed
or composed the Roman liturgy), Sabinianus, and others,
and come to Honorius, in the Seventh century, where we
meet a difficulty of another kind. Honorius, so far from
keeping the faith of others, could not, it seems, keep the
faith himself. He was formally condemned and anathe-
matized by name in the third Council of Constantinople,
confirmed by Pope Agathon, and anathematized again by
Pope Leo II,1 whence it is formally taught in canon law
that the Pope can be judged for heresy. Pope Stephen
ordained in his council that only the clergy should elect,
and the people then salute him; that itte^es s^u^ b?
adored, — which was forbidden at Constant^p>le
numerous council, and by a still larger one undefr
magne, at Frankfort, of several hundred bishops. They coni
demned images in the strongest terms, but the adorations
and superstitions prevailed. King Pepin gave titles t£f- the
,e regulation of
ertf at the,
clergy, and Charlemagne issued orders for
the Church and clergy. The Pope’s legd
Council of Frankfort, where a late cosmojaqjJJan jouneil,1
which restored the use of images, presided ' d^er by** tljd*
Pope’s legates and received by him, was utterly rejected.
This was somewhat later, in 794. Octavian or John XJI
first led his troops to war against the Duke of Capuh, but,
was forced to make peace. He wrote to the emperor to
deliver him from the violence of the chiefs in Italy* He
swore allegiance on the bodies of Peter and Paul,^.tHafc he
would never in any way help the rebellious chiefs, Adel-
1 It is expressly taught (Dis. xl, c. 6) that a Pope can be judged
for heresy; and in the gloss also if he is incorrigible and the Church
scandalized, for evident crimes, because contumacy is heresy; but that
the Church should pray against it much, as its salvation so depends
on the Pope.164 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
bert and Bereuges; but no sooner was the emperor’s
back turned than he joined Adelbert. The emperor, the
prelate of Germany who came with him to Rome, and
nearly all those of Italy met in council. The Pope’s
misdeeds were publicly stated: he consecrated bishops for
money (had made one of ten years old), drank wine in
honor of the devil, ipvoked in gambling Jupiter and Venus
and other demons, was guilty of incest with his own re-
lations and with two sisters, and with various cruelties
caused the death of persons that were named. The
council deposed him, and chose Leo VIII, who sat as
Pope more than a year. Eighty-five prelates or clergy of
Rome were assembled in councils, besides Roman nobles.
Pope John returned, held a council of twelve bishops, of
* the Papal States chiefly, and twelve of the clergy of
Rome, deposed Leo, who saved himself by flight, broke
all his ordinations, perpetrated brutal acts against some
who had borne testimony against him, and some three
months gfter, being found committing adultery outside
Rome, was killed by the husband, — by the devil, if we
believe Luitprand; and this is infallibility of the Pope,
with the Church represented in council!
The emperor, tired of all these things, finally trans-
ferred the right of electing the Pope from the prelates
and councils to the emperor. Gregory VII, the most
able and ambitious of all the Popes, had governed Rome,
and, was seated in the papacy, before his predecessor was
buried, some say by soldiers and a host devoted to him;
- some say the cardinals and people had their part. He
sent to the emperor, to say it had been done without
his will. He pushed the power of the Pope to absolute
dominion over every thing. The emperor, Henry, struggled
against his power, and councils were held in Germany.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	165
In the Council of Bresse, Gregory was deposed, and
another chosen, who took the name of Clement III.
William, king of England, alone effectively resisted him;
suffered his legates to hold no councils, nor the English
and Norman prelates to go to Rome. It was this Greg-
ory who laid the foundation of Roman pretensions, — the
pride and the shame of the papacy France, England,
and part of Italy owned Alexander III as Pope, but
Germany owned Octavian.	Both had referred to the
emperor to have it decided, who summoned a local coun-
cil in Italy to decide who had right. /Alexander would
not go. Octavian did. The council decided in favor of
Octavian, who called himself Victor III. The English
and the French, though having long hesitated to pro-
nounce because of the emperor, held also local councils,'
who supported Alexander, and the French councils excom-
municated Victor III. The emperor convened a council
in Germany, having letters from Denmarlj, Norway,
Hungary, Bohemia, and many prelates besides those
present, and then Alexander was excommunicated.’' Fred-
erick, the emperor, proposed putting both down, and the
French and English kings met him to settle it. Alexan-
der would not go, and nothing was settled; then Alex-
ander held a French council and excommunicated Victor’
and all his adherents. Now, it is difficult to say who
was canonical Pope, but we have half of Christendonj own-
ing one whom the Romanists do not own, and the sac-*
raments and the ordinations and councils in a vast extent
of country depended on his being real Pope. If ever
there was a thing disproved, it is what is ridiculously
called Papal Infallibility. If we are to believe the Coun-
cil of Pavia, where were fifty archbishops and other pre- ■
lates, with a quantity of abbots of Germany and Italy,166
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
and the deputies of France and England, after seven
days’ examination of witnesses and deliberations, Victor
III alone was duly elected and made Pope. The majority
of the cardinals were for Alexander, but the senators
were for Victor, and they put Alexander in prison; but
he escaped by the intervention of the people.
When Gregory XI died at Rome, the Romans insisted
on an Italian prelate being made Pope, and attacked the
conclave, so that the cardinals were in fear of their lives.
The great number of them were French, but of these
many were of the country of Limoges, so that they did
net act together, as these wanted one of their party, the
ether Frenchmen not. There were only four Italian car-
‘dinals. It is said that one was made to put his head
out of the window, to tell the people to go to St. Peter's,
which was taken by the people to mean that they had
elected the cardinal of St. Peter’s. Meanwhile it was
proposed to elect the Archbishop of Bari, who at any
rate was »n Italian, but not a cardinal; the French party
say he was only elected to pacify the people, with the
Understanding that he was not to take the papacy, the
choice being only made under the influence of fear of
the populace, and hence having no validity, and so after-
wards they certified the King of France.
