LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. OF" Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. Received October, 1894. Accessions No . A"*y i_LL*~l. Class No . 148 Clay st. i^an Francisco. ' * , * I THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. BY , D.D. \ '( ' A NEW EDITION, CORRECTED AND ENLARGED BT THE AUTHOR. REVISED BY THOMAS 0. SUMMERS, D.D. PUBLISHED BY E. STEVENSON AND F. A. OWEN, AGENTS, FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 1855. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. THIS masterly work is so well known, and occupies so high a place in polemical theology, that it is scarcely necessary to prefix to this new edi- tion a commendatory Introduction. One feels inclined to thank Bossuet for writing his sophistical " Variations of Protestantism," as it suggested the idea which is so finely drawn out in " The Variations of Popery/' The reader will find this work full of learning, logic, satire, and wit in a word, absolutely unanswerable. It is a library in itself. It waa carefully revised, corrected, and enlarged by the late learned and ven- erable author, shortly before his death. It was dedicated by him, "with profound gratitude and respect, to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Ar- magh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland." Without endorsing every paragraph in the book as the author did not view every point from our position we recommend it as one of the ablest defences of Protestantism and most demolishing refutations of Popery in the English language. It ought to have a universal circulation. THOMAS 0. SUMMERS. NASHVILLE, TENN., Sept. 26, 1855. PREFACE. THE Popish and Protestant controversy, in the present age, has, in these kingdoms, been agitated with ardor and ability. The debate, in the end of the last century, seemed to slumber. The polemics of each party, satisfied with the unrestricted enjoyment of their own opinions, appeared, for a time, to drop the pen of discussion, dismiss the weapons of hostility, and leave men, according to their several predilections, to the undisputed pos- session of Popery or Protestantism. But stillness frequently ushers in the tempest. The calm, amid the serenity of sea and sky, is often the harbinger of the storm. This diversity, in late years, has been exemplified in the controversial world. The polemical pen, which, in the British dominions, had slept in inac- tivity, has resumed its labours, and the clerical voice, which had been engaged in the sober delivery of sermons, has, in the passing day, been strained to the loud accents of controversial theology. Ireland, in a particular manner, has become the field of noisy disputation. The clergy in advocacy of Popery or Protestant- ism, have displayed all their learning and eloquence. A society for promoting the principles of the Reformation, has been estab- lished through England, Ireland, and Scotland; and this asso- ciation has awakened a conflicting reaction, and blown into vivid combustion all the elements of papal opposition. These discussions commenced with the Reformation. Con- tests of a similar kind, indeed, had preceded that revolution, and may be traced to the introduction of Christianity. The in- spired heralds of the Gospel raised the voice, and wielded the pen against Judaism and infidelity. Popery carried on a per- petual war against Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and other oriental speculations. The papacy, in European nations, ar- rayed itself against Waldensianism ; and opposed powei and persecution to truth and reason. The inquisition erected the dungeon and the gibbet, for the support of error and supersti- tion, and for the extinction of light and liberty. Wickliff and his followers in England wielded reason and revelation against superstition and persecution, till they were nearly exterminated by the sword, the flames, and the gibbet. Protestantism, at the era of the Reformation, began its attacK on popery in more auspicious circumstances and on a wider VI PREFACE. field of action. Philosophy and literature, which had been dif* fused through the nations by the art of printing, the progress of society, and the march of intellect, facilitated the grand project The European kingdoms, therefore, in one simultaneous move- ment, seemed to awaken from their apathy. The scintillations of reformation, which flashed in Germany and Switzerland, radiated from the Mediterranean to the Northern Ocean, and from the bay of Biscay to the Black Sea; and Europeans, aroused by its influence, hailed the bright light, shook off their gloomy errors, and rising in moral and intellectual strength, burst the fetters of superstition. Luther and Melancthon in Germany, supported Protestant- ism, in verbal and written discussions, against Tetzel, Eckius, Prierio, Cajetan, and Miltitz. Luther, in apostolical fearless- ness, which never trembled at danger or shrank from difficulty, assailed the papacy with zeal and inflexibility. His shafts, though sometimes unpolished, were always pointed ; and his sarcasms, suited to his age and language, might, in a few in- stances, degenerate into coarseness or even scurrility. Melanc- thon, in all his engagements, evinced ability, learning, candour, mildness, and moderation. His erudition occupied a vast range ; and the mighty mass of literary attainments was directed by taste and inspired by genius. Their united advocacy re- pelled error, dislodged the enemy from his deepest entrenchments, and established Lutheranism through the circles of Germany. The light soon communicated to Denmark, Sweden, and Nor- way. Gustavus, king of Sweden, countenanced a disputation between Olaus and Gallius, and the result, which was the triumph of Protestantism, tended to the extension of the Reform- ation. Zuinglius, Bucer, Calvin, and Beza, attacked the Romish superstition in France and Switzerland. The attack was met with great resolution by the patrons of popery. This opposi- tion, however, neither dispirited the friends of reformation nor prevented their success. Many, on the Continent deserted the ranks of error ; and the shock soon reached the British islands. England and Scotland, as well as many in Ireland, threw off the yoke of superstition and embraced the liberty of the Gospel. Many, however, prostituted learning and ability, in defending the old superstition ; none of whom made a more distinguished figure than Baronius, Bellarmine, and Bossuet. Baronius com- piled the annals of the papacy ; and, in the relation, interwove his errors and sophistry. His Annals, comprising a vast collec- tion, are full of error and misrepresentation, and void of all can- dour or even honesty. Bellarmine possessed far mo~? candour PREFACE. Vil than JBaronius. He stated the reasons and objections of the reformed with fidelity. His integrity, in this respect, exposed him to the censure of several theologians of his own communion. His merit, as a writer, consisted in perspicuity of style and copiousness of argument, which discovered a fertile and excur- sive imagination. Bossuet, in his Exposition, affected plainness and simplicity ; and endeavoured to evade objections by ingenuity of statement He labored to divest Romanism of its hatefulness, by concealing, as much as possible, its defects, softening its harshness, and sub- stituting, in many instances, an imposing but supposititious form and beauty. The expositor, by these means, approximated Popery to Protestantism. * The ten-horned monster,' says Gibbon, is, at his magic touch, transformed into the milk-white hind, which must be loved as soon as she is seen.' The school, in which Bossuet studied, favoured the design. The French communion, to which he belonged, presents Romanism in a more engaging attitude than the Italian system, which exhibits Popery, as it appears in Baronius and Bellarmine, in all its native deformity. Few have made a better defence for a bad cause, than Chal- lenor and Gother. Challenor assumes a tone of pity for his adversary, and represents the patrons of Protestantism as ob- jects of compassion. He appears all kindness and candour. But the snake is hid in the grass ; and the canker-worm of bit- terness lurks under the fairest professions of commiseration and benevolence. His statements, in general, are misrepresenta- tions, and his quotations, especially from the fathers, are irrele- vant and futile. His work, nevertheless, contains nearly all that can be said for a bad system. Gother speaks in the lofty accents of indignation and defi- ance. Swelling into an air of conscious superiority, he arro- gates the attitude of truth and certainty. Popery, he repre- sents as rejected only when misunderstood ; and insinuates, in unassembled remonstrance and reprehension, the disingenuous- ness of the patrons of Protestantism. He imitates Bossuet, in attempting to remove objections by dexterity of statement, and by dismissing the Ultraism of the Italian school and of genuine Romanism. His manner, however, is striking, and his columns of representation and misrepresentation, possess advantage and originality. England, on this, as on every other topic of theology, pro- duced many distinguished authors. Jewel, Cartwright, Stilling- fleet, and Barrow, among a crowd of others, appear eminent for their learning and industry. Jewel's reply to Harding, though VI11 PREFACE. published shortly after the Reformation, is a most triumphant refutation of Popish errors. Cartwright appeared in the arena, as the victorious adversary of the Rhemish translators and an- notators. Stillingfleet, in his numerous works, has written on nearly all the topics of distinction between the Romish and Re- formed ; and on each, has displayed vast stores of erudition, and amazing powers of discrimination. Barrow assailed the papal supremacy ; while the depth of his learning, and the extent of his genius, enabled him to exhaust the subject. He has col- lected and arranged almost all that has been said on the ques- tion of the Roman pontiff's ecclesiastical sovereignty. Ireland, in her Usher, boasts of a champion, who, in this con- troversy, was in himself an host. He had read all the Fathers, and could draw at will, on these depots of antiquity. He pos- sessed the deepest acquaintance with sacred literature and ec- clesiastical history. The mass of his collections has, since his day, supplied the pen of many a needy, but thankless plagiary. His age was an era of discussion ; and, in his occasional works, he pointed his polemical artillery against the various errors of Popery. All these errors are, in a compendious review, dis- sected and exposed, in his answer to an Irish Jesuit, which may be considered as a condensation of all his arguments against the Romish superstition. The reply was his heavy artillery, which, like a skilful general, he brought forward against his most formidable enemy, whilst the superiority of his tactics and position enabled him to sweep the field. The passing century has produced many firm disputants, on each side of the question. The popish cause in England, has been sustained, but with a feeble hand, by Milner, Butler, and the notorious Cobbett. These, again, have been opposed by Southey, Phillpotts, Townsend, and M'Gavin. Milner's End of Controversy, affected in title and weak in argument, is one of the silliest productions that ever gained popularity. He affects citing the Fathers, whom he either never read, or design- edly misrepresents. His chief resources, indeed, are misstfcte- ment and misquotation. His logic consists in bold assertion and noisy bravado. His publication, which was to end contro- versy, has been answered by Grier, Digby, and, in many occa- sional animadversions, by M'Gavin. Butler, imitating the insinuating and imposing manner of Bossuet, affects plainness and simplicity ; and represents the repulsive and rnis-shapen form of Romanism in the most enga- ging point of view. He replied to Southey 's Book of the Church. Phillpotts, again, in a letter, and Townsend, in his Accusations of History, answered Butler, who, in return, PREFACE. IX addressed his Vindication to Townsend. in reply to the Accusa- tions of the latter. The detects of these authors, in general, is the want of facts and authorities, though, in many respects, they discover research and ability. Cobbett's History of the Reformation is one continued tissue of undisguised falsehood, collected, not from the records of time, but from the copious stores of his own invention. Truth itself, indeed, if found accidentally in the pages of Cobbett, loses its character ; and, like a good man seen in bad company, becomes suspected. His calumny, (for his fabrications deserve no bet- ter name,) has been exposed, with admirable precision, by M'Gavin of Glasgow in his Vindication of the Reformation. The Scottish Vindicator's treatment of the English Fabricator is truly amusing. He handles, turns, anatomizes, and exposes the slippery changeling, with a facility which astonishes, and with an effect which always entertains. Ah 1 the English au- thor's accustomed transformations cannot enable him to elude the unmerciful grasp of the Scotchman, who seizes him in all his varying shapes, pursues him through ah 1 his mazy windings, and exhibits his deformity in ah 1 its loathsomeness, till he be- comes the object of derision and disgust. M'Gavin's dissection of the calumniator shews, in a striking point of view, the supe- riority of sense and honesty over misrepresentation and effront- ery. This author, in his Protestant, seems, indeed, not to have been deeply read in the Fathers or in Christian antiquity ; but he possesses sense and discrimination, which triumphed over the sophisms and misconstructions of the adversary. Ireland, at the present day, has, on these topics, produced its full quota of controversy. The field has been taken, for Ro- manism, by Doyle, Kinsella, Maguire, and a few others of the same class. The Popish prelacy, who were questioned before the Parliamentary Committees in London, displayed superior tact and information. Their answers exhibited great talents for evasion. Crotty, Anglade, Slevin, Mac Hale, Kenny, Hig- gins, Kelly, Curtis, Murray, and LafFan, evinced at least equal cleverness at Maynooth, before the commissioners of Irish edu- cation. These are certainly most accomplished sophists, and practised in the arts of Jesuitism. The Maynooth examination " was conducted with great ability, and the answers which were elicited, excel in the evasion of difficulty, the advocacy of error, and the glossing of absurdity. The battle for Protestantism has been fought, with more or less success, by Ouseley, Digby, Grier, Jackson, Pope, Phelan, Elrington, Stuart, and a few other champions of the Reforma- tion. Stuart's work is entitled to particular attention. The PREFACE. author is a learned layman, who has directed the energies of a powerful mind to subjects of theology. The literary produc- tions of Newton, Locke, Milton, and Addison in favour of re- vealed religion, were enhanced in their value from their authors, who belonged to the laity. The clergy, on topics of divinity, are supposed, in some degree, to be influenced by interest or prepossession. The laity, on the contrary, are reckoned to ap- proach these discussions, with minds unfettered by considera- tions of