The Italian party, while not denying the clamors and
violenge, but making them arise later in the affair, in-
sisted that the election was regular and valid. Fleury’s
aedbunt- gives this color to it. Raynaldus, of course, in-
sfstg that it was free, and urges that the people’s leaders
went to the window and insisted it should be a Roman,
and that the choice of one not a Roman proved that
they were free. Some would have made the cardinal of
St. Pierre Pope, but he disclaimed it, and the ArchbishopEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	167
of Bari was crowned and enthroned in the midst of these
tumults. He took the name of Urban VI. But the car-
dinals were not content, and under pretext of the hot
weather, went to Anagni, and there they chose one of
their own body, who became Pope also, under the name
of Clement VII, who removed to Avignon. The cardi-
nals sent a long account to the King of France, who
assembled prelates and doctors; but not satisfied with
this, sent ambassadors to Italy to ascertain the facts, and,
on their report, owned Clement to be the tru^ Pope.
Spain, after some time, owned him, too. Urban was oc-
cupied with politics and fighting in Italy, but he suc-
ceeded in maintaining himself as Pope there, and putting
down the Clementines tolerably completely, though Jeanne,
Queen of Naples, was for Clement, but she lost her;
kingdom and her life. England and Germany, were for
Urban, Scotland for Clement, Northern fcurope for tJrban,
but Lorraine, Savoy, and other provifljjKS' %-, Qertfent.
Each Pope condemned and excommunicated * th» other
and his councils. Both consecrated prelates a^ ^ergy, t
so that the idea of securing infallibility and maintaining
the Pope in council by it is' a simple absurdity.
If Urban (as Raynaldus and Platina would have it) wasv
Pope, then all France and Spain and other countries were'
excommunicated out of the pale of the Church, and all
1	'	4
their orders invalid, and all they conferred on others null
and void. Contemporaries state that the people forced •
their way into the court of the palace of the cbuflcil,
into which they had been driven with threats by the
populace. Bundles of rice-stalks were laid under it to Stef
it on fire, and they threatened to cut down the cardinals'
if they did not choose a Roman. The heads of that
district of Rome came and told them that they must do168 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
as the people required, or they would suffer violence.
The Archbishop of Bari had been previously in consulta-
tion with the cardinals, and though an Italian, being
opposed to the Romans, the cardinals thought he would
go with them in their views, and was then chosen in a
hurry, as it was thought he would reject it. If so, the
temptation was too great. This account seems pretty
well authenticated. The Italian cardinals, three at least
out of the four, joined the rest at Anagni, where they
went, and then to Fondi, to be secure to choose
Clement VII.
The fullest and clearest account of the proceedings of
the council, is the first life of Gregory XI, in Balergius,
pages 443 and following. Before the council met, according
to this account, the Romans had driven the upper orders
out of Rome, and introduced a mass of rough country-
men ; took possession, that the cardinals might not leave,
and when they met, broke in with them. The Banda-
renses chiefs of the twelve districts had warned them
before, individually, and on going into the council as-
sembled them, and said they must elect a Roman, or at
least an Italian, or meet with worse; and the mob filled
the palace and room under the hall of the council with
weapons and dry reeds, and all night rioted there, vociferat-
ing while they were saying the Mass of the Holy Ghost.
The cardinals sent the three deans, or chiefs of the three
-classes of cardinals, the people having insisted on the
windows being opened, in the hope of calming them, but
in vain, and a second time; but the people raged violently
at the ddtfrs, insisting on the nomination of a Roman or
Italian. They thus chose Bartholomew, Archbishop of
Bari, as he had been present at the Roman consultations
to force the choice of a Roman, was a doctor of canonEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
169
law, and was supposed to be upright. They supposed he
would give it up when elected, and there was calm. For
the same reason, they had to go through with and crown
and enthrone him. The account is by one who favored
Clement, but it all hangs perfectly well together, and
the main points certain. That they were forced by the
populace against their inclination is certain, for they
would have desired to go to Avignon. But whether it
was sufficient to annul the election of the council is
another question. Cardinal Cajetan, Orde Vio, legate to
Germany about Luther, reproves those who consider either
obedience, so-called, schismatic; declaring that the right of
each had been and was doubtful; and what was positive
on the point is, that both were deposed as Popes from
the papacy, and Martin V confirmed the decree of the
Council of Constance, which, by deposing both, recognized
both. In this the people will follow their ancestors or
prelates.
This is a strange certainty of infallibility; so uncertain
that nobody was bound to say which was true, which,
Vv
according to the famous Dominican, was contrary to, was
necessary to, salvation; for men were bound to believe
there was only one. Much was done by the princes of
Europe to put an end to the schism and to get Popes
Boniface at Rome (Pope after Urban), and Benedict at
Avignon, to abdicate. France withdrew its obedience, and
then Castile, to the Pope at Avignon, but rejected Boni-,
face at Rome. Benedict, at Avignon, was besieged by
France, and agreed to abdicate on the Roman Pqpe doing
so. Boniface refused, but would appear before a council.
England supported Boniface. Innocent VII followed Boni-
face at Rome; Benedict had sent an embassy to Rome,
proposing the abdication of both; Innocent proposed a170
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
council and the cession of the papacy by the Pope.
Gregory XII succeeded Innocent; Benedict proposed coun-
cil and refused cession, excommunicating those who ap-
proved it; the King of France burned the bull; Benedict
fled to Genoa, then to Perpignan. Gregory was elected
under promise to resign if union could be effected; Bene-
dict protested the same thing. At last the cardinals of
both sides met at the Council of Pisa, and then at the
Council of Leghorn, and sent a circular-letter, proposing
a council as the only means, as the Popes would not
yield, and there was such exceeding difficulty as to law
and as to fact; and they blame both Popes, as running
'the Church, and so did the council, going into all the
facts, and charging them with bad faith and even collusion.
Finally they depose both; take off the excommunications
of both, as it was so doubtful who was Pope, and choose
.Peter of Candia (Alexander V), who confirmed all their
acts.
But Gregory, who kept the south of Italy, and Robert,
King of the Romans, and his partisans, and Benedict
,XIII, who still held fast hold of Spain, kept their ground.
Each held a so-called general council, Benedict having
one hundred and twenty prelates, but who would come
to no conclusion; and sixteen only remained, who decreed
he was Pope and was not to yield. Gregory held a coun-
cil, but could scarce get any one to come, and fled,
through fear of the Venetians, and went to the south of
Italy. Each of these condemn the Council of Pisa and
their Pope, and each other. The Council of Pisa deposed
the two as schismatic, heretic, and as guilty of other
crimes, — all the cardinals of both obediences being there
save one. A new council was to be held. Now there
were three Popes; two doubtful and deposed, and a thirdEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	171
chosen, but it was alleged unlawfully. And this is so
much the case that the highest Roman Catholic authorities
are not agreed who was Pope. Raynaldus counts Gregory
as Pope all the time, till he gave up at the Council of
Constance. Bellarmine says Alexander V must be owned,
as the next was Alexander VI. Belthasar Cossa was the
leader in the affairs of the Council of Pisa, but would
not be Pope, but got Alexander V elected, and governed
under him, and then became Pope at his death.
One reason Bellarmine gives for the authority of the
council is, that a doubtful Pope is no Pope. Now,, in
such a state of things, how can we speak of infallibility
in Pope and council ? The Councils of Pisa, Constancy
and Basle professedly deposed Popes,— the two former
finally succeeding, the latter not, while the latter pro-
nounced a council to be superior to the Pope. The
Council of Constance confirmed the acts of the Council
of Pisa, so that we have the authority of the episcopacy
as to the wickedness, heresy, and deposition of both Popps
engaged in the schism; but it consulted without*1 John,
and when he fled because of the charges brought against,
him, they deposed him. The Vatican Council is in conflict:
with all the early councils which had no Pope, and all
those councils which condemned Popes as heretics, and
those councils which deposed Popes,—in proclaiming the
infallibility of Pope Pius IX. The Council of Nice con-*
demned Arius, and that of Constantinople absolved hirfl;
the Council of Constantinople condemned the Councils of
Nice and Chalcedon, and the Lateran condemned Basle;
the Council of Constantinople declared the elements in the
Eucharist images of Christ’s body in heaven; Councils of
Lateran and Trent pronounced the fullest transubstantia-
tion; the Councils of Constantinople and Basle asserted17 2
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
that councils were superior to the Pope; the Lateran
Council opposed the claim; and the Vatican Council pro-
claimed the worst heresy of all—the Personal Infallibility
of the Pope.
THE POPE SPEAKING EX CATHEDRA.
We will now turn to the other means of infallibility
(infallible knowledge) in matters of faith and morals. It
is not possible to think of the first Popes, whoever they
were, for this ife uncertain, as the authorized sources of
truth -r. and If	the first chiefs had not	this	authority,
its descending	to others is	all a fiction.	But	the case
fof the Popes goes further, and without multiplying cases,
which would carry us too far, there are the plain cases
of Marcellinus, who was a traditor — that is, gave up the
Scriptures in persecution and offered incense to the gods;
Honorius, who was publicly condemned for being a Mon-
othelite (believing that Christ had but one will), by the
Sixth General Council, confirmed by the Pope; Pope
Liberius, who signed a semi-Arian creed. These we will
notice a little more fully. First, then, there is the case
of Marcellinus,	who, when	' Pope, offered	to	idols and
apostatized from Christ. Bellarmine says he taught nothing
against the faith nor heretical. But where is the security
for infallibility ?	Bellarmine	tells us it is	not	of much
consequence if he lost the papacy by it, as he abdicated
.soon after and died a martyr. The poor man’s weakness
ma^ have been graciously forgiven, but we are looking for
infallibility and security for faith. It is easy to understand
Bellarmine’s motive for making it no matter, because either
there would have been an apostate Pope, or one deposed
by a local council for unfaithfulness. But a worshipper of
idols is a strange security in matters of faith and morals.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
173
Next, as to Pope Vigilius, in the dispute about what are
called the “three chapters,” two of which were sanctioned
by the great General Council of Chalcedon. In truth,
Vigilius was elevated to the See of Rome on purpose to
favor Monophysite heresy (maintaining that Christ had
but one nature) and restore Anthinus, the heretic, to the
See of Constantinople, the empress putting him in by
force. When once in, he turned right round, but quailed
before the emperor as soon as he got to Constantinople,
and intrigued . in vain. Then he condemned the three
chapters, as the emperor had done. Then, when the
Fifth General Council was called, though at Constantinople,
he defended the three chapters. The Council of Con-*
stantinople broke communion with him, and approved the
emperor’s condemnation of the three chapters; and Vi-
gilius, the following year, assented to the decrees of the
council, and his successor, Pelagius I, acknowledged the
orthodoxy of the council.
Where is the security for faith anywhere? The Pope,
ex cathedra (officially, from the chair), condemned, ap-
proved, and then condemned the same doctrine, ^what all
held to be a vital question as to the person pf Christ.
Bellarmine does not contest the letter given by , Liberatus,
but Baronius does. The facts are plain any way. Pagi
adds, in a note, that there can be no doubt of it. “ Still,”
he adds, “that it does not prejudice the Pope’s authority,
because Silverius was not dead, though deposed, so that.
Vigilius was not really Pope,”—a nice security for faj,th;
a Pope who could not act because he was deposed, and
an acting one whose acts, though consecrated, were not
valid, because the other was living! Baronius excuses his
undoubted heresies on the ground that he was not Pope
because the banished Silverius was alive. What a founda-174
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
tion for faith! He acted as Pope while Silverius, who
had been banished, still lived, and so some say was legit-
imate Pope. What was the validity of all the papal acts ?
It is a plain example that the Pope’s judgment, ex cath-
edra, is just worth nothing at all.
But, take another example. It can not be denied that
Pope Liberius acquiesced in Arianism. He subscribed an
Arian creed, and in the largest council ever held (except
the	of some eight hundred prelates, and com-
munjcaied'*witn ~ Ariu| and condemned Athanasius. Bellar-
mine says be was deceived by ambiguous terms, but if
he .was he was no security for faith. The truth is, he
did it to free himself from the persecution of an Arian
emperor, who sought to unite all by vague expressions.