a professional or mercenary kind. The Protestant lay- man is entitled to all the regard which this circumstance can confer. But Stuart's work possesses merit, fa.r superior to any thing of an adventitious description. The author's disquisitions embrace all the questions of controversy, which have been agitated between the Romish and Reformed. The statements are clear, and the arguments conclusive. The facts, which he interweaves in the work, are numerous, and his references are correct. The author introduces many of the transactions, which are recorded in ecclesiastical history and which have appeared on the public theatre of the world : while his observations on men and their actions are distinguished by that freedom, which always characterizes an original and independent thinker. The works on the Romish and Reformed controversy, which are numerous and executed with ability, might be supposed to supersede any further attempt. The number and excellence of former publications on this subject may, in the opinion of many, render any future production unnecessary. The authors, in- deed, who have opposed the superstition of Romanism, have been many and their labours triumphant. But the 4 Variations of Popery' differs, in several respects, from preceding works. The author's plan, so far as he knows, has not been anticipated, and will, in the execution, display considerable novelty of design. The attack, in this essay, is directed against the pretended unity, antiquity, and immutability of Romanism. These have long been the enemy's proud, but empty boast. Catholicism, according to its abettors, is as old as the year of our redemp- tion ; was derived from the Messiah, published by the Apostles, taught by the Fathers, and is professed, in the popish commu- nion of the present day, without addition, diminution, or change. The design of this work is to shew the groundlessness of such a claim. The subject is the diversity of doctors, popes, and coun- cils among themselves ; with their variations from the apostles and fathers ; and these fluctuations are illustrated by the history of the superstitions which have destroyed the simplicity, and deformed the beauty of genuine Christianity. The variety of opinions, which have been entertained by PREFACE. XI Romish theologians, constitutes one principal topic of detail. Papists have differed in the interpretation of Scripture and in tne dogmas of religion, as widely as any Protestants. Doctors, pontiffs, and synods have maintained jarring statements, and, in consequence, exchanged reciprocal anathemas. The spiritual artillery, on these occasions, was always brought forward, and carried, not indeed death, but damnation into the adverse ranks. The bayonet, in the end, was often employed to preach the Gospel, enforce the truth, or, at least, to decide the victory. The chief of these contests are related in the Variations of Popery : but the wranglings of obscure theologians, and the lighter shades of difference among authors of celebrity, are omitted as tedious and uninteresting. The detail, if every minute variation were recounted, would be endless. The his- torian, indeed, of all the doctrinal and moral alterations of mis- named Catholicism would write, not a light octavo, but many ponderous folios, which would require much unnecessary time, labour, expense, and patience. The work, which is now offered to the world, will, it is presumed, be sufficient in quantity, whatever may be its quality, to gratify the curiosity of the reader, and answer the end of its publication. Popish variations from the Apostles and Fathers also claim a place in this work. The Romish system is shewn to possess neither Scriptural nor Traditional authority. This, in one re- spect, will evince the disagreement of Papists with each other. These claim the inspired and ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, and appeal to their works, which, in the Romish account, are, in doctrine, popish, and not protestant. The sacred canon is, by the opponents of protestantism, acknowledged, and, which is no easy task, is to be interpreted according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. A display of their variations from these standards, which papists recognize, will, in one way, evince their disagreement among themselves, and, at the same time, overthrow their pretensions to antiquity. The history of papal superstitions traces the introduction of these innovations into Christendom. The annals of these opin- ions, teaching their recession from primeval simplicity, will also shew the time and occasion of their adoption. The steps which led to their reception are carefully marked ; and these additions to early Christianity will appear to be the inventions of men. Their commencement was small and their growth gradual. The Alpine snow-ball, which rolls down the mountain, is at first trifling; but accumulates as it sweeps the lofty range of steeps, till, at length, the mighty mass, resistless in its course, appals the spectator, mocks opposition, and overwhelms in ruin XJi PREFACE. the vineyard, the village, or the city. Superstition, in like manner, unperceived in the beginning, augments in its progress. The fancy, the fears, or the interests of men supply continual accessions, till the frowning monster affrights the mind and op- presses the conscience. Such was the rise and progress of Itomanism. A religion, boasting unchangeableness, received continual accretions of superstition and absurdity, till it became a heterogeneous composition of Gentilism and Christianity, united to many abominations, unknown in the annals of my- thology and paganism. The history of these innovations will expose their novelty, and discover their aberrations from the original simplicity of the Gospel. Popery, in its growth from infancy to maturity, occupied all the lengthened period from the age of the Apostles till the last Lateran Council. This includes the long lapse of time from Paul of Tarsus to Leo the Tenth. Paul saw the incipient workings of ' the Mystery of Iniquity. 1 The twilight then be- gan, which advanced in slow progress, to midnight darkness. Superstition, which is so congenial with the human mind, was added to superstition, and absurdity to absurdity. Filth col- lected. The Roman hierarchs, amidst alternate success and defeat, struggled hard for civil and ecclesiastical sovereignty. Leo, Gregory, Innocent, and Boniface, in their several days, advanced the papacy, on the ruins of episcopacy and royalty, bishops and kings. These celebrated pontiffs augmented the papal authority, and encroached on prelatic and regal power. Leo the Tenth, in the sixteenth century, saw the mighty plan completed. The Lateran Assembly, under his presidency, conferred on the pope a full authority over all councils, which, in consequence of this synodal decision, he was vested with the arbitrary power of convoking, transferring, and dissolving at pleasure. 1 This concession subjected synodal aristocracv to pontifical despotism ; and, in consequence, extinguished all episcopal freedom. The same convention embodied, in its nets, the bull of Boniface the Eighth against Philip the French king. 2 This transaction subjugated royal prerogative and popular privi- lege to pontifical tyranny. The synod had only to advance another step, and the work of wickedness was consummated. This was soon effected. The infallible bishops addressed the infallible pontiff as God. 3 The successor of the Galilean fish- erman was represented as a Terrestrial Deity ; while he re- "Ved with complacency and without reluctance, the appella- i Du Pin. 3. 148. Crabb, 3. 696. ' Du Tin 3. 148. 3 Deus in Terris. Bin. 9. 54. PREFACE. X1U tion of blasphemy. Leo then fulfilled the prediction of Paul, and * as God shewed himself that he was God.' * The man of sin, the son of perdition,' whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming was revealed.' Popery, appalling the nations with its lurid terrors, stood confessed in all its horrid frightfulness and deformity. But the age, that witnessed the maturity of Romanism, be- held its declension. Leo, who presided in the Lateran council, saw the advances of Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin, who ush- ered in the Reformation. The God of the Lateran lost the half of his dominions by the friar of Wittemberg, the canton of Zurich, and the pastor of Geneva. Leo lived to curse Luther, and view whole nations rejecting the usurped authority of the papacy. Mystic Babylon must, in this manner, continue to Fall, till at last it shrink and disappear before the light of the Gospel, the energy of truth, and the predictions of heaven. This work is designed to employ against popery, the argu- ment which the celebrated Bossuet wielded with ingenuity, but without success against protestantism. The reformers disa- greed in a few unimportant points of divinity. Their disagree- ment, however, was rather in discipline than in faith or morality. These dissensions the slippery Bossuet collected ; and what was wanting in fact, he supplied from the fountain of his own teeming imagination. The discordancy, partly real but chiefly fanciful, the bishop represented as inconsistent with truth and demonstrative of falsehood. The Variations of Popery are in- tended to retort Bossuet' s argument. The striking diversity, exhibited in Romanism, presents a wide field for retaliation and will supply copious reprisals. The author of this production, however, would, unlike the Romish advocate, adhere to facts and avoid the Jesuitical bishop's misrepresentations. Bossuet's design, in his famous work, is difficult to ascertain. He was a man of discernment. He must therefore have known, that th^ weapon, which he wielded against the reformation, might be made to recoil with tremendous effect on his own sys- tem. His acquaintance with ecclesiastical history might have informed him, that the variations of popery were a thousand times more numerous than those of protestantism. His argu- ment, therefore, is much stronger against himself than against his adversary. This, one would think, might have taught the polemic, for his own sake, to spare his controversial details. Bossuet's argument is, in another respect, more injurious to himself than to the enemy. The Romish communion claims infallibility. The reformed prefer no such ridiculous preten- XIV PREFACE. sion : and might, therefore, differ in circumstantials and agree in fundamentals, might err and return to the truth. These might vary and survive the shock. The imputation of disso- nancy to such is, in a great measure, a harmless allegation. But error, or change in a communion, claiming inerrability and unchangeability, is fatal. Its numerous vacillations, indeed, in every age, destroy ah 1 its pretensions to unity and immutability. The authorities in this work are, with a few exceptions, the Fathers and Romish authors. Protestant historians and theo- logians are seldom quoted, and only in matters of minor import- ance. Popish professors will, with more readiness, credit popish doctors ; and these are easily supplied. Many annalists of this denomination have, even on subjects connected with the honour of the papacy, shewn a candour which is highly praise- worthy. These with laudable ingenuousness, have related facts ; while others, indeed, with shameful prevarication, have dealt in fiction. The communion which produced a Baronius, a Bellarmine, a Maimbourg, and a Binius, can boast of a Du Pin, a Giannone, a Thuanus, a Paolo, and a Guicciardini. One popish author is, in this performance, confuted from another. Theologian, in this manner, is opposed to theologian, pope to pope, and council to council. A Launoy and a Du Pin supply materials for a refutation of a Baronius and a Bellar- mine. A Paolo will often correct the errors of a Pallavincino , and a Du Pin, in many instances, rectify the mistakes of a Binius. Eugenius condemned and excommunicated what Nicholas approved and confirmed. Clement and Benedict, in fine style and with great devotion, anathematized Boniface, Innocent, and Gregory. The councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil committed direct acts of hostility on those of Lyons, Flor- ence, and the Lateran. The French and Italian schools, in the war of opinion and theology, conflict in determined and diametrical opposition. The Jesuit and the Molinist view the Jansenistand the Dominican as professed enemies. The facil- ity, indeed, with which anyone popish divine may be confuted from another, exhibits, in a striking point of view, the diversity of Romanism. A protestant, skilled in popish doctors and synods, may safely undertake the refutation of any papist from writers and councils of his adversary's own communion. This work makes no pretence to conceal the deformity of Romanism. The author disdains to dissemble his sentiments. Interested for the good of his fellow-men of every persuasion, he is unacquainted with the art of disguising absurdity, for the low purpose of flattering its partizans or obtaining the praise of modern liberalism. He knows the woe pronounced against such - PREFACE. XV as * put darkness for light, and light for darkness ;' and say, * peace ! peace ! when there is no peace.' He intends, in the following pages, an unmitigated and unrelenting exposure of antichristian abominations. He would, like an experienced surgeon, examine every ailment, probe every wound, and lay open, without shrinking or hesitation, every festering sore. He would expose the moral disorder, in all its hateful and haggard frightfulness, to the full gaze of a disgusted world. This he would do, not to give pain or gratify the malignity of men ; but to heal the wound, cure the disease, prevent the spread of the distemper or infection, and restore the sufferer to health, strength, and activity. He would teach the patient the malig- nancy of his complaint, and warn the spectator to flee for fear of contagion. The medicine, he would, like the skilful physi- cian, suit to the symptoms, and apply caustic, when a lotion would be ineffectual. Ridicule may be used, when, through the perverseness of man or the inveteracy of the malady, reason has been found to fail. Grateful for the favourable reception given to the first editions of this work (which were published in 1831 8) the author again offers it to the candid acceptance of the public, carefully revised, enlarged, and corrected throughout. He feels some confidence, indeed, in the materials of which it is composed. He travelled a long, but delightful journey, through whole files of authorities in ancient and modern languages ; in which, during his progress, he pillaged the pages and rifled the annals of Romish and Re- formed controversy. These, he knows, have supplied a vast mass of matter, which he has endeavoured to condense. But the elements of information are valueless, and will be neglected, if void of order or beauty. A body without a soul wants attrac- tion. The richest colours without symmetry and expression, offend the eye of taste. The fairest form, if destitute of anima- tion, is unengaging. A book, in like manner, especially in modern days, will fail to interest the mind, if unaccompanied with the fascinations of life, grace, and elegance. Ideas require to be arranged and animated, in order to form a useful or invit- ing composition ; as spirit must be infused into the passive clay, to produce a living, moving, breathing, and intellectual man. The author is aware of the difference between a learned and a popular book. He invites criticism. Should the public con- tinue to smile and encourage his essay, he will rejoice in its c avour : but if otherwise, he will acquiesce in its decision. CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION : THE UNITY OF PROTESTANTISM Harmony of the Reformed Confessions of Faith Consubstantiation of Luther- anism Popish Diversity on Transubstantiation Disciplinarian Variety Secta- rianism Foolery of Romanism Beata Clara Nativity Flagellism Convul- Bionarianism Festival of the Ass Decision of a Roman Synod Antiquity of Protestantism Protestant Name Protestant Theology Protestant Churches The Waldensian The Greek The Nestorian The Monophysite The Arme- nian The Syrian. Page 25 CHAP. II : POPES. Difficulty of the Pontifical Succession Historical Variations Electoral Variations Schisms in the Papacy -Liberius and Felix Silverius and Vigilius Formo- sus, Sergius, and Stephen Benedict, Sylvester, John, and Gregory Great Western Schism Basilian and Florentine Schism Doctrinal Variations Victor Stephen Liberius, Zozimus, and Hoiiorius Vigilius John Moral Variation* State of the Papacy Theodora and Marozia John Boniface Gregory Boniface John Sixtus Alexander Julius Leo Perjured Pontiffs. 68 CHAP. Ill : COUNCILS. Three Systems Italian System reckons the General Councils at eighteen Tem- porary rejection of the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and twelfth General Councils Cisalpine or French School rejects the Councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent Adopts those of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and the second of Pisa System of a third party Universality of General Councils Its Conditions Legality of General Councils Its Conditions Convocation, Presidency, and C onfirmation Members Unanimity Freedom. 1 23 3 XV1U CONTENTS. CHAP. IV: SUPREMACY. Four Variations Pope's Presidency His Sovereignty or Despotism His supposed Equality with God His alleged Superiority to God Scriptural Proof Tradi tional Evidence Original state of the Roman Church Causes of its Primacy- Eminence of the City False Decretals Missions Opposition from Asia, Africa, France, Spain, England, and Ireland Universal Bishop Usurpations of Nicho- las John, Gregory, Innocent, and Boniface. 152 CHAP. V : INFALLIBILITY. Pontifical Infallibility Its Object, Form, and Uncertainty Synodal Infallibility Pontifical and Synodal Infallibility Ecclesiastical Infallibility Its Absurdity- Its Impossibility. 187 CHAP. VI : DEPOSITION OF KINGS. French System Italian System Original State of the Christian Commonwealth- Pontifical Royalty Attempts at Deposition of Kings Gregory and Leo Zach- ary and Childeric Continental Depositions Gregory, Clement, Boniface, and Julius dethrone Henry, Lewis, Philip, and Lewis British Depositions Adrian transfers Ireland to Henry Innocent, Paul, and Pius, pronounce sentence of Degradation against John, Henry, and Elizabeth Synodal Depositions Council? of the Lateran, Lyons, Vienna, Pisa, Constance, Basil, Lateran, and Trent Modern Opinions Effects of the Reformation. 210 CHAP. VII : PERSECUTION. Pretensions of the Papacy Three Periods First Period; Religious Liberty- Second Period; Persecution of Paganism Persecution of Heresy Persecuting Kings, Saints, Theologians, Popes, and Councils Crusades against the Albigen- ses Inquisition Third Period ; Persecuting Doctors, Popes, Councils, and Kings Persecutions in Germany, Netherlands, Spain, France, and England Diversity of Systems Popish Disavowal of Persecution Modern Opinions. 239 CHAP. VIII : INVALIDATION OF OATHS. Violation of Faith Theologians, Popes, and Councils Pontifical Maxims Ponti fical Actions Councils of Rome and Diamper Councils of the Lateran, Lyons, Pisa, Constance, and Basil. Era and Influence of the Reformation. 277 CHAP. IX: ARIANISM. Trinitarianism of Antiquity Origin of the Arian System Alexandrian and Bithy- nian Councils Nicene and Tyrian Councils Semi-Arianism Antiochian and Roman Councils Sardican, Artesian, Milan, and Sirmian Councils Liberius Felix Armenian, Seleucian, and Byzantine Councils State of Chrristendom Variety of Confessions. 29{J CONTENTS. XIX CHAP. X : EUTYCHIANISM. Eutychianism a verbal Heresy Its prior Existence Byzantine Council Ephesian Council Chalcedonian Council State of Monophysitism after the Council of Chalcedon Zeno's Henoticon Variety of Opinions on that edict Jacobitism Distracted state of Christendom. 3 1 1 CHAP. XI : MONOTHELITISM. Its General Reception Supported by the Roman Emperor, and by the Antiochian, Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Roman Patriarchs Its degradation from Catholi- cism to Heresy The Ecthesis or Exposition The Emperor and the Greeks against the Pope and the Latins The Type or Formulary Second Battle be- tween the Greeks and the Latins Second Triumph of Monothelitism Sixth General Council Total Overthrow of Monothelitism Its partial Revival Its universal and final Extinction. 339 CHAP. XII : PELAGIANISM. Its Author and Dissemination Patronized by the Asians Opposed by the Africans Condemned by Innocent Approved by Zozimus Anathematized by Zozimus Denounced by the Asians Censured by the General Council of Ephesus De- clension of Pelagianism Controversy in the ninth Century Gottescalcus against Rabanus The Councils of Mentz and Quiercy against the Councils of Va- lence and Langres Modern Controversy Council of Trent Rhemish Annota- tions Dominicans against the Molinist Congregation of Helps The Jesuits against the Jansenists Controversy on Quesnel's Moral Reflections. 554 CHAP. XIII : TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Variety of Opinions Scriptural and Traditional Arguments Elements accounted Signs, Figures, and Emblems Retained their own Substance Nourished the Human Body Similar Change in Baptism and Regeneration Causes which facili- tated the Introduction of Transubstantiation History of Transubstantiation Paschasius Berengarius Diversity of Opinions Diversity of Proofs Absurdity of Transubstantiation Creation of the Creator Its Cannibalism. 381 CHAP. XIV : COMMUNION IN ONE KIND. Its Contrariety to Scriptural Institution Concessions Arguments Its Contra- riety to the Usage of the Early and Middle Ages Concessions Its Contrariety to the Custom of the Oriental Christians Origin of Half-Communion Councils of Constance and Basil Inconsistency of the Constantian and Basilian Canons Inconsistency of the Basilian Assembly with its own Enactments in granting the Cup to the Moravians and Bohemians Council of Trent Opposition to the Tren- " tine Canons in France, Germany, Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary. 425 CHAP. XV: EXTREME UNCTION. Variations on its Effects Disagreement on its Institution The Scriptural and Popish Unction vary in their Administrator, Sign, Form, Subject, and End Recovery of Health the Scriptural end of Anointing the sick Traditional Evidence History of extreme Unction. 441 2* XX CONTENTS. CHAP. XVI : IMAGE WORSHIP Three Systems One allows the use of Images The Second patronizes their In- ferior or Honorary WorshipThe Third prefers the same Adoration to the Representation as to the Original Image- Worship a Variation from Scriptural Authority A Variation from Ecclesiastical Antiquity Miraculous Proofs Ad- missions Introduction of Images into the Church Their-Worship Iconoclasm Byzantine Council Second Nicene Council Western System Caroline Books Frankfordian Council Parisian Council Eastern Variations Final Establishment of Idolatry by Theodora. 457 CHAP. XVII : PURGATORT. Its Situation and Punishment Destitute of Scriptural authority Admissions Scriptural Arguments Destitute of Traditional Authority Admissions Prayer for the Dead Pagan, Jewish, and Mahometan Purgatory Its Introduction into the Christian Community Its slow Progress Completed by the Schoolmen Florentine Council Trentiae Council. 490 CHAP. XVIII: CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY. Variety of Systems Jewish Theocracy Christian Establishment Ancient Tradi- tion Introduction of Clerical Celibacy Reasons Greeks Latins Effects of Sacerdotal CelibacyDomesticism, Concubinage, and Matrimony Second Period of Celibacy Opposition to Gregory Toleration of Fornication Preference of Fornication to Matrimony among the Clergy Permission of Adultery or Bigamy to the Laity View of Priestly Profligacy in England, Spain, Germany, Switzer- land, France, Italy, and Peru Councils of Lyons, Constance, and Basil. 526 FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS QUOTED IN THIS WORK. AUTHOB. ABBO - WORK. Sermones VOL. PLACE. - 1 Paris DATR- 1723 Aimon Tractatus - 1 Paris 1723 Alexander - Historia - - 25 Paris 1683 Ambrosius Opera - 5 Paris 1661 Amour Journal 1 London 1664 Andilly Vies de Saints - - 1 Paris 1664 Anastasius De Vitis Pontificum - 1 Venice 1729 Anglade Maynooth Report 1 London 1827 Antonius De Concilio - 1 Venice 1828 Aquinas, (Thomas) Summa - 3 Lyons 1567 Arsdekin Theologia - 3 Antwerp 1682 Athanasius - Opera - 3 Paris 1698 Augustine - Opera - 10 Venice 1731 Avocat Dictionnaire - 2 Paris 1760 Barclay De Potestate - 1 1609 Basil - Opera - 3 Paris 1721 Bausset Life of Fenelon - 2 London 1810 Bede - Opera - 8 Colonia 1612 Bellarmine - Disputationes - 3 Lyons 1587 Bentivolio - Historia - 1 Benedict Histoire - 2 Paris 1691 Bernard Opera - 1 Paris 1632 Bertram De Corpore 1 London 1688 Binius Concilia - 9 Paris 1636 Bossuet Exposition - 1 London 1685 Bossuet Variations - 4 Paris 1747 Bossuet Opuscules - 3 Lou vain 1764 Bisciola Epitome - 1 Lou vain 1680 Boileau Historia - 1 Paris 1700 Bruys Historic - 5 Hague 1732 Cajetan Opuscula - 3 Lyons 1567 Calmet Dissertations - 3 Paris 1720 Calmet Commentaire - 24 Paris 1715 Canisius Thesaurus - 4 Antwerp 1726 Carranza Concilia - 1 Paris 1678 Caron - Remonstrantia - 1 1665 Chrysostom Opera - 13 Paris 1724 Cedrenus - Compendium - 2 Venice 1729 Challenor - Catholic Christian - 1 London 1782 Chard in Travels 1 London 1686 Clemens Opera - 2 Oxford 1715 Coqnille Discours - 1 Paris 1617 Cosrnas Cossart Topographia Concilia - 1 Paris - 6 Lucca 1707 1748 xxn FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS. AUTHOR. Cotelerius - Coyne Grotty Crabbe Cyprian Cyril, (Jerusal.) Cyril, (Alex.) Dachery Davila Daniel Durand Dens Doyle Du Cange DuPin DuPin Dellon Durandus - Eadmerus Ephraim Epiphanius Erasmus Estius Etherius Eusebius Evagrius Faber Fabulottus - Fauchet Fleury Fordun Gabutius Gaufridus - Gelasius Gibert Gocelin Godeau Giannone - Gnther Gildas Gregory Guicciafdini Heinricius Herman - Higgins Hilary Hotman Houbigant - Hoveden VTOS.K. Patres Apostolic! Catalogue - Maynooth Report Concilia Opera Opera Opera - Spicilegium Histoire Histoire Speculum - Theologia - Parliamentary Report - Glossarium - Dissertationes History History De Corpore Vita Oswald! Opera Opera Opera ... Commentaria Adv. Alepand. Historia Historia ... Disputationes De Potestate Traite* Catechism ... Historia ... Vita Pi! V. - Histoire ... Adv. Euty. - Corpus ... Historia ... Histoire ... History Papist represented Historia Opera ... La Historia - Annales Chronicon - Maynooth Report Opera ... Traite* Biblia .... Annales ... VOL. PLACE. DAT* 2 Amsterdam 1724 1 Dublin 1735 1 London 1827 3 Colonia 1551 1 Oxford 1682 1 Oxford 1703 7 Paris 1638 4 Paris 1723 1 Rouen 1664 10 Paris 1729 3 Venice 1578 8 Dublin 1832 1 London 1827 6 Paris 1733 1 Paris 1686 3 Dublin 1724 1 London 1688 1 Paris 1648 1 London 1623 1 Colonia 1603 2 Colonia 1684 10 Lyons 1703 2 London 1653 1 Antwerp 1725 1 Paris 1659 1 Cambridge 1720 2 Paris 1723 1 Venice 1728 1 Paris 1639 1 Dublin 1765 1 Oxford 1691 1 Rome 1605 2 Aix 1694 1 Basil 1556 3 Lyons 1737 1 London 1691 6 Paris 1680 2 London 1729 1 London 1685 1 Oxford 1691 4 Paris 1705 2 Venice 1755 1 Antwerp 1725 1 Antwerp 1725 1 London 1827 1 Paris 1631 1 Paris 1594 4 Paris 1753 1 London 1596 FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS. XXI 11 AUTHOR. Hugo - WORK. - De Corpore VOL. - 1 Irenaeus - Contra Haereses - 1 Isodorus - De Ordine - 1 Jacobatius - De Concilio - 1 Jerom - - Opera - 5 Jonas - De Institutione - 1 Jovius - - Historia - 2 Juenin - - Institutiones - 5 Justin - - Opera - 1 Labbeus - Concilia 23 Lactantius Limiers - Opera - Histoire - 1 - 10 Llorente - History - 1 Launoy - Epistolse - 5 Lanfranc Le Bruyn - Opera - - Voyages - 1 - 5 Liberatus Breviarium - 1 Lopez - Epitome - 1 Lyra - Biblia - 6 Mabillon - Annales - 6 Mageoghegan - Histoire - 3 Maldonat - Commentarium - 1 Me Hale Maynooth Report - 1 Maimbourg - - Traite - 1 Maimbourg - - Histoire - 1 Mariana - Histoire - 5 Mendoza De Concilio . 1 Mezeray - Histoire - 6 Milletot - Traite - 1 Milner - End of Controversy - 1 Montfaucon - - Bibliotheca - 1 Moreri - Dictionnaire - 8 Mumford - Scripturist 1 Malmsbury - - De Pontificibus - 1 Malmsbury - - De Gestis - 1 More - Opera 1 Nangis - Chronicon - 1 O'Leary - Works - 1 Origen - Commentaria - 2 Origen - Hexapla - 2 Orleans - Histoire - 2 Osbern - Vita Odonis - 1 Panormitan - - Deere talia - 4 Panormitan - - Concilia - 1 Paolo - - Histoire - 2 Paris - - Historia - 1 Pascal - CEuvres - 5 Paulinus - Opera - 1 ^tivius - Rationarium - 2 1 Paris 1648 1 Paris 1710 1 Paris 1723 1 Venice 1728 5 Paris 1706 1 Paris 1723 2 Paris 1553 5 Bassano 1773 1 Paris 1636 lice 1728 1 Cambridge 1685 10 Amsterdam 1718 1 London 1818 5 Paris 1675 1 Paris 1648 5 Paris 1725 1 Paris 1648 1 Antwerp 1622 6 Venice 1588 6 Paris 1713 3 Paris 1758 1 Mentz 1596 1 London 1827 1 Paris 1686 1 Paris 1684 5 Paris 1726 1 Venice 1728 6 Amsterdam 1688 1 Paris 1639 Philadelphial820 1 Paris 1715 8 Amsterdam 1720 1 Dublin 1767 1 Oxford 1691 1 London 1596 1 Louvain 1516 1 Paris 1723 1 Dublin 1781 2 Paris 1679 2 Paris 1713 2 Hague 1729 1 London 1691 4 Lyons 1550 1 Lyons 1551 2 London 1736 1 Zurich 1589 5 Paris 1819 1 Verona 1736 2 Lyons 1745 XXIV FATHERS AND POPISH AUTHORS. AUTHOR. Pithou Photius Platina Polydorus Procopius Prosper Quesnel Ranulph Ratramn Ratherius Renaudot Rhemists Rivers Sclater Sclater Slevin Socrates Spondanus Theodolf Theodoret Theophanes Theophylact Tertullian Thomassin Thuamis Thevenot Trivettus Ulderic Varillas Vertot Victor Vignier Velly Ward Walsh Zonaras WORK. Corpus Juris VOL. PLACE. DATE. 1 Paris 1687 Bibliotheca 1 Geneva 1612 De Vitis Pontificum 1 Colonia 1551 Historia 1 Basil 1534 Opera 1 Venice 1729 Opera 2 Venice 1744 Le Nouveau Testament 4 Brussels 1702 Polychronicon 1 Oxford 1691 Contra Grace. Opp. 1 Paris 1723 Epistolae 1 Paris 1723 Collectio - 2 Paris 1716 New Testament - 1 Manchester 1813 Manuel 1 Dublin 1816 Consensus 1 London 1686 Nubes Testium 1 Londor 1686 Maynooth Report 1 London 1827 Historia ... 1 Paris 1668 Epitome ... 1 Mentz 1618 Fragmenta - 1 Paris 1723 Opera 4 Paris 1612 Chronographia 1 Venice 1729 Commentarii 2 Paris 1635 Opera ... 1 Paris 1689 Discipline - - - 2 Paris 1679 Historia ... 7 London 1773 Voyages ... 5 Amsterdam 1727 Chronicon - - - 1 Paris 1723 Consuetudines 1 Paris 1723 Histoire ... 2 Cologne 1684 Origine ... 1 Hague 1737 Chronicon - - - 1 Antwerp 1725 Bibliotheque 3 Paris 1587 Histoire . - - 20 Paris 1701 Speculum - - - 1 London 1688 History ... 