But if Bellarmine is right, and he was deceived, it is
just the proof that the Pope is no security for faith, nor
indeed, as we hj^ve seen, a Pope and council together.
To shy hp did not teach it, when on the solemn discus-
sion of the question with the assembled hierarchy he
sigqed the creed, is a miserable subterfuge. Here the
Pope and the largest body of prelates ever assembled in
council signed and promulgated an Arian creed.
Now turn to Honorius. Bellarmine labors hard to free
him also, but then he can not deny that he was condemned
and anathematized as a heretic by not one but two gen-
eral councils, the Pope’s legates taking part in one case,
bellarmine says they wanted to secure several Eastern
patriarchs being anathematized, and so, that they might
succeed, threw Honorius in with them. Moreover, the
Pope, his successor, undertook he should be anathematized.
And then, says Bellarmine, if it can not be denied in
the least that the Pope was anathematized, the council
made a mistake; but then the Pope’s legates were there, andEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
I75
it is accounted as an oecumenical council. So that either
the Pope was a heretic, and he was struck out of what
were called the Diptychs (those whose names were re-
membered in the public service) as unfit to be there, or
Pope and council confirmed by him can err. There is
no security for faith to be found in them, as this neces-
sarily is one of the conditions of infallibility. I might
mention a multitude of cases and statements, but I take
only notorious cases, which may be fouMj^m Bellarmine,
who gives a list of cases of alleged failure'S'f^iftsSiity,
Baronius, who is not to be trusted without Pagi’s cor-
rections, and all Church histories. The African bishops
maintained their views against the Pope, and the thought
of infallibility did not exist then.
When we come lower down in history, the claims of the
Popes increase, and their authority extends; but the effect
was that all the most ancient part of the Church — that
is, the East — broke off from them altogether, and remaps
opposed to Rome to this day. The University of Paris -
T “
solemnly condemned Pope John XXII for heresy • as to
the state of souls after death. His history is a littl<£
pleasant.	The cardinals who had to choose the Pojjp,
several of them being ambitious, would not agree, and at
last decided to leave the choice to the one who became
John XXII, sure he would choose one of them; but -he
thought the best thing was to choose himself, and so
became John XXII. The Council of Constance charged.
John XXIII with saying that the soul died with the body,'
that the soul was not immortal. Now, this shows how
little infallibility was supposed to be inherent in the Pope.
The Council of Basle says: “ Many of the supreme pontiffs
are said, and so we read, to have fallen into heresy and
error. It is certain that the Pope can err. A council176
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
has often condemned and deposed a Pope, as well on
account of faith as morals.” When the assembled prelates
of Christendom declare that the Popes may, and have,
erred in faith and morals, the infallibility of the Pope is
no longer a very sure ground. Their claiming it, which,
since the	Vatican Council,	we	all	know they do, does
not give it to them. If the Pope be a sure foundation
of faith (a thing not thought of for hundreds of years),
God has given a premium to the most horrible wicked-
ness that ever disgraced human nature ; for such wickedness
characterized. %the Popes above all men on the earth. We
can^ we dare not, with any one who knows history,
'^SpyP'Th’e -wickedness of Popes John XXII, of Alexander
'ftt, and many others. Even Pope Gregory VII, who
built the	grandeur of the	papacy,	raising it	above the
empire, and established the celibacy (that is, the cor-
ruption of the clergy), died away from his See, having
been first deposed by a council of German bishops at
Worms, and afterwards condemned as a heretic and sen-
tenced to be deposed by the Council of Brixen, and a
new Pop^ chosen (Clement III), who was consecrated at
Rome. Now, I attach no authority to their council, or
their Pope (though, in supporting the emperor, to whom
God gave	authority, against	the	Pope, to whom	God gave
none, the	prelates were right);	but	what sort	of founda-
tion for faith and morals is all this ?
I think we have settled the first point:	the Pope’s
infallibility being the source of certainty as to faith and
morals; and the second point, also: that they have con-
fessedly erred. In proof of these we have selected cases
that have been brought out in history as to the faith ;
for it is perfectly well known that plenty believed nothing
at all. Marcellinus offered incense to idols, Liberius signedEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
177
a semi-Arian creed, and Honorius was condemned for
being a Monothelite, by a general council, sanctioned by
Pope Agathon. Then Pope Zosimus corrupted, artfully, the
canons of the Council of Nice, to found the authority of
the See of .Rome, and was detected in the East and in
Africa. This was a fraud, if not a heresy; but it was a
fraudulently citing as the canons of the Council of Nice
what were no part of them, and what was put forward
as the foundation of the whole jurisdiction and authority
of the Pope. The council of bishops in Africa, in which
the famous St. Augustine took part, denied their genuine-
ness; sent and got the true Greek copies in nufe^ast,
and rejected Zosimus’ claims; and the Patriarchs ■of^^Ot'1
stantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, did the same thing;;
sending full copies of the canons of Nice. They were
really the canons of the Council of Sardica, and thus
attributed the resolutions of a little petty conclave of his
own partisans, assembled to give him this power, to the
first great general council, in order, fraudulently, to set
up that authority of the See of Rome which it now
claims; and Rome has ever since built largely on this ■
fraud.
It is well to refer a little to this history as elucidating
the supremacy and alleged appellative jurisdiction of Rome.
Now we can trace the origin of these pretensions by
going a little further back. In Cyprian’s time (252) two
Spanish bishops, guilty of being Libellatic (that is, having
received certificates of having owned heathen idols,
obtained by money from heathen magistrates, without •
having really done so), were deposed by a provin-
cial synod of the country. One was readmitted to
communion, but not to his See, but went to Rome and
complained to Pope Stephen. The Pope, always glad, as
12I7& FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Popes were, to augment his authority, ordered the
Spanish synod to restore both to their Sees. Meanwhile,
Cyprian being everywhere known by his activity, the
bishops of the synod 'laid the affair before him. He
summoned a local council, and they declared that Stephen
had evidently been deceived, and that Basilides and Mar-
tialis (the other bishop) had greatly increased their crime
by appealing from the local judgment. He declares the
judgment he communicated to be conformable to the under-
stood practice of the Church. Cyprian, in every respect,
maintained the independence of the Episcopate against
‘Rome, ^e says: “Among us there is no one who will
arrogate to himself any authority over those of his own
order, or claim to be a bishop of bishops .	.	. inas-
much as every bishop has equal liberty of judging and
determining upon all questions that come before him, and
can no more be judged by, than he can judge, another.