1 16~4 Annales - 2 Venice 1729 Apologie - - - 3 Antwerp 1792 Breviarium Romanum - 1 Venice 1729 Catech. Tridentin 1 Paris 1568 Codex Justinian 2 Lyons 1571 Codex Theodosianus - 6 Lyons 1665 Clementinas 1 Paris 1612 De Primatu 1 London 1769 Extravagantes 1 Paris 1612 Hist. Du Wicklif 1 Lyons 1682 Memoirs sur la Predestin 1 Amsterdam 1689 Missale Romanum 1 Campid 1767 Officia Propria 1 Dublin 1792 Processionale Romanum 1 Paris , 1676 INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. THE UNITY OF PROTESTANTISM. HARMONY OF THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS OF FAITH CONSUB8TAN1IATION OF LUTHERANISM POPISH DIVERSITY ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION DISCIPLINARIAN VARIETY SECTARIANISM FOOLERY OF ROMANISM BEATA CLARA NATIVITY FLAGELLI8M CONVULSIONARI ANISM FESTIVAL OF THE ASS DECISION OF A ROMAN SYNOD ANTIQUITY OF PROTESTANTISM PROTESTANT NAME PROTESTANT THE- OLOGY PROTESTANT CHURCHES THE WALDENSIAN THE GREK THE NESTO- RIAN THE MONOPHYSIAN THE ARMENIAN THE SYRIAN. THE unity and antiquity of Romanism, have, by its partizans, been often contrasted with the diversity and novelty of Protest- antism. These topics supply the votary of papal superstition with fond occasions of exultation, triumph, and bravado. Ro- manism, according to its friends, is unchangeable as truth, and old as Christianity. Protestantism, according to its enemies, is fluctuating as falsehood, and modern as the Reformation. The Bishop of Meaux has detailed the pretended "Variations oi" Protestantism," and collected, with invidious industry, nil its real or imaginary alterations. The religion of the Reforma- tion, in the statements of this author, is characterized by muta- bility. Protestantism, in his account, separated, in its infancy, into jarring systems, and appeared, in the nations of its nativity, in many diversified forms. But this discordancy, it will be found, is the offspring of misrepresentation. The Reformers, in their doctrinal sentiments, exhibited a wonderful agreement. Their unanimity, indeed, was amazing ; and showed, that these distinguished theologians, renouncing the vain commandments of men, and the muddy streams of tradition, had all imbibed the same spirit, and drunk from the same fountain. The doctrinal unity of the Reformed appears from their Con- fessions of Faith. These were published at the commencement of the Reformation ; and all, in different phraseology, contain, Tn the main, the same truths. Twelve of these public Exposi- tions of belief were issued in the several European nations. These were the Augsburg, Tetrapolitan, Polish, Saxon, Bohe- mian, Wittemberg, Palatine, Helvetian, French, Dutch, English, and Scottish confessions. All these are printed, in Latin, in Chouet's Collection ; arid have been abridged and criticised by 26 INTRODUCTION. Sleidan, Seckendorf, Brandt, Bossuet, Maimbourg, Moren, ana Du Pin, according to their diversified prepossessions and designs. The Augsburg or Augustan Confession is the production of Melancthon, and was reviewed and approved by Luther. The Elector of Saxony, attended by a few of the German Princes, presented it in 1530 to the Emperor of Germany at the Diet of Augsburg. This confessional manifesto, which was read in the Augustan Congress, received its name from the place of its presentation ; and became the standard of Lutheranism, through Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. The work has been criticised with the pen of prejudice by Maimbourg, and abridged with impartiality by Seckendorf, Sleidan, Paolo, Moreri, and Du Pin. 1 The Tetrapolitan, like the Augustan Confession, was, in 1530. presented to his Imperial Majesty, at the Diet of Augsburg, by a Deputation from Strasbourg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau. The ambassadors on this occasion, represented these four cities, and, from this circumstance, this public document took its appellation. This compendium was compiled by Bucer and Capito, and approved by the Senate of Strasbourg. The compilation has been epitomised, with his usual fairness, byDu Pin, from whom it extorted a flattering eulogy. This writing, says the Sorbonnist, is composed with much subtlety and address. Every article is supported by scriptural authority, and expressed in a manner calculated to impose on the reader. 2 The Bohemian, the Saxon, the Wittemberg, the Polish, and the Palatine, soon followed the Augustan Confession. The Bo- hemian or Waldensian Formulary was compiled from older records, and presented, in 1535, to the Emperor Ferdinand, by the nobility of Bohemia. The Saxon, in 1551, was issued in the Synod of Wittemberg, approved by the Protestant Clergy of Saxony, Misnia, and Pomerania, sanctioned by the Princes of Brandenburg and Mansfelt, and presented, the same year, to the Council of Trent. The Wittemberg, composed by Brent, was published in 1552. The Polish was formed in the General Synod of Sendomir, in 1570, and recognized through Poland, Lithuania, and Samogitia. Frederic the Third, the Elector Palatine, in 1576, issued aFormulary, in which he conveyed an exposition of his own faith. 8 The Helvetian Confession was issued in 1536, at Basil, in a 1 Mez. 4. 566. Chouet, 3. Boss. 1. 98. Sleid. 1. 284. Secken. 152. Paolo. 1. 89. Du Pin, 3. 207. Moreri, 2. 561. 'Chouet, 215. Du Pin, 3. 207,209. Boss. 1. 98. Sleid. 1.285. Secken. 19a 3 Chouet, 4. 140, 201. Alex. 17. 405. Bossuet, 1. 410. Du Pin, 3. 659. Moreri, 2. 562. INTRODUCTION. 27 convention of the Reformed Ministry and Magistracy of Swit- zerland, and received, with common consent, through the Can- tons of the nation. This form of belief was afterwards signed by a second assembly, held the same year in the same city. This, enlarged and improved, was again published in 1566, and extorted an unwilling eulogy even from the bishop of Meaux. The Swiss Confession, according to this author, excels all other cdmpendiums of the same kind which he had seen in plainness and precision. The theologians of Basil, therefore, on this memorable occasion, not only promulgated their creed, but, wonderful to tell, made even Bossuet once at least in his life tell the truth. 1 The confessions of France, Holland, England, and Scotland soon followed that of Switzerland. The F rench Formulary was drawn up in a national synod at Paris in 1559. Beza, in 1561, presented it to Charles the Ninth, in the colloquy of Poissy. This public document was confirmed in the national council of Rochelle, and signed by the Queen of Navarre, by her son Henry the Fourth, by Conde, Nassau, Coligny, and the synod, and recognized by the reformed of the French nation. Chouet has given it in Latin, and Laval in French. The Dutch or Belgic, written in French in 1561, and in Dutch and Latin in 1581, was confirmed in a National Synod in 1579. The English was edited in the Synod of London in 15 62, and printed by the authority of the Queen in 1571. This form of belief, published for the purpose of removing dissension and promoting harmony, was approved by the dignified and inferior clergy and subscribed by her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. That Formula is faithfully abrid ged by D u Pin. Several Confessions appeared in Scotland in different times. Knox, in 1560, composed one, which was ratified by parliament. This, however, and others, were only provisional and temporary, and sunk into neglect, on the appear- ance of the Formulary compiled at Westminster, which, in 1647, was approved by the General Assembly, and in 1649, and 1690, was ratified by the Scottish parliament at Edinburgh, and after- ward avowed by the people. 2 The approbation of each confession was not limited to the nation, for which, in a particular manner, it was intended. The Reformed of the several European kingdoms evinced their mutual concord and communion, by a reciprocal subscription to theso forms of faith. The Saxon Creed was approved by the Reformed of Strasbourg and Poland : and the Bohemian or Waldensian by 1 Chouet, 3, 4. Du Pin, 3. 219, 656. Boss. 1. 110. and 2. 61. Moreri, 2. 562. * Chouet, 4, 99, 125. Laval, 1. 117. Du Pin, 3. 656, 661. Aymon. 1. 145, 300. 98111. Thuan. 2. 54. Moreri, 2. 562. 28 INTRODUCTION. Luther, Melancthon, Bucer ; by the academy of Wittemberg, by the Lutherans and Zuinglians, and indeed by all the friends of Protestantism. 1 The Polish was recommended by the Wal- densians and Lutherans. The Dutch was subscribed by the French National Synod of Figeac ; and the French by the reformed of the Netherlands. The Swiss, united to each other in mind and communion, declared themselves undivided from the reformed of other nations of Christendom ; and their con- fession was signed by the Protestants of Germany, Hungary, Poland, France, Belgium, England, and Scotland. These confessional systems comprised all the topics of theo- logy. Faith and morality were discussed with precision and perspicuity. God, the Trinity, predestination, creation, provi- dence, sin, duty, redemption, regeneration, justification, adop- tion, sanctification, baptism, communion, death, resurrection, and immortality, all these subjects and many others were com- prehended in these publications. The truth and duty of reli- gion were, in these concise expositions, explained in a clear and satisfactory manner. These doctrinal compilations represented the theology of a vast population. Protestantism pervaded Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Poland, Germany, Transylvania, Hungary, Switzerland, France, Holland, England, Ireland, and Scotland: and visited the continents of Asia, Africa, and America. The extensive territory, in this manner, from the Atlantic to the Euxine, and from the Icy Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea, witnessed the light of the Reformation, which, propagated at succeeding times by missionary zeal, reached the African and Asian continents, and crossing the interposing ocean, illuminated the transatlantic shores in a world unknown to the ancients. The harmony of these declarations of belief is truly surpris- ing, and constitutes an extraordinary event in the history of man. The annals of religion and philosophy supply no other example of such agreement. The several nations, let it be recollected, acted, on these occasions, in an independent manner, without concert or collusion. The one had no power or authority to control the other. The clergy and laity, besides, were numer- ous and scattered over a wide territory. The transaction, in its whole progress, manifested the finger of Heaven, and the overruling providence of God. The Reformed, indeed, had the one common standard of revelation. Directed by this cri terion, the eady patrons of Protestantism formed their faith, 1 Lutherns hanc Valdensinm Bohemorum confessionem approbavit. Eamdena landrarant Melancton et Bucerius. Alex. 17. 406. Chouet, 3, 4, 12. Du Pin. 3 253. Boss. 1. XV. Aymon. 1 145, 157, 300. INTRODUCTION. 29 which except on one point, to evidence human weakness, ex* hibited a perfect unanimity. The Zuinglian and Lutheran Confessions, says Paolo, differed in reality, only on the sacra- ment. 1 All these comprehensive abridgments showed, in varied diction, an astonishing unity, in the main, on all doctrinal ques- tions, though they might differ on discipline and ceremony. The absurdity of consubstantiation, indeed, for some time, deformed Lutheranism. This opinion, the Saxon Reformei, during his whole life, retained with obstinacy. His pertinacity on this subject, kindled the sacramentarian controversy, which awakened a series of noisy, useless disputation. These discus- sions afforded Bossuet a subject of empty triumph. Had it not been for this topic, on which he has rung every possible change, and which constitutes the staple commodity of his " variations," the good bishop would often have been at a woful loss. Luther's hostility to Zuinglianism, however, has been often much overrated. This appears from the conference between the Lutherans and ZuingHans at Marpurg in 1529. Luther appeared, on this occasion, accompanied by Melancthon, Jonas, Osiander, Brent, and Agricola; and Zuinglius by Bucer, Oecolompadius, and Hnedio. Many other persons of merit and erudition attended. The Lutherans and Zuinglians both agreed in the belief of a real presence in the sacrament ; but differed whether this presence was corporal or spiritual. Mutual good will and friendly feeling, however, prevailed, especially on the part of the Zuinglians. This is admitted by Maimbourg, Du Pin, Paolo, and Luther. The Zuinglians, according to Maim- bourg, Du Pin, Sleidan, and Seckendorf, begged, with the most earnest entreaty, that a schism should not be continued on ac- count of one question. The Zuinglians, according to Luther, were mild and conciliating even beyond expectation. An ac- commodation, said the Reformer, is not hopeless ; and though a fraternal and formal union is not effected, there exists a peace- ful and amiable concord. 2 All agreed to exercise Christian charity, till God should supply additional light on the subject of disputation and direct to the means of establishing unanimity. The Conference, besides, were unanimous on all other points of divinity. All, say Du Pin and Paolo, were agreed on all topics but the communion. 3 A confession was issued on the subjects of the Trinity, the incarnation, faith, baptism, justification, sanc- tification, tradition, original sin, vicarious righteousness, good 1 Qui ne differoit de 1'autre, que dans 1'article de 1'eucharistie. Paolo, 1. 81. 2 Est, tamen placida, arnica concord4a. Seckendorf, 1. 136, 138. 3 Etant d*accord sur tons les autres chefs. Paolo, 1 . 82. They differed upon non of the articles, but that of the Lord's supper. Du Pin 3. 205. Sleidan, VI. 30 INTROL UCTION. works, the civil magistracy, and future judgment, and sub- scribed with the utmost harmony by Luther, Zuinglius, and the other theologians. The Zuinglian communion never accounted the Lutheran peculiarity a sufficient reason for schism or disaffection. This, they professed on many occasions. The French Reformed, in the National Synod of Charenton, acknowledged, in express terms, the purity of the Lutheran faith and worship. This as- sembly, in 1631, declared, says Aymon, the Lutheran commu- nion sound in the fundamentals of religion, and free from super- stition and idolatry. A meeting of the two denominations in 1661 at Cassel, professed their reciprocal esteem ; and, though a formal union was not constituted, expressed their mutual wil- lingness for co-operation and cordiality. The Lutherans and Calvinists of Hungary, Transylvania, and Poland, in 1570, in the synod of Sendomir, acknowledged the orthodoxy of each other's faith, and formed a treaty of friendship and unity. 1 The mutual friendship entertained by the Reformed of Ger- many, France, and Switzerland, terminated among those of Hungary, Transylvania, and Poland, in a formal ecclesiastical union. This was gloriously effected at Sendomir in 1570. A synod of Hungarian, Transylvanian, and Polish Calvinists and Lutherans met at that city, acknowledged the conformity of their mutual faith to truth and revelation, formed themselves into one body, and resolved on reciprocal co-operation against the partizans of Romanism and sectarianism. Agreed in doc- trine, the synod, in the genuine spirit of religious liberty, left each church to the enjoyment of its own discipline and forms. This noble and happy compact was confirmed in the synod of Posen held in the same year ; and in those of Cracow, Petro- cow, and Breslaw in 1573, 1578, and 1583. Two branches of the Reformed, who had differed in one non-essential, concur- red, in this manner, to form one ecclesiastical communion, and to bury in eternal oblivion, all the conflicting elements of faction and animosity. 2 The formal junction, which bigotry had prevented, was, in 1817, effected through Prussia and Germany. The Calvinists modified the severity of predestination, and the Lutherans renounced the absurdity of consubstantiation ; and both denomi- nations, after a candid explanation, could see no remaining ground of schism. The two, in consequence, united into one body. Lutheranism and Calvinism, through the Prussian and German dominions were amalgamated, and both distinctions * Aymon, 2. 501. Du Pin, 3. 699. 3 Thuan. 2. 778. INTRODUCTION. 31 resolved into one. The two have formed one ecclesiastical community, and are called Evangelical Christians. The king of Prussia, on the occasion, showed great activity in promoting the compilation of a Liturgy, calculated to gratify the commu- nity and afford universal satisfaction. The professors of Lutheranism and Calvinism, in this manner, harmonized, and one burst of benevolence and liberality extinguished the disaf- fection of three hundred years. The Bishop of Meaux has taken occasion from these muta- tions to triumph over Protestantism. But he ought to have known the changes of Romanism on this topic, and have feared to provoke retaliation. The friends of Popery have entertained diversified opinions on transubstantiation, which they have not accounted as essential in their system. A few instances of these fluctuations may be adduced. Gregory, Pius, Du Pin, and the Sorborme, rejected, or were willing to modify, their darling doctrine of Transubstantiation. Gregory the Seventh, presiding in 1078 with all his infalli- bility, in a Roman Synod of one hundred and fifty bishops, prescribed a form of belief on this question, which rejected, or, at least, did not mention the corporal presence. He allowed Berengarius to profess, that the bread of the altar after conse- cration was the true body, and the wine, the true blood of our Lord. 1 Transubstantiation and the corporal presence are here excluded. Any Protestant would sign the declaration. The Zuinglians, at the conference of Marpurg, admitted the pres- ence of the true body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament, and their reception by those who approach the communion. 2 The same is taught in the Reformed Confessions of Switzerland, France, Strasbourg, Holland, and England. Those of Swit- zerland and France call the sacramental bread and wine his body and blood, which feed and strengthen the communicant. 8 Those of Strasbourg, Holland, and England represent the con- secrated elements as his true body and blood, which are present in the institution and become our nourishment. 4 The doctrinal exposition of Pope Gregory and the Roman council would have satisfied any of the Reformed denominations. All these ad- mitted aU that was enjoined by the Holy, Roman, Apostolic 1 Profitebatur, panem altaris, post consecrationem, ease verum corpus Christi, et vmum esse verum sanguinem. Cossart, 2. 28. Mabillon, 5. 125. 3 Neque negare volant, verum corpus et sanguinem Christi adesse. Seckend. 138. 3 Appellari corpus et sanguinem Domini. Hel. Con. in Chouet, 67. Nos pascit et nutrit carne sua et sanguine. Gal. Con. in Chouet, 109, 110. 4 Verum suum corpus, verumque suum sanguinem. Argen. Con. in Chouet, 240. Vero Christi corpore et sanguine alimur. Christum ipsum sic nobis praesen- tem exhiberi. 'Aug. Con. in Chouet, 1 19, 120. Nos fide recipere verum corpus, et verum sanguinem Christi. Bel. Con. in Chouet, 182. 32 INTRODUCTION. Synod, headed by his infallibility. Mabillon acknowledges the Beiengarian creed's ambiguity and insufficiency. 1 The con- temporary patrons of the corporal presence held the same opin- ion as Mabillon, and insisted on the substitution of an unequiv- ocal and explicit confession, and the insertion of the epithet 4 substantial.' This accordingly was effected next year. A new creed was issued, acknowledging a substantial change in the sacramental elements after consecration. 2 Pius the Fourth followed the footsteps of Gregory. This Pontiff in 1560, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, offered to con- firm the English Book of Common Prayer, containing the Thirty-nine articles and the Litany, if the British Sovereign would acknowledge the Pontifical supremacy and the British nation join the Romish Communion. 3 The English Articles reject Transubstantiation. The religion of England under Eliza- beth, Mageoghegan would insinuate, though without reason, was composed of Lutheranism and Calvinism ; but certainly contained nothing of Transubstantiation. Pius wrote a letter to the Queen, which, in the most friendly style, professed an anxiety for her eternal welfare, and the establishment of her royal dignity. This epistle, with the overtures for union, was transmitted by Parpalio the Pope's nuncio. Martinengo was commissioned by his Holiness the same year, to negociate a similar treaty. But the terms were refused by the Queen and the nation. Martinengo was not even allowed to land in Britain, but was stopped in the Netherlands. 4 Du Pin and the Sorbonne copied the example of Gregory and Pius, and proposed at least to modify the doctrine of Trai>- substantiation. Wake in London and Du Pin in Paris com- menced an epistolary correspondence, on the subject of a union between the English and the French church. The French doctor proposed to the English bishop to omit the word Tran substantiation, and profess a real change of the bread arid wine into the Lord's body and blood. This modification, which would satisfy many Protestants, was a new modelling of the Trentine council's definition. The pioposal was conveyed in Du Fin** 1 Sub his veri corporis et sanguinis verbis oequivocalatere non immerito cresiere- tar. Mabil. 5. 125. Berengarius brevem fidei suae formulara, sed inKufficientem ediderat. Mabillon. 5. 139. 8 Berengarius explicatiorem fidei formnlara subscribere coactus est. Vox sub- stantialiter ultimo Berengarianae fidei profession! inserta est. Mabil. 5. 139. 3 Qu'il confirmeroit le livere de laPriere Commune. Le livre de la Priere Com- mune est une espece de Rituel ou Breviare, qui contient les trente-neuf articles de la religion pretendue reformee, avec la formule des prieres. Mageoghegan, 3. 379, 380, 381. Cart. 3. 393Heylin, 303.~Strype. 1. 228. 4 Trasitus negatus. Alexander, 23. 230. Ne hujus quidem sedis ad ipsam, hao de causa, nuncios in Angliam trajicere permiserit. Mageogh. 3. 412. INTRODUCTION. 33 Commonitorium. The plan, however, was not merely the act of Du Pin. The conditions of a coalition were read, and, after due consideration, approved by the Sorbonnian faculty, so cele- brated for its erudition, wisdom, and Catholicism. 1 These Roman hierarchs and a French university were willing, on certain terms, to compromise or modify T ran substantiation ; and the patrons of Popery, in consequence, need not exult or won- der, if Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Calvinists evinced a disposi- tion to unite, while their opinions on Con substantiation disagreed, and much less, when their minds, after long consideration, came to correspond. The unity of the reformed, it may be observed, was restricted to faith and morality. Considerable diversity existed in disci- pline and ceremonies. 2 But these, all admit, are unessential, and, in many instances, unimportant. Discipline, it is confessed, differs among the Romish as well as among the Reformed. The Disciplinarian Canons of Trent were rejected in France and in part of Ireland ; while they are admitted even in Spain only so far as consistent with regal authority. Almost every celebrated schoolman in the Romish Communion became the founder of a particular denomination, distinguished by a pecu- liarity of regulation and government. The Augustinians, Fran- ciscans, Dominicans, Jansenists, Jesuits, Benedictines, were all characterized by different rites, discipline, and ceremonies. Sectarianism, indeed, has prevailed since the rise of Protest- antism. Many denominations appeared after the Reformation. Arianism, Swedenborgianism, Flagellism, Southcottianism, and other errors have erected their portentous and fantastic heads. The clamor of Arianism, the nonsense of Swedenborgianism, and the ravings of Southcottianism, have blended in mingled discord and in full cry. But all these or similar kinds of schism and heresy appeared, in ah 1 their enormity, many ages before the Reformation. Division arose in the church from its origin, in the days of apos- tolic truth and purity. Irenseus, who flourished in the second century, attacked the errors of his day, and his work on this subject fills a full volume in folio. These errors, in the days of Epiphanius, in the fourth century, had increased to eighty, and, in the time of Philaster, to an hundred and fifty. Their number continued to augment with the progress of time ; and their systems equalled those of the moderns in extravagance. Schism and heresy prevailed to a more alarming extent, before than 1 Du Pin, Commonitorium, in Maclaine's Mosh. App. III. Biog. Diet. 30. 473. J In diversis epclesiis quaedam deprehenditur varietas inloquutionibus, et modo expositionis, doctrinse, in ritibus item vel cseremoniis. Chouet. 12. 3 34 INTRODUCTION". since the establishment of Protestantism in its present form. Later are but a revival of former errors and delusions, which flourished at a distant period, and, preserved from oblivion by the historian, swell the folios of ecclesiastical antiquity. These illusions, however, the Reformers never countenanced, but, on the contrary, opposed. Luther and Calvin withstood the many deviations from truth and propriety, which appeared in their day, and which since that period have, in various forms, infested Christendom. The Saxon reformer exerted ah 1 his authority against the error and fury of Anabaptism in Ger- many ; and was imitated in his opposition to turbulence by the Swiss, French, English, and Scottish Reformers, Zuinglius, Calvin, Cranmer, and Knox. The Romish priesthood and people, on the contrary, have, in every age, fostered fanaticism and absurdity. Every foolery of sectarianism, which, though unconnected with Protestantism, arose since the Reformation, and disgraced religion, has nestled in the bosom of Popery, and been cherished by its priesthood and people. Arianism, an affiliated branch of Sociniamsm, claims the honor of antiquity, and was patronized by Liberius, and by the councils of Sirmium, Selucia, and Ariminum. The extravagance of Montanism, as Tertullian relates, was patron- ized by the contemporary Pope and rivalled the fanaticism of Swedenborgianism. 1 The Pontiff, says Godeau, gave Mon- tanus letters of peace, which showed that he had been admitted to his communion. 2 His Holiness, says Rhenan, Montanized. Victor, says Bruys, approved the prophesying of Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla. The mania of Joanna Southcott in modern times is eclipsed by the dreams of Beata, Clara, and Nativity. Beata of Cuenza in Spain was born in the end of the eigh- teenth century in poverty and obscurity. But she aspired, not- withstanding, to the character and celebrity of a Roman saint : and for effecting her purpose, she invented a most extraordinary fiction, which, she said, was revealed to her by the Son of God. Her body, she declared, as was indicated to her by special reve- lation, was transubstantiated into the substance of our Lord's body. Beata' s blasphemy created no less discussion in Spain than Joanna's in England. The Spanish priests and Monks divided on the absurdity. Some maintained its possibility, and some its impossibility : and the one party wondeied at the 1 Socrat IV. 21, 22. Theod. II. 39, 40. Spon. 173. II. DuPin, 347. Bruy. I 112. Tertul. 501. * Le Pape lui avoit donn& lettres pacifiques, qui montroient qu'iS 1'avoit admia en sa communion. Godeau. 1. 436. Bruj*. 1. 40. INTRODUCTION. 3D other's unbelief. A few, indeed, it appears, were the accom- plices of her imposture. But many were the dupes of tneir own credulity. Beata's visionary votaries, believing her flesh and blood transformed into the substance of the Messiah, proceeded, in their folly and impiety, to adore the impostor. Her sacer- dotal and lay partizans conducted her in procession, and with lighted tapers to the churches and through the streets ; while these shameful exhibitions were accompanied with prostration and burning of incense before the new-made goddess, as before the consecrated host. 1 The woman, indeed, was as good a divi- nity as sacramental pastry. Beata's claim, in all its ridiculous inconsistency, was as rational in itself, and supported by as strong evidence as the tale of Transubstantiation. The clergy and laity of Spain, basking in the sunshine of infallibility and illuminated with all its dazzling splendor, were no less liable to deception than a few fanatics in England, guided by their own unlettered and infatuated minds. Clara at Madrid, less assuming than Beata, aspired only to the name and distinction of a prophetess ; and her claims, like those of many other impostors, soon obtained general credit. Her sanctity and her miracles became the general topics of con- versation. Pretending to a paralytic affection, and unable to leave her bed, the prophetess was visited by the most distin- guished citizens of the Spanish capital, who accounted them- selves honoured in being admitted into her presence. The sick implored her mediation with God, for the cure of their disor- ders ; and grave and learned judges supplicated light to direct them in their legal decisions, from the holy prophetess. Clara uttered her responses in the true Delphic style, like a Priestess of Apollo, placed on the Tripod and under the afflatus of the God, or like a seer, who beheld futurity through the visions of inspiration. She was destined, she announced, by a special call of the spirit, to become a capuchin nun ; but wanted the health and strength necessary for living in a cloistered community. His infallibility, Pope Pius the Seventh, in a special brief, per- mitted her to make her profession before Don Athanasius, Arch ' bishop of Toledo. The Vicar-General of God granted the holy prophetic nun a dispensation from a cloistered life and a se- questered community. Miss Clara, in this manner, was acknow- ledged by the head of the Romish church, while Miss Southcott was disowned by every Protestant community. An altar, by the permission of his infallibility, was erected opposite her bed. Mass was often said in her bed-room, and the sacrament left in Llorente, 558. 