Therefore, it should be our resolution to await the judg-
ment of our Lord Jesus Christ, from Whom all our powers
to govetn His Church are derived, and Who alone has
authority to call us to account.” — Prologue to judgment
of eighty-seven bishops in Council of Carthage.
So, when Pope Cornelius had received Felicissimus, who
had been excommunicated in Africa, Cyprian writes to
blame him severely, and says the crime ought to be
judged where it is committed, and where the witnesses
are, “unless to some few desperate and lost persons the
authority of the bishops established in Africa seem to be
inferior. Their cause is already taken cognizance of, the
sentence already passed on them”; and declares a special
portion of the flock is appropriated to each shepherd,
which each is to rule and govern, having to give an
account of his acts to God.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
179
The history of Sardica, which was subsequent to this,
was the following: When Athanasius had been condemned
by the Councils of Tyre and Antioch, and banished, he
first fled to Julius, who held a small assembly at Rome
and acquitted him; then to Treves, and the Emperor
Constans got Constantius, emperor of the East, to call
a council. This was held at Sardica. Athanasius, whose
cause was to be tried, sat there. The Eastern bishops
claimed that he should be excluded; this the others re-
fused. The parties were equally divided, and the Eastern
prelates seceded; the Western ones remained. The Eastern
half, at Philippopoli^ condemned Athanasius; th$,.Sardicans
acquitted him, and then gave, for the first time, an appeal
to Rome. These latter canons Zosimus sought to foist on
the African bishops as canons of the Council of Nice;
but they were never heard of as being those of a Council
of Sardica, as of any authority, nor ever received in any
way in the Eastern Church. And note the giving, then,
which is what they do expressly in honor of St. Peter,
a title to Rome to require a re-examination on the spot
in case of an appeal, or to take other measure** proves
that he did not possess the right before. ft was very
convenient to Athanasius, as he had been thus acquitted
by Pope Julius and condemned in the East, to set up
this power in Rome. This Council of Sardica and its
canons were, however, no way recognized in the Church, *
for three general councils — Constantinople (381), thirty-
four years after, Chalcedon (451), Constantinople (681) —
all decree what is entirely in opposition to the Sardican,
namely: that causes should be heard. by the provincial
synods, with appeal to the Patriarch to whose jurisdiction
they belonged. It was Julius’ successor, Liberius, who
signed the Arian, or semi-Arian, creed, when Constantius,i8o
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
the Eastern emperor, had all his own way; and so did
Hosius, one of the alleged presidents of the Sardican
Council.
A certain presbyter, Apiarius, had been excommunicated
by his bishop and others for ill-conduct. He goes off to
Rome. Zosimus pronounces him innocent, and sends Faus-
tinus and two others to Africa, to a synod then gathered
about it. His messengers were to see Apiarius reinstated,
and to urge that any presbyter might appeal to Rome.
The African prelates answered there was no such rule in
the Church as that. Zosimus’ messengers pleaded the canons
of the Council of Nice. The prelates said these canons
were not in their copies of the canons of the Council of
Nice; but they would send to Constantinople, and Alex-
andria, and Antioch, the three great Patriarchates, and
see. Cyril, of Alexandria, and Atticus, of Constantinople,
replied, and it was found that there were no such canons
of the Council of Nice at all. Zosimus was now dead,
and his successor, Boniface, who pursued the claim, was
dead also, and the African prelates wrote to Pope Celes-
tine tp say that the Council of Nice had committed these
things to the Metropolitan, or a local council, or even
to a general one. It is worth while, though it be long,
to recite what the prelates say in what they call the
universal African Council of Carthage: —
“ No determination of the Fathers has ever taken this
authority [of judging its own clergy] from the African
Church, and the decrees of Nice have openly committed
both inferior clergymen and bishops themselves to their
Metropolitans; for they have provided, most prudently and
justly, that every matter should be terminated in its own
place, where it arose. Nor is it to be thought that to
each and every consideration the grace of the Holy SpiritEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
181
will be wanting, by which equity may be prudently re-
ceived by the priests of Christ and firmly maintained,
especially because it is allowed to every one, if he be
offended by the judgment on the charges, to appeal to
the councils of his province, or even to a universal one.
Unless, perhaps, there be some one who may think that
our God may inspire	justice, in examining, to	a single
person, whoever it may be, and deny it to innumerable
priests assembled in	council ...	For	we	have not
found it established in any synod of the Fathers, that
any should be sent as legates of your holiness [tucs sanc-
titatis a latere,—the common name since for popish leg-
*
ates]. For that which you formerly transmitted by the’
same Faustinus, .our co-bishop, as on the part of the
Nicene Council, in the truer copies of the Council of
Nice, which we have	received, sent	from	our	co-bishop,
Cyril, of the Church	of Alexandria,	and	the	venerable
Atticus, prelate of Constantinople, from the authentic copies,
which also had already been sent by us to Bishop Boni-
face of venerable memory, your predecessor, by the hands
of Innocent, presbyter, and Marcellus, sub-deacon, by whom
they were forwarded to us from them [Cyril alid AtticusJ,
— we have not been able to find any thing of the kind.
Also, do not think of sending, nor granting upon any of
ours requesting it, any of your clergy as executors [agents
to enforce decrees], lest we may seem to introduce the
smoky pride of this world into the Church of Christ,
which offers the light of simplicity and the daylight of
holiness to those who desire to see God.”
And then the council declares that Africa could no
longer endure the presence of Faustinus, if brotherly
charity were to be preserved. Apiarius was already put
out. Now here Papal Infallibility is treated with scorn182
FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
by all the African bishops in council; the Popes sending
legates declared to be utterly unlawful, and the canons
he pleaded as his justification declared to be a fraud,
and that he must know it, for they had sent the true
ones from Constantinople and Alexandria to his predecessor,
Boniface.