3* 36 INTRODUCTION. her chamber as in a sacred repository. Clara communicated every day, and pretended to her followers that she took no food but the consecrated bread. This delusion lasted for several years. But the inquisition at last, on the strength of some information, interfered in 1802, in its usual rude manner, and spoiled the play. 1 The punishments, however, contrary to custom, were mild. This was, perhaps, the only act of justice which the holy office ever attempted, and the only good of which its agents were ever guilty. The Revelations of sister Nativity, with all their ridiculous folly, have been recommended in glowing and unqualified lan- guage by Rayment, Hodson, Bruning, and Milner. This prophetess, if she had little brains, had, it seems, clear eyes and good ears. She saw, on one occasion, in the hands of the offici- ating priest at the consecration of the wafer, a little child, living And clothed with light. The child, eager to be received, or in other words eaten, spoke, with an infantile voice, and desired to be swallowed. She had the pleasure of seeing, at another time, an infant in the host, with extended arms and bleeding at every limb. AU nature, on the day of the procession, she per- ceived sensible of a present deity and manifesting joy. The flowers, on that auspicious day, blew with brighter beauty, and the anthems of angels mixed with the hosannas of men. The very dust becoming animated, danced in the sepulchre of the saint with exultation, and in the cemetery of the sinner shud- dered with terror. The French prophetess also amused her leisure hours in the nunnery, with the agreeable exercise of self-flagellation. The use of the disciplining whip, unknown, say Du Pin and Boilear to all antiquity, began in the end of the eleventh century. The novelty was eagerly embraced by a community which boasts of its unchangeability. The inhuman absurdity has been advo- cated by Baronius, Spondanus, PuUus, Gerson, and the Roman Breviary. Baronius, the great champion of Romanism, followed by Spondanus, calls flagellation ' a laudable usage.' 2 This satisfaction, Cardinal Pullus admits, is rough, but, in proportion to its severity, is, he has discovered, * the more acceptable to God.' 3 Gerson, in the council of Constance in 1417, though he condemned the absurdity in its grosser forms, recommended the custom, when under the control of a superior, and executed by another with moderation, and without ostentation or effusion 1 Llorente, 559. * Ille laudabilis usus, ut poenitentiae causa, fideles verberibus seipsos afficerent flagellis. Spoil. 1056. III. * Satisfactio aspera, tamen, et tanto Deo gratior. Pull, in Boileau 227. INTRODUCTION. 37 of blood. 1 Self-flagellation, indeed, is sanctioned by the Popish church. The Roman Breviary, published by the authority of Pius, Clement, and Urban, has recommended the absurdity by its approbation. This publication details and eulogizes the flagellations practised by the Roman saints. These encomiums on the disciplinarian whip are read on the festivals of these canonized flagellators. The work containing these commenda- tions, is authorized by three Pontiffs, and received with the utmost unanimity by the whole communion. The usage, there- fore, in all its ridiculousness, possesses the sanction of infal- libility. This improved species of penance was adopted by the friendly monks of the age of the crusades, who, with a lusty arm, be- laboured the luckless backs of the penitential criminals, men and women, even of the highest rank in society. The nobility, gentry, and peasantry, the emperor, the king, the lord, the lady, the servant, and the soldier, as well as the cardinal, the metro- politan, the bishop, the priest, the monk, and the nun, all joined in the painful and disgusting extravagance. 2 Cardinal Damian in 1056, brought it into fashion, and Dominic, Pardolf, Anthelm, Maria, Margaret, Hedwig, Hildegard, and Cecald, who have all, men and women, been canonized, followed Damian' s exam- ple, and lacerated their backs for the good of their souls. The Roman Breviary, already mentioned, edited by three Popes, commends many of its saints for their happy and fre- quent application of the whip to their naked backs. Self- flagellation, according to Pontifical authority, became, in their hands, the sanctified means of superior holiness. This roll con- tains the celebrated names of Xavier, Canutus, Francisca, Regu- latus, Bernard, Franciscus, Teresia, and Bertrand. Xavier, the Indian apostle, wielded against his own flesh, ' an iron whip, which, at every blow, was followed with copious streams of blood.' Canutus, the Danish sovereign, ' chastised his body with hair-cloth, and flagellation. Francisca copied the holy pattern. Her saintship 'took continual pains to reduce her body to submission by frequent self-flagellation.' Regulatus, by the skilful application of the sanguinary lash, ' subjected the flesh to the spirit.' Bernardin, Franciscus, and Bertrand, fol- lowing the useful example, operated with a thong on the back for the good of the soul. Teresia merits particular and honour- able mention, for applying with laudable attention, these Chris- 1 Flagellatio fiat, judicio superioris, et sine scandalo, et ostentatione, et sine san- guine. Gerson, jn Labb. 16. 1161. 2 Non modo viri, sed et nobiles raulieres verberibus seipsos afficerent. Spoti. 1056. III. Boileau, 180, 307 Labb. 16. 1161. Du Pin, 2. 265. M. Tans. 90. 38 INTRODUCTION. tian means of holy torment. * She often applied the bloody lash ' This, however, did not satisfy her saintship. She also, in addition, ' rolled herself on thorns ;' and by this means, says the Breviary, the Holy Nun, blasphemous to tell, 'was accus- tomed to converse with God.' Her carcass, however, it seems, enjoys, since her death, the benefit of these macerations ; and, 4 circumfused in a fragrant fluid, remains, till the present day, the undecayed object of worship.' 1 The church, that retains such senseless and ridiculous absurdity, in a publication, reviewed by Pius, Clement, and Urban, may cease to reproach Protest- antism with the acts of a few mistaken fanatics or moon-struck maniacs, who, whatever name they may assume, are disowned by every reformed denomination in Christendom. Dominic, Hedwig, and Margaret, merit particular attention in the annals of flagellation. Dominic of the iron cuirass seems to have been the great patron and example of this discipline. He showed himself no mercy, and whipped, on one occasion, till his face, livid and gory, could not be recognized. This scourging was accompanied with psalm-singing. 2 The music of the voice and the cracking of the whip mingled, during the operation, in delightful variety. Dominic, in the use of the whip, had the honour of making several improvements, which, in magnitude and utility, may be reckoned with those of Copernicus, Flamsteed, Newton, and La Place. He taught flagellators to lash with both hands, and, consequently, to do double execution. 3 The skilful operator, by this means could, in a given time, peel twice as much super- abundant skin from his back, and discharge twice as much useless blood from his veins. He obliged the world also with the invention of knotted scourges. This discovery also facili- tated the flaying of the shoulders, and enabled a skilful hand to mangle the flesh in fine style for the good of the soul. Hedwig, and Margaret, though of the softer sex, rivalled Dominic in this noble art. Hedwig was Duchess of Silesia and Great Poland. She often walked during the frost and cold, till she might be traced by the blood dropping from her feet on the 1 Xavier ferreis in se flagellis ita saevit, ut saepe copioso cruore difflueret. Brev. Rom. 604. Canutus corpus suum jejuniis, ciliciis, et flagellis castigavit. Brev. Rom. 648. Francisca corpus suum crebris flagellis in servitutem redigere jugiter satagebat Brev. Rom. 710. Regulatus flagellis carnem intra subjectionem spiritus continebit. Brev. 787. Bernardinus flagellis delicatum corpus aifligens. Brev. Rom. 801. Teresia asperrimis flagellis saepe cruciaret. Aliquando inter spinas volutaret sic Deum alloqui solita. Ejus corpus usque ad hanc diem incorruptum, odorato liquorc circumfusum, colitur. Brev. Rom. 1043. 8 Psaltaria integra recitabantur. Boileau, c. 7. * Se utraque manu affatim diverberasse. Boileau, 185. INTRODUCTION. 39 snow. She wore aext her skin, a hair-cloth that mangled hei flesh, which she would not allow to be washed. Her women had, by force, 1 to remove the clotted blood, which flowed from the torn veins. The Duchess invented or adopted an effectual, but rather rough means of sanctification. She purified heV soul by the tears which she shed, and her body by the blows which she inflicted with a knotted lash. 2 Margaret, daughter to the King of Hungary, wore a hair- cloth and an iron girdle. She underwent not only the usual number of stripes, but made the nuns inflict on her an extraor- dinary quantity, which caused such an effusion of blood from her flesh as horror-struck the weeping executioners. Her devo- tion still augmenting during the holy week, she lacerated her whole body with the blow r s of a whip. 3 Edmond, Matthew, and Bernardin, used their disciplinarian thongs on particular occasions. Edmond, who is a saint and Was Archbishop of Canterbury, was solicited to unchastity by a Parisian lady. The saint directed the lady to his study, and whether from a taste for natural beauty, or more probably, to facilitate his intended flagellation, proceeded, without ceremony , to undress his enamoured dulcinea, to which, being unac- quainted with his design, the unsuspecting fair submitted with great Christian resignation. He then began to ply her naked body with a whip. 4 The operation, though it did not in all probability, excite very pleasing sensations, tended, it appears^ to allay her passion. Friar Matthew's adventure had a similar beginning and end. A noble nymph, young, fair, and fascinating, disrobed her lovely person, for the purpose, probably, of unveiling her native charms ; and in this captivating dress or rather undress, paid a nocturnal visit to her swain after he was in bed. 5 But this Adonis was insensible and unkind. A lash of Spanish cords, administered front and rear to her naked beauty, vindicated the Friar's purity and expelled from his apartment ' the love-sick shepherdess.' Bernardin was tempted in the same way and preserved by the same means. A citizen of Sienna invited him to her house ; and, as soon as he entered, shut the door. She then, in un- equivocal language, declared the object of her invitation. Ber- nardin, says the story, according to divine suggestion, desired 1 Ses femmes 1'en retirassent par force. Andilly, 769. 2 Andilly, 770. 3 Andilly, 795. 4 Virgis cecidit, et nudatum corpus cruentis vibicibus conscribillavit. Boileau, 217. 6 Noctu quadam, spoliata suis vestibus, ad eum in sponda jacentem accesserat Boileau, 217. Sulcos sanguinolentos, in juvenilibus femoribus, clunibus, ac scapn Us diduxit. Boileau, 218. 40 INTRODUCTION. the woman to undress. 1 Flagellators, indeed, on those occasions, generally chose to exhibit in the costume of Adam and Eve, and, by this means, contrived to add indecency to folly. 2 The lady, accordingly, on the intimation of his will and misunderstanding his design, immediately complied. But she was soon disagree- ably undeceived. Contrary to her expectations, and probably to her desire, he began to apply his whip, which he used with great freedom, till she was tired of his company and civility. This flagellation was not peculiar to men and women. Satan, it seems, enjoyed his own share of the amusement. This, on one occasion, says Tisen and after him Boileau, was bestowed on his infernal majesty by Saint Juliana. 3 Her sister nuns, on this emergency, heard a dreadful noise in Juliana's apartment. This, on examination, was found to proceed from her conflict with Beelzebub. Her saintship engaged his devilship in a pitched battle in her own chamber. But Satan, for once, was overmatched and foiled. The saintess seized the demon in her hands, and thrashed him with all her might. Juliana then threw Belial on the earth, trampled him with her feet, and lacerated him with sarcasms. Satan, if accounts may be credited, , has sometimes taken the liberty of whipping saints. Coleta, for in- stance was, according to the Roman Breviary, often compli- mented in this way. Her saintship frequently felt the effects of the infernal lash. But Juliana, for once, repaid Satan with interest for all his former impoliteness and incivility. The sainted heroine, it appears, fought with her tongue as well as with her fists and feet. 4 This weapon she had at command, and she embraced the opportunity of treating the Devil to a few specimens of her eloquence. Dunstan, the English saint, showed still greater severity than Juliana. The Devil at one time assumed the form of a bear, and attacked the saint. Satan, in commencing hostilities, gaped and showed his teeth ; but, it appears, could not bite. He contrived, however, to seize Dunstan's pastoral staff in his paws, and attempted to drag this ensign of office to himself. But this, Dunstan was not disposed tamely to resign. He chose rather to retain the weapon, and to use it as an instrument of war against his diabolical assailant. He accordingly applied it to Belial's back with such dexterity and effect, that the enemy was soon put to flight. The conqueror, also, like a skilful general, 1 Ut se vestibus nudaret: nee mulier distulit. Boileau. 216. Sarius, 272. Nudatis corporibus, et omni stamine spoliatis, paiam et in conspectu hominum M> flagellare. Boileau, 222. ' 3 Tisen, 60. Boileau, 270. 4 Daernonem, quern manibus comprehensum, quanti poterat caedebat. In terram deinde prostratum, pedibus obterebat, lacerabat sarcasmis. Boileau, 270. Brev. Rom. 700. INTRODUCTION. 41 resolving to secure the victory, pursued the routed adversary, and thrashed with might and main. The saint, in this manner, continued his military operations till he broke the cudgel in three pieces on the vanquished Devil. 1 Dunstan on another occasion, discovered, saint as ne was, still less mercy. Satan, or some other Devil, had the assurance to put his head through the window of Dunstan's cell, for the purpose of tempting the saint. But the demon's intrusion cost him his nose, which, it seems, was of f Rome to the Monk of Clairvaux, comprising a period of eleven hundred years, have been denominated Fathers. Their works, immediately after the council of Nice, began to be in- fected with popery. Each succeeding author, in each following age, added to the gathering mass of error. Superstition accu- mulated. The filth and mud of Romanism collected, till the system of delusion, or " the Man'of Sin," in all his dimensions, was completed. The post-Nicene Fathers, therefore, may, with safety and without regret, be consigned to the Vatican, to rust or rot with the lumber and legends of a thousand years. But the ante-Nicene Fathers exhibit a view of Protestantism, in all its grand distinctions and in all its prominent traits. These, too, it must be observed, were uninspired and fallible, and therefore, display no unerring standard of truth. Many things contained in their works are exploded both by the Rom- ish and Reformed, such as the Millenium, the administration of the Lord's Supper to infants, and the subterranean repository of souls from death till the resurrection. The errors and igno- rance of the Fathers have been acknowledged by Erasmus and Du Pin, the friends of Romanism. The ancient commentators, says Erasmus, such as Origen, Basil, Gregory, Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, 'were men subject to failings, ignorant in some things and mistaken in others.' Du Pin makes a similar concession. 