But Zosimus had	had	some other	transactions with
these African prelafi^,*	among whom	was the famous
Augustine. Zosimus lully sanctioned the confession of
faith of Pelagius, and his teaching. ^Now here was the
very essence of Christian doctrine in Question.	He re-
proves severely the African prelates w condemning him;
owned him and Celestius as in comrtfunion. His prede-
cessor had totally condemned him just before. The African
prelates having done so, and communicated it, as was the
custom, to Innocent,	he	had returned	an answer, con-
demning and excommunicating the two heretics, and claim-
ing, I freely admit, all manner of authority in the case;
for the Popes were	at	this moment	striving hard to
establish their power, and profited by every opportunity.
However, Innocent condemned and excommunicated them
by his full authority, ex cathedra. Zosimus, to the said
African prelates, declares them sound and in communion.
And note, this was on an essential doctrine of the faith.
The Africans did not, of course, remonstrate with Inno-
cent for agreeing with them; but Zosimus’ pretensions
set aside their judgment. They met at Carthage in May,
418, Augustine presiding, and condemned and anathema-
tized Pelagius and his disciples; and not content with
this, took the opportunity, in the Council of Melevis, of
republishing the Nicene canon, and, in their twenty-second,
decree that the appeals should be to local synods or
Metropolitans; and that if any appealed across the seaEXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.
183
(i. e., to Rome), he should be received into communion
in no African church. Zosimus gave way; summoned
Celestius, whom the Africans condemned, and condemned
him too. So much for the Pope’s infallibity and authority.
It was just at this time that the Pope was seeking to
establish his authority over the West; and succeeded,
through a quarrel of two prelates, to do it in the south-
east corner of France, and in a, ^measure, in Eastern
Illyria, naming the Archbishop of Thessalonica there as
“executor,” — what^*he Africans call the introduction of
smoky pride into |Ae Church. This had been done already
some forty years^jjfore, when that country was politically
transferred to the Eastern Empire, and the ambitious Popes
were afraid it should be ecclesiastically under the influence
of Constantinople, the Eastern capital. But all this was
ambition, not infallibility; and when there was moral
courage, the pretensions of the Pope were entirely rejected
as wholly contrary to the canons, as, indeed, they were,
before the canons of Nice were made. Thus did Cyprian;
thus Asia Minor, Egypt, and Syria, in his day; thus
Spain, thus Irenseus in Gaul; while the Popes have been
openly proved both fallible and heretics. In the Councils
of Basle and Constance these bodies were openly declared
superior to them, and in the last, three Popes (all in-
fallible, we are to suppose) were set aside,—one as a
heinous monster.
The Popes themselves have been divided as to infalli-
bility. Leo IX was for, and Gregory XIII against, in-
fallibility; Innocent III was for, and Vigilius against,
transubstantiation; Pius V declared the breviary correct,
and Urbanus VIII declared the breviary of Pius V full
of errors; Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits, as fatal
to the Church and society; Pius VII re-established the184 FIFTEEN YEARS IN THE CHURCH OF ROME.
Jesuits, as useful to the Church and society.1 The Gal-
lican Church (i. e., the Roman prelates in France, sum-
moned by Louis XIV) declared, publicly, that the decrees
of the Council of Constance, which maintained the authority
of general councils as superior to the Popes in spiritual
matters, are approved and adopted by the Gallican Church,
and that the decisions of the Pope in points of faith are
not infallible, unless they are accompanied by the consent
of the Church. And in promulgating this dogma, the
Vatican ..Council did not, by any means, have the consent
of the whole Church. Pope Pius IX was visited by a
number of prelatic deputations and requested to modify
the dogma; but being strengthened in his purpose by
Jesuitical advisers, he remained steadfast to the end.
Bishop Ketteler, of Mayence, besought the Pope, on his
knees, to modify the dogma of infallibility. Bishop Stross-
mayer, of Bosnia, boldly and fearlessly denounced infalli-
bility in open council, amid the greatest opposition and
threatening attitude of its members. And even Dr. John
1 The Jesuits have patronized every superstition that has been in-
troduced into the Church for three centuries, and the Jesuits, Bresciani,
Pellico, and all (except Father Curci) of any prominence, especially
the Spanish Jesuits, have been firm supporters of Papal Infallibility.
France has learned a practical lesson of allowing Jesuits to be edu-
cators of their youth, and has just banished them from the nation
and closed their schools after a few days’ grace. They were found
to be sowing in the youth of the land the seeds of rebellion, of
opposition to the law, and of disobedience to the French Republic.
It is said by some that they had a hand in the recent conspiracy
and assassination of the monarchs of Europe. We know this was the
case in former times. The Jesuit, Malagrida, gave the order to kill
John VI of Portugal; the two Jesuits, Garnet and Personio, had charge
of the Gunpowder plot; and the Jesuit, Gardiner, was the assassin of
Henry IV. Malagrida, Garnet, and Gardiner were hung by the civil law.EXAMINATION OF POPES AND PRIESTS.	185
Henry Newman, of England, looked upon the passage of
infallibility by the Vatican Council with fear and dismay;
but all these efforts of the best and most learned men
in the Roman Church were counteracted by such eccle-
siastics as Cardinal Manning, of London, and Bishop
Senestry, of Regensburg.
Now, if normal infallibility resides in a Pope and oecu-
menical council, it is not to be found at all; for in the
early councils they contradicted one another, and in the
later ones, the existence of Popes depends on their action
without a Pope amongst them. One will tell us the seat
of infallibility is in the Pope, ex cathedra; another, the
Pope with a council; another, a council as independent
of and above a Pope. And if this last be not held, there
is no true Pope to be had. It has been decreed twice,
by assembled Christendom, held by universities the most
famous in the world, denounced, no doubt, at Rome; but
when we look up their greatest authority about that
council, on which their cause depends, which was con-
firmed absolutely by a Pope, we are told it is uncertain
— cannot be condemned or approved. There is rib known
seat of infallibility for a person capable of inquiring. The
whole thing is as foreign to truth and common sense as
it is possible to be.
We have seen, then, what the Roman Catholic system
has produced, as its own best authors record it, —
individual authors teem with reproaches and scorn,—what
its Popes were, and what refuge its councils were to the
inquiring, restless mind and heart of man.APPENDICES.
/. LIST OF CHURCH FATHERS AND CONTEM-
PORARY WRITERS.
1.	The Apostolic Fathers—95-180.
Clement of Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch.
Polycarp of Smyrna.
Barnabas.
WRITERS.
Hermas.
Papias.
2.	The Greek Fathers—180-325.
Irenaeus.
Hippolytus.
Clement of Alexandria.
Origen.
Gregory Thaumaturgus.
GREEK WRITERS.
Caius.
Julius Africanus.
Alexander of Jerusalem.
Dionysius of Alexandria.
Archelaus.
Alexander of Lycopolis.
Methodius.
Peter of Alexandria.
Alexander of Alexandria.
3.	The Latin Fathers —180-325.
Tertullian.
Cyprian.
LATIN WRITERS.
Minucius Felix.
Novatian.
Arnobius.
Lactantius.
Commodianus.
Victorinus.
Dionysius of Rome.
4. The Post-Nicene Greek
Fathers — 325-750,
Eusebius.
Athanasius.
Arius.
Cyril of Jerusalem.
Ephraem Syrus.
Marcellus.
Basil.
Gregory Nazianzen.
Gregory Nyssa.
Didymus.
Epiphanius.
Diodorus of Tarsus.
Chrysostom.
Theodore of Mepsuestia.
Theophilus.
Cyril of Alexandria.
Nestorius.
Theodoret.APPENDICES.
188
*
4. The Post-Nicene Latin
Fathers — 325-590.
Hilary.
Ambrose.
Jerome.
Rufinus.
Augustine.
Pelagius.
Celestius.
Julianus.
Marius Mercator.
John Cassian.
Vincent of Lerius.
Prosper of Aquitaine.
Salvian.
Hilary of Arles.
Leo the Great.
Faustus.
Caesar of Arles.
Fulgentius.
Boethius.
Dionysius Exiguus.
Cassiodorus.
The Protestant Church accepts, for
general reference, the following: —
1. Greek Fathers — sd-bth Century.
Irenaeus.
Clement of Alexandria.
Origen.
Athanasius.
Cyril of Alexandria.
Basil the Great.
Gregory of Nazienzen.
Eusebius of Caesarea.
Chrysostom.
Theodoret.
2. Latin Fathers.
Justin Martyr.
Tertullian.
Lactantius.
Cyprian.
Hilary of Poitiers.
Ambrose.
Augustine.
Jerome.
Gregory the Great.
The Roman Catholic Church excludes
from the Protestant list —
Tertullian.
Origen.
Eusebius.
And adds, extending to the Twelfth
century —
John of Damasus.
Peter Damian.
Anselm.
Bernard.
Thomas Aquinas.
Bonaventura.
II. LIST OF ROMAN PONTIFFS.
[The figures in the first column indicate Roman Notlzie; in the second, Gerarchia Cattolica.]
	r. a.	G. C.		R. N.	G. C.
St. Peter			42	Hyginus . . .	• • • i39	154
Linus 		66	67	Pius I . . . .		158
Cletus 			78	Anicetus . . .	. . . 157	167
Clement I (Clemens Ro-			Soterus ....	. . 168	175
mans)		9i	90	Eleutherius . .	. . . 177	182
Anacletus			IOO	Victor I ...		198
Evaristus		IOO	112	Zepherinus . .	. . 202	203
Alexander I		108	121	Calixtus . . .		217
Sixtus I		119	132	Urban I . . .	. . . 223	227
Telesphorus		127	142	Pontianus . . .	• ■ 230	233APPENDICES.
189
	K. IX.	G. C.	K. N.	G. C.
Anterus			238	Boniface IV		608
Fabian			240	Adeodatus I		615
Cornelius		. 250	254	Boniface V		619
Eucius (Novatianus) .	. 252	255	Honorius I		625
Stephen I 		. 258	257	See vacant one year and	
Sixtus II 		. 257	260	seven months.	
Dionysius		• 259	261	Severinus		640
Felix I		. 269	272	John IV		640
Eutychianus ....		275	Theodorus I		642
Caius		,	283	Martin I		645
Marcellinus ....	,	296	Eugenius I	654	657
Marcellus I . . . .	• 3°9	3°4	Vitalianus		659
Eusebius			3°9	Adeodatus II ....	672
Melchiades ....		311	Donus, or Domnus I . .	676
Sylvester			314	Agathon		678
Marcus		,	33<>	Leo II		682
Julius I			34i	Benedict II		684
Liberius			352	John V		685
Felix II			363	Conon		686
Damasus			366	Sergius I 		687
Siricius			384	John VI 		701
Anastasius ....	■ 398	399	John VII		705
Innocent I			402	Sisinnius		708
Zosimus			4i7	Constantine		708
Boniface I (Eulalius) .		418	Gregory II		7i5
Celestine I ....		423	Gregory III		73'
Sixtus III 			432	Zachary		74i
Leo I (the Great) . .		440	Stephen II (died before	
Hilary			461	consecration.) . . .	752
■Simplicius			468	Stephen III		752
Felix III			483	Paul I		757
Gelasius I			492	Stephen IV		768
Anastasius II . . .		496	Adrian I	772	771
Symmachus ....		498	Leo III 		795
Hormisdas ....		514	Stephen V		816
John I			523	Pascal I		8.7
Felix IV .... .	.	526	Eugenius II		824
Boniface II ... .		53°	Valentinus		82 r
John II		• 533	532	Gregory IV		827
Agapetus I . . . .		535	Sergius II		844
Sylverius			536	Leo IV		847
Vigilius			537	Benedict III (Anastasius).	855
Pelagius I			555	Nicholas I (the Great). .	858
John III 			560	Adrian II		867
Benedict I (Bonosus) .		574	John VIII		872
Pelagius II ....		578	Marinus I, or Martin II .	882
Gregory I (the Great)		590	Adrian III		884
Sabinianus ....		604	Stephen VI		885
Boniface III ....		607	Formosus		891190	appendices.			