1 Some errors, says the Parisian Doctor, were frequent in the first ages, which have since been rejected. The ancients, he grants, varied in terms and in cir- cumstantials, though they agreed in essentials. The errors, however, of the ante-Nicene fathers, which were many, were not the errors of Romanism. The ecclesiastical productions of three hundred years after the commencement of the Christian era, teach, in the main, the principles of Protestantism. The Reformed also recognized the three pristine creeds. The Apostolic, the Nicene, and the Athanasian formularies of belief were adopted by the patrons of Protestantism, and have been distinguished by their general reception in Christendom. The confessions of Irena9us, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory, and Lucian, as well as those of Jerusalem, Aquileia, and Antioch, which still remain, though less known, are equally orthodox. All these agree, in substance, with the confessions issued imme- diately after the Reformation, and believed by all genuine Protestants to the present day. The doctrinal definitions of the first six general councils, 1 Homines erant, quaedam ignorabant, in nonnullis hallucinati eunt Erasra. 5 133. Du Pin, 'l. 587. 48 INTRODUCTION. which were held at Nice, Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constanti- nople, have been adopted into the Reformed theology. The Nicene, and Byzantine councils declared the divinity of the Son and Spirit, in opposition to Arianism and Macedonianism. The Ephesian, Chalcedonian, and Byzantine synods taught the unity of the Son's person and the duality of his nature and will, in contradistinction to Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and Monothe- litisrn. All these promulgated the principles of Protestantism, and are lasting monuments of its antiquity. A person being asked where Protestantism was before the Reformation, replied by asking in turn, where the inquirer's face was that morning before it was washed. The reply was just. Dirt could constitute no part of the human countenance ; and washing, which would remove the filth, could neither change the lineaments of the human visage nor destroy its identity. The features by the cleansing application, instead of alteration, would only resume their natural appearance. The superstition of Romanism, in like manner, formed no part of Christianity ; and the Reformation, which expunged the filth of adulteration, neither new modelled the form, nor curtailed the substance of the native and genuine system. The pollutions of many ages, indeed, were dismissed ; but the primitive con- stitution remained. The heterogeneous and foreign accretions, which might be confounded but not amalgamated with the pri- mary elements, were exploded : and deformity and misrepre- sentation gave place to simplicity and truth. Popery may be compared to a field of wheat overrun with weeds. The weeds, in this case, are only obnoxious intruders which injure the useful grain. The wheat may remain and advance to maturity with accelerated vegetation, when the weeds, which impede its growth, are eradicated. The super- stition of Romanism, in the same manner, like an exotic and ruining weed, deformed the Gospel and counteracted its utility. The Reformers, therefore, zealous for the honour of religion and truth, and actuated with the love of God and man, proceeded with skill and resolution, to separate Popish inventions from divine revelation, and exhibited the latter to the admiring world in all its striking attraction and symmetry. But nothing, perhaps, presents a more striking image of Popery than a person labouring under a dreadful disorder; while the same person, restored to vigorous health, will afford a lively emblem of Protestantism. The malady, let it be sup- posed, has deranged the whole animal economy. Appetite and strength fail, and are succeeded by languor and debility. The disease, which works within, appears in all its disgusting effects INTRODUCTION. 49 on the exterior, and produces emaciation, paleness, swelling, ulceration, tumour, and abscess. The whole frame, in conse- quence, exhibits a mass of deformity. The patient, in this state, affords a striking picture of Popery. But a physician, in the mean time, exerts his professional skill. Medical applica- tions arrest the progress of disease, and renovate the functions of the whole human system. Every protuberance, excrescence, suppuration, and pain is removed by an unsparing application of the lancet, regimen, medicine, and aliment. The blood, in reviving streams, begins to flow with its usual velocity, and the pulse, in healthy movements, to beat with its accustomed regu- larity. Debility and decay give place to vigour, bloom, and beauty. The healthy subject, in this state, presents a portrait of Protestantism; and the Reformers acted the part of the physician. Religion, by their skilful exertions, was divested of the adventitious and accumulated superadditions of a thousand years, and restored to its native purity, flourishing in health, invigorated with strength, and adorned with beauty. A patient, however, does not, on the return of health, become another per- son or lose his identity : neither does Christianity, when reduced to its original state, change its nature or become a novelty. The faithful existed, at the earliest period, as well as the faith ; and the people as well as the profession. The churches unconnected with the Romish and rejecting the most obnoxious abominations of Popery, or professing, in all the grand leading truths, the principles of Protestantism, were, from the primitive times, numerous and flourishing. These were the Waldensians, the Greeks, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Armenians, and the Syrians. Western or European Christendom was the theatre of Wal- densianism. The patrons of this system were distinguished by various appellations. But the principal branches of this stock, were Waldensianism, Albigensianism, and Wickliffism. These, however, though called by several names, had one common origin and one common faith the faith of Protestantism. Albigensianism, indeed, has often been accused of Manichean- ism and Arianism. Calumny of this kind has been very com- mon from the Popish pen of misrepresentation against this persecuted denomination of Christians. But the imputation is unfounded, and has been refuted by Perrin, Basnage, Usher, Peyran, and Moreri. Moreri, though attached to Romanism, has vindicated the Albigensian theology from this slander with generosity and effect. 1 This charge, according to Moreri, may Moreri, 1.234. 50 INTRODUCTION. be refuted from the silence of original records ; the admission of Popish historians; and the testimony of Albigensian confessions. The original monuments, such as the Chronicle of Tolosa, the testimony of Bernard, Guido, and the Councils of Tours and Lavaur, in 1163 and 1213, contain no trace of this allegation. The Tolosan Chronicle contains an account of the processes against the Albigensians signed by the Inquisitors, and, in many instances, by the Bishops ; but no mention is made of Albigensian Manicheanism or of Arianism. A similar silence is preserved by Bernard and Guido, as well as by the synods of Tolosa, Tours, and Lavaur, that brought several accusations against this people. 1 The same appears from Popish admissions. The Albigen- sians, according to ^Sneas Sylvius, Alexander, and Thuanus, were a branch of the Waldensians, who, ah 1 admit, were un- tainted with the Manichean or Arian heresy. 2 The Albigensians, says Alexander, * did not err on the Trinity,' and, therefore, were not Arians. 3 Bruys, Henry, Osca, and Arnold, who were the chiefs of this denomination, were never accused of these errors. Moreri, on this subject, quotes the admissions of Mabillon, TiUet, Serrus, Vignier, Guaguin, and Marca, in vin- dication of these injured people. 4 All these testify that the Albigensians differ little in doctrine from the Waldensians and the Reformed, who, aU confess, were free from Arianism. This calumny is repelled by the Albigensian Confessions. Several of these remain. One is preserved in Leger. The Treatise on Antichrist, written in 1120 before the days of Waldo, contains an outline of the Albigensian theology. Gra- verol also possessed an ancient manuscript, which detailed the persecutions of the Inquisition against the professors of Albi- fensianism. The Confession of Osca, who belonged to this enomination, is still extant, and contains an outline of Protest- antism. The Albigensians, who were accused before the coun- cil of Lombez, made, in the synod, a public profession of their faith. All these records reject the Manichean and Arian errors, and include, in the essentials, the faith of the Reformation. The accused, at Lombez, professed then* belief in one God in * Bened. 14. Labb. 12. 1284. et 13. 841. Du Pin, 2, 32. * Ab ecclesia Catholica recedentes, impiam Waldensium sectam atque insanam aroplexi sunt. Aen. Sylv. c. 35. Albigenses Waldensium ease progeniem. Alex. 20. 268. Pauperes Lugdunenses, Albigei dicti sunt. Thuan. 1. 222. Du Pin, 1. 318. 3 Non hi circa Trinitatis fidem erraverint. Alexan. 20. 269. Mabil. 3. 456. 4 Us etoieut dans lea memes sentimens que lea Reformez. Leurs sentimenj etoient les memes que ceux, qui out etc renouvellez par Wiclef et par Luther. Moreri, 1. 235. Ills n'y avoient pas grande difference de doctrine entre les Albigeois et Vaudois. Vignier," 3. 233. INTRODUCTION. 51 three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit; and therefore dis claimed Arianism, as well as Manicheanism. 1 A few Manicheans and Arians, indeed, who lived among the Albigensians, united, as appears from Laurentius and Guido, with the latter denomination to oppose their common persecu- tors. These, though differing among themselves, conspired against the Roman community, and, in consequence, were con- founded by the Inquisitors. The common enemy, therefore, ascribed the errors of the one to the other. Laurentius wrote during the hottest persecutions of the Albigensians, whom he distinguished from the Manicheans and Arians. Guido was a Dominican persecutor, and wrote in the Tolosan Chronicle. 2 The antiquity of the Waldensians is admitted by their ene- mies, and is beyond all question. Waldensianism, says Rai- nerus the Dominican, ' is the ancientest heresy ; and existed, according to some, from the time of Silvester, and, according to others, from the days of the apostles.' 3 This is the reluctant testimony of an Inquisitor in the thirteenth century. He grants that Waldensianism preceded every other heresy. The Waldensians, say Rainerus, Seysel, and Alexander, dated their own origin and the defection of the Romish Com- munion from the Papacy of Silvester. 4 Leo, who flourished in the reign of Constantine, they regard as their founder. Roman- ism, at this period, ceased to be Christianity, and the inhabi- tants of the valleys left the unholy communion. These simple shepherds lived, for a long series of years, in the sequestered re- cesses of the Alpine retreats, opposed to Popish superstition and error. The Waldensians, as they were ancient, were also numerous. 5 Vignier, from other historians, gives a high idea of their popu- lousness. The Waldensians, says this author, multiplied won- derfully in France, as well as in other countries of Christendom. They had many patrons in Germany, France, Italy, and espe- cially in Lombardy, notwithstanding the Papal exertions for their extirpation. This sect, says Nangis, were infinite in number ; appeared, 1 Pour 1' essentiel, leur doctrine etoit conforme a celle des Vaudois et des Protes tans Osca a laisse une confession de foi, dont les articles accordent avec la doc trine des Reformez. Moreri, 1. 234, 235. Du Pin, 325. Labb. 13. 384. 2 Moreri, 1. 234. 3 Aliqut enim dicunt, quod duravit a tempore Sylvestri ; aliqui a tempore Apos- tolorum. Rainerus, 3. 4. 4 Romana ecclesia non est ecclesia Jesu Christi, sed ecclesia malignantitim, eamque sub Sylvestro deficisse. Alex. 17. 368. Seysel, 9. Moreri. 8. 47. 5 Les Vaudois se trouverent merveilleusement multipliez, tant en France qu'en autres contr6esi de la Chretient6. Us avoient grand nombre des complicees et adhe rans, tant en 1' Allemagne, qu'en France et Italie, specialement en la Lombardie Vignier, 3. 283, 393. 4* 62 INTRODUCTION. says Rainerus, in nearly every country ; multiplied, says San- derus, through all lands ; infected, says Caesarius, a thousand cities, and spread their contagion, says Ciaconius, through al- most the whole Latin world. Scarcely any region, says Gret- zer, remained free and untainted from this pestilence. 1 The Waldensians, says Popliner, spread, not only through France, but also through nearly all the European coasts, and appeared in Gaul, Spain, England, Scotland, Italy, Germany, Bohemia, Saxony, Poland, and Lithuania. 2 Matthew Paris represents this people as spread through Bulgaria, Croatia, Dalmatia, Spain, and Germany. Their number, according to Benedict, was prodigious in France, England, Piedmont, Sicily, Calabria, Poland, Bohemia, Saxony, Pomerania, Germany, Livonia, Sar- matia, Constantinople, Philadelphia, and Bulgaria. 3 Thuanus and Moreri represent the Waldensians, as dispersed through Germany, Poland, Livonia, Italy, Apulia, Calabria, and Provence. 4 Persecuted by the Inquisition, this simple people fled into England, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bohemia, Poland, and Piedmont, and became, says Newburg, like the sand of the sea, without number in Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Germany. 5 The Diocese of Passau, it was computed, contained forty Waldensian schools and eighty thousand Waldensian popula- tion. 6 The Albigensian errors, according to Daniel, infected all Languedoc and corrupted the nobility and the populace. 7 The Romish temples, according to Bernard, were left without people, the people without pastors, and the pastors without respect. 8 The number of the Albigensians appears from the army which 1 Infinitus erat numerus. Nangis, An. 1207. Dachery, 3. 22. Fere enim nulla est terra, in qua haec secta non sit. Rain. c. 4. Per omnes terras multiplicati sunt. Sanderus, VII. Infecerunt usque ad mille civitates. Caesar. V. 21. Totum fere Latinum orbera infecisse. Ciacon. 525. Vix aliqua regio, ab hac peste, immunis et intacta, remansit. Gretz. c. 1. * Non per Galliam solum totam sed etiam per omnes pene Europae oras. Poplin. Albigenses in finibus Bulgarorum, Croatiae, et Dalmatiae. M. Paris, 306. Albigenses in partibus Hispaniae et illis regionibus, invaluerunt. M. Paris, 381. IU se disperserent dans les vallees de Piemont, dans la Sicile, la Calabre, Pouille et la Boheme. L'Allemagne, qui n'en etoit pas moins remplie. Bened. 2. 243 248. 4 Pars in Germaniam et Sarmatiam, et inde in Livoniam usque ad extremum sep- tentriouern transmigravit. Pars in Italiam profecta in Apulia et Calabria consedit. Pars denique in Provincia nostralocis incultis et asperis latuit. Thuan. XXVII. 8. VI. 16. Us s'en retira un bon nombre en Angleterre, en Suisse, en Boheme, en Bologne, et dans les vallees de Piemont. Moreri, 8. 48. 5 In latissimis Galliae, Hispaniae, Italiae, Germaniaeque provinciis turn multi hac peste infecti esse dicuntur, ut secundum prophetam, multiplicati esse, super numerum areuae videantur. Labb. 13. 