	G. C.		K. N.	G. C.
Boniface VI (reigned only		Victor II 			i°SS
eighteen days, not in-		Stephen X			1057
eluded among the		Benedict X			1058
Popes by Baronius).	896	Nicholas II		0 In 00	i°59
Stephen VII		896	Alexander II			1061
Romanus		897	Gregory VII			1073
Theodorus II ....	898	Victor III 		1086	1087
John IX		898	Urban II			1088
Benedict IV		900	Pascal II			1099
Leo V		9°3	Gelasius II			1118
Christopher . . . . .	9°3	Ca'lixtus II			riT9
Sergius III 		904	Honorius II			1124
Anastasius III ....	911	Innocent II, Anacletus II,		
Lando 		9*3	and Victor IV . . .	1	1130
John X		914	Celestine II			1143
Leo VI		928	Lucius II			1144
Stephen VIII ....	929	Eugenius III			1145
John XI		931	Anastasius IV ... .		u53
Leo VII		936	Adrian IV			1154
Stephen IX		939	Alexander III, Victor V,		
Marinus II, or Martin III.	943	Pascal III, and Ca-		
Agapetus II		946	lixtus III ....		1159
John XII		956	Lucius III			1181
Benedict V		964	Urban III			1185
John XIII		965	Gregory VIII ....		1187
Benedict VI		972	Clement III			1187
Donus, or Domnus II. .	974	Celestine III			II9I
Benedict VII		97 S	Innocent III			1198
John XIV		983	Honorius III			1216
Boniface VII		984	Gregory IX			1227
John XV		985	Celestine IV			1241
John XVI		996	See vacant one year and		
Gregory V		996	seven months.		
John XVII		999	Innocent IV			1243
Sylvester II		999	Alexander IV ....		1254
John XVIII		1003	Urban IV			1261
John XIX		1003	Clement IV			1265
Sergius IV		1009	See vacant two years		
Benedict VIII ....	IOI2	and nine months.		
John XX		1024	Gregory X			1271
Benedict IX		1033	Innocent V			1276
Gregory VI		1044	Adrian V			1276
(Abdicated 1046. Syl-		John XXI			1276
vester III, 1045).		Nicholas III			1277
Clement II		1046	Martin IV			1281
Damasus II		1048	Honorius IV			1285
(Benedict IX attempts		Nicholas IV			1288
to resume the throne.)		See vacant two years		
Leo IX		1049	and three months.		APPENDICES.
I9I
G. c.
Celestine V............ 1294
Boniface VIII ....	1294
Benedict XI............ 1303
Clement V.............. 1305
Seat of the papacy re-
moved to Avignon.
See vacant two years
and three months.
John XXII.............. i3I6
Benedict XII (Nicholas V
at Rome) ....	1334
Clement VI............. 1342
Innocent VI............ 1352
Urban V................ 1362
Gregory XI (throne re-
stored to Rome) . .	1370
Urban VI............... 1378
Boniface IX (Benedict
XIII at Avignon) .	1389
Innocent VII........... 1404
Gregory XII............ 1406
Alexander V............ 1409
John XXIII............. 1410
Martin V....................... 1417
Eugenius IV (Felix V) .	1431
Nicholas V..................... 1447
Calixtus III........... 1455
Pius II................ 1458
Paul II................ 1464
Sixtus IV.............. 1471
Innocent VIII ....	1484
Alexander VI ....	1492
Pius III............... 1503
Julius II.............. 1503
Leo X.................. 1513
Adrian VI.............. 1322
Clement VII............ 1523 j
Paul III . .					G. .. *534
Julius III . .					'55°
Marcellus II .					*555
Paul IV . .					iSSS
Pius IV . .					*559
Pius V . . .					1566
Gregory XIII					*572
Sixtus V . .					1585
Urban VII .					159°
Gregory XIV					1590
Innocent IX .			V		159*
Clement VIII					1592
Leo XI . . .					1605
Paul V . . .					1605
Gregory XV .					1621
Urban VIII .					1623
Innocent X .					1644
Alexander VII					1655
Clement IX .					1667
Clement X					1670
Innocent XI .					1676
Alexander VIII					1689
Innocent XII.					1691
Clement XI .					1700
Innocent XIII					1721
Benedict XIII					1724
Clement XII .					•73°
Benedict XIV					1740
Clement XIII					1758
Clement XIV					1769
Pius VI. . .					*775
Pius VII . .					1800
Leo XII . .					1823
Pius VIII . .					1829
Gregory XVI.					1831
Pius IX. . .					1846
Leo XIII . .					1877
III. LIST OF GENERAL COUNCILS.
1.	Council at Nice.................................
2.	Council at Constantinople...............................
3.	Council at Ephesus......................................
4.	Council at Chalcedon....................................
5.	Second Council at Constantinople........................
6.	Third Council at Constantinople.........................
32S
381
431
451
SS3
680APPENDICES.
192
7.	Second Council at Nice................................................787
8.	Fourth Council at Constantinople......................................869
9.	First Lateran Council................................................1123
10.	Second Lateran Council..............................................1139
11.	Third Lateran Council...............................................1179
12.	Fourth Lateran Council..............................................1215
13.	First Council at Lyons..............................................1245
14.	Second Council at Lyons.............................................1274
15.	Council at Vienne...................................................1311
16.	Council at Constance................................................1414
17.	Council of Basle (till dissolution by the Pope).....................1431
18.	Fifth Lateran Council..........................................1512-1517
19.	Council of Trent....................................................1545
20.	The Vatican Council.................................................1869
The Councils of Pisa (1409) and Florence (1439) are sometimes called Gen-
eral Councils.
The Greek Church receives only the first seven councils, besides that of
Jerusalem.
The Protestant Church receives only the six which directly follow the last
named as General Councils, admitting the full authority of none of them.