285. Newburg. II. 13. * Computatae sunt scholae in diocaesi Passaviensi, 40. Rain. c. 3. f Les erreurs avoient infecte tout le Languedoc, et autant corrompu 1'eBprit da Noblesse, que celui du peuple. Daniel, 3, 510. * Basilicae sine plebe, plobes sine saccrdote. Bernard. Ep, 240. INTRODUCTION. 53 they equipped against the crusaders. Benedict reckons the Albigensian army against Count Montfort at 100,000 men. 1 The French, according to the same historians, sent 300,000 warriors, who, under the holy banners of the cross, went to combat the heretics of Languedoc. Waldensian bravery, even according to his partial relation, withstood for near two hundred years, the vigilance of pontiffs, the piety of bishops, the zeal of monarchs, and the magnanimity of warriors ; and injured the church in the west, as much as the infidels in the east. The heterodox army of the Albigensians, adds the historian, had nearly on one occasion, overwhelmed the holy warriors of the cross. Any other hero but Montfort, if Benedict may be believed, would have despaired of success and abandoned his conquests. The church could oppose to the storm only prayers, tears, and groans ; while the Albigensians, in triumphant anti- cipation, hoped to establish heresy on the ruins of Romanism. Waldensianism was, in anticipation, a system of the purest Protestantism, many ages before the Reformation. This, in its fullest sense, has, with the utmost candour, been acknowledged by many cotemporary and succeeding historians who were attached to Romanism. The conformity of the Waldensian with the Reformed faith may be shown from Popish statements and admissions, and from Waldensian confessions. The following statements are taken from the unexceptionable authority of Sylvius, Petavius, Gaufridus, Serrus, Marca, Thuanus, More, Vignier, and Alexander. 2 The Waldensians, according to Sylvius, afterward Pius the Second, in his History of Bohemia, rejected the papacy, purgatory, image-worship, sacra- 1 II se forma une armee de cent mille hommes. Bened. 1. 6, 228, 100, 214. 2 Purgatorium ignem nullum inveniri : vanum esse orare pro mortals : Dei et Sanctorum imagines delendas ; confirmationem et extremam unctionem inter eccle- siae Sacramenta minime contineri : auricularem confessionem nugacem esse. Sylv. c. 35. Non esse obediendum Pontifici Romano : Indulgentias nihil valere : non extare Purgatorium : sanctos non attendere precibus nostris : festa et jejunia indicta non esse servauda et alia. Petavis, 2. 225. Us declament contre 1'eglise, centre ses ceremonies, contre ses dogmes. Us tournent sa hierarchie en derision. Us disent, que le purgatoire eat une fable, que la priere pour lea morts est une illusion, que 1'invocation des saints, que leculte de leurs images est une foiblesse. Gaufrid 2. 458. Us rejettoient le culte des images, le purgatoire, merite des ceuvres, les indulg- ences, les pelerinages, les vceux, 1'invocation des saints, et le celibat des pretres. Mo- reri, 1.235. Ecclesiam Romanam, Babylonicam meretricem esse : monasticam vitam ecclesise sentinam ac Plutonium esse: vana illius vota : ignem purgatorium, solemne sacrum, templorum encaenia, cultum sanctorum, ac pro mortuis propitiatorium Satanse commenta esse. Thuan. 1. 221. Auricularem confessionem prorsus toll unt. Docent imagines esse tollendas ab ecclesia. Indulgentias contemnunt. Decent, &c. More, 387. Us nioyent la transubstantiation et le purgatoire, disans que les pri- eres et suffrages des vivans ne servent de rien aux trespassez. N' attribuoyent aussi aucune authorite au Pape ; meprisans toutes les traditions de 1' eglise, meme- ment 1' institution des fetes et des jeunes. comme aussi de 1' extreme onction. Vignier, 3. 283. 54 INTRODUCTION. mental confession, extreme unction, invocation of saints, prayer for the dead, and the use of oil and chrism in baptism. Peta- vius represents the Christians of the valleys as opposed to the papal supremacy, indulgences, purgatory, fast, festivals, and saint-invocation. The Waldensians, says Gaufridus in his his- tory of Provence, disseminated their poison till the origin of Luther- anism, and derided the Romish hierarchy, dogmas, rituals, pur- gatory, saint-invocation, image-worship, and prayer for the dead. Serrus and Marca, quoted by Moreri, mention the Waldensian rejection of the supremacy, transubstantiation, purgatory, indul- gences, pilgrimages, festivals, tradition, image- worship, decre- tals of the church, intercession of saints, merit of works, and celibacy of the clergy. Thuanus details their disclaiming of the Romish church, pontiff, festivals, mass, monkery, purgatory, worship of saints, and prayer for the dead : and More and Vig- nier deliver a similar statement on the subject of Waldensian theology. / The following is an outline of Alexander's impartial state- ment, which the learned Sorbonnist supports by the testimony of the original historians, Rainerus, Seysel, Bernard, Pilichdorff, and Ebrardus de Bethunia. ' The text of the Sacred Scriptures is to be received, in opposition to traditions and comments. The Pope is the head of all errors. The sacraments are only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism is not abso- lutely necessary for salvation. Transubstantiation or the corporal presence is unscriptural. Penance, matrimony, con- firmation, extreme unction, and holy orders are no sacraments. The church erred, when it enjoined the celibacy of the clergy. Dispensations, indulgences, relics, canonizations, vigils, fasts, festivals, purgatory, altars, consecrations, incensing, processions, exorcisms, holy water, sacerdotal vestments, annual confession, modern miracles, sacred burial, and saint-invocation, all these the Waldensians despised and rejected. Remission of sin is obtained through the merits of Jesus. No sin is venial, but ah 1 are mortal. The Virgin Mary herself is not to be worshipped. The Waldensians had just thoughts of God and Jesus, and, therefore, in Alexander's opinion, were Trinitarians. Rainerus himself clears them of the blasphemy of Manicheanism and Arianism. Christian pastors, are to be ordained by the impo- sition of hands ; and elders, besides, should be chosen to govern the people.' 1 The Parisian doctor's portrait of Waldensianism presents a picture of Protestantism taken from life. 1 Solum Scripturae sacrae textum recipiebant. Traditiones, expositiones patrum, decreta, et decretales rejiciebant. Papa est omnium errorumcaput. Duo tan turn sacramenta ee credere profitentur, baptismum et eucharistiam. Baptismum, ipsoi INTRODUCTION. 55 The admissions of Romish historians, bear testimony to the conformity of Waldensianism and Albigensianism, with Protest- antism. This conformity has been admitted among others, by Gratius, Popliner, Alexander, Mezeray, Gaufridus, Moreri, Tillet, Serrus, Evenswyn, and Marca. The Waldensians, says Gratius, ' differed little from the Reformed in any thing.' Pop- liner admits ' their near approximation to the Protestant faith.' Alexander acknowledges the same conformity, and Luther's approbation of the Waldensian confession, at the commence- ment of the Reformation. ' The Henricians and Waldensians, 1 says Mezeray, ' held nearly the same dogmas as the Calvinists.' According to Gaufridus, ' the Lutherans and Calvinists praised the learning, disinterestedness, and morality of the Walden- sians, and consulted them as oracles on points of religion.' Moreri, Tillet, Serrus, Evenswyn, and Marca, grant ' the agree- ment of the Waldensian faith, in all the principal articles with the Reformed theology.' * The Waldensian Confessions, issued on several "occasions, show the conformity of their principles to Protestantism. The Waldensiaris, who, to avoid persecution, had removed into Bo- hemia and Moravia, published their Confession in 1504. This formulary of belief was presented to King Ladislaus, in vindi- cation of their character from the slanderous accusations of the Papists and Calixtines. The same people published another Confession in 1535. This was compiled from older documents, and presented by the Bohemian nobility to the Emperor Ferdi- nand. This celebrated production, as Alexander states, 'was prefaced and approved by Luther, and praised by Bucer and non existimasse absolute necessarium ad salutem. Waldenses transubstantiatioiiem non admittebant. Confessionem anuuam rejiciebant. Poenitentiam ex sacramen- torum numero expungebant. Matrimonium, sacramentum esse negabant. Ecclesiatn errasse dicebant, cum caelibatum clflricis indixit. Sacramentum unctionis extremae rejiciunt. Infirmum adhortabantur, ut certain fiduclam et securitatem remissionis peccatorum per merita Christi haberet, Sacramentum ovclinis rejiciebant. Dispen- sationes ecclesiae et indulgentias respuebant. Sanctorum invocationem impugnabant reliquias, translationes, canonizationes, vi^ilias, festivitates sanctorum contemnebant. Miraculis nullam adhibebaut fidem. Electos Dei, immo, ipsam Christi genetricem honorandos negabant. Purgatorium negabant. Ecclesias, altaria, eorum consecra- tiones, ornatum etsupellectilem, sacerdotalia indumenta, luminaria, thurificatione*, aquam benedictam, processiones, aliosque sacros ritus rejiciebant et deridebant. Sacram sepulturam nihili faciebant. Exorcismos impugnabant. Ecclesiastica jejuuia, quasi idolatriam et superstitionem redolentia aversabantur. Nullum veni;ile pec- catum, sed omnia mortalia. Waldenses puros de Deo et Christo recte sensisse. Rainerus ipsos a Manichaeoru tn et Arianorum blasphemiis absolvit. Waldensea pastores habebant; ad praedicandi munus, impositione manuum admittebantur. Seniores praetereaad regendum populum eligebant. Alex. 17. 370 388. 1 Non multum alicubi dissentiunt ab iis. Gratius in Fascicul. 85. Doctrinair. suam ab eo quam hodie Protestantes amplectuutur parum difierentum tlidsemiua runt. Popliner, 1.7. 56 INTRODUCTION. Melancthon. 1 Oecolompadius, Beza, and Bullinger, also recog nized these people, though despised and persecuted, as a con- stituent part of the great Christian Commonwealth. The Lutherans and Zuingh'ans, in this manner, acknowledged the Waldensians as Christians, and their faith as the truth of the Gospel. The Waldensians also published a Confession in the reign of Francis the First. This, in 1544, was followed by another, which, in 1551, was transmitted to the French King and read in the Parisian Parliament. All these are in strict harmony with the Reformed Theology ; and all breathe the spirit and teach the truths of Christianity. 2 This same people, as late as in 1819, in a Confession found among the manu- scripts of Peyran, declared their adherence to the doctrines of the churches of England, Netherlands, Germany, Prussia, Swit- zerland, Poland, and Hungary ; and entreated these commu- nions and others settled in America, to regard them, though few and destitute, as members of the same ecclesiastical body. The sanctity of Waldensian morality corresponded with the purity of the Waldensian faith. The piety, benevolence, inno- cence, and holiness of this people have challenged the esteem and extorted the approbation of friend and foe, of the protes- tant, the papist, and even the inquisitor. Many partizans of popery have concurred with the patrons of protestantism in their eulogy. The following character of this people is taken from Rainerus, Seysel, Lewis, Hagec, Alexander, Labbe", Gaufrid, and Thuanus. Rainerus, quoted by Alexander, admits ' their show of piety .i.nd integrity before men.' This is pretty well fora Dominican Inquisitor, who discovered, however, that Waldensian piety was mere dissimulation. But Rainerus also acknowledges * their sobriety, modesty, chastity, and temperance, with their aversion to taverns, balls, vanity, anger, scurrility, detraction, levity, swearing, and falsehood. He grants their attention, men 1 Quod mine, quoqne, Calvinistae nostri faciunt. Alex. 17. 375. Lutherus hanc Vaklensium Bohemorum Confessionem approbavit. Alex. 17. 401. Henericiens et Vaudois tenoient a peu pi-es les memes dogmesque les Calvinistes. Mezeray, 2. 577. Les Lutheriens et les Calvinistes commencerent alouer leur mani- re de vivre : leur disinteresement, leurs lumieres. On commenca a les consulter comme des oracles sur les points de la religion. Gaufrid. 2. 458. Leur doctrine est conforme a celle des reformez, dans les principaux articles. Moreri, 8, 48. Tillet croit qu'ils etoient dans les memes sentimens que les Refor- mez. Serres declare que leurs sentimens etoient les memes que ceux qui ont ete renouvellez par Wiclif et par Luther. Moreri, 1. 235. Evenswyn dit que les Albigeois etoient dans les memes sentimens que ls Refor- mez. M area parle des Albigeois a peu pres de la meme maniere que les Reib Moreri, 1. 235. Prsefatus est honorifice Lutherus. Alex. 17. 405, 406. Du Pin, 3, 250. Thuan. 2. 82. Benedict, 260. INTRODUCTION. 57 and women, young and old, night and day, to leaix mg or teaching; and he had seen a Waldensian rustic, who repealed Job, word for word, and many who perfectly knew the whole of the New Testament.' 1 Seysel acknowledged ' their purity of life, which excelled that of other Christians.' Lewis, the French King, asserted * their superiority, both to himself and to his other subjects, who were professors of Catholicism.' Hagec admits * their simplicity of habits and their show of piety,' under which, how- ever, his penetration enabled him exclusively to discover * their miscreancy.' His eyes must have been very clear to discern miscreancy through such distinguished simplicity and piety. Alexander pourtrays l their disposition to love their enemies, to live, if possible, in peace with all men, and, at the same time, to avoid revenge, judicial litigation, love of the world, and the company of the wicked.' Alexander, also vindicates the Wal- densians from the calumny of Ebrard and Emeric, who had iccused them of avarice, lewdness, and unchastity. Labbe, like Rainerus and Hagec, allows the Waldensians ' a pretended show of piety.' The Jesuit, of course, must, like the inquisitor and the historian, have been a notable discerner of hearts. Gaufridus mentions ' their industry, which, in a superior manner cultivated the lands and increased the national revenue.' Thuanus records 'their detestation of perjury, imprecations, scurrility, litigation, sedition, gluttony, drunkenness, whoredom, divination, sacrilege, theft, and usury.' He mentions their chastity, which they accounted a particular honour, their culti- vation of manners, their knowledge of letters, their expertness in writing, and their skill in French. A boy could scarcely be found among them, but, if questioned on his religion, could, with readiness, give a reason for his faith. Tribute, they paid with the utmost punctuality ; and if prevented for a time by civil war, they discharged this debt on the return of peace.' 2 1 Magnam habet speciem pietatis, eo quod coram hominibus juste vivunt. Sunt in moribus, compositi et modesti. Casti etiam sunt, maxime Leonistae, temperati hi cibo et potu. Ad tabernas non eunt, nee ad choreas, nee ad alias vanitates. Ab ira se cohibent. Cavent a scurrilitate, detractione, verborum levitate, mendacio, et juramento. Omnes, viri et foeminse, parvi et magni, die noctuque docent vel discunt. Vidi quendam rusticum, qui Job recitavit, de verbo ad verbum; et plures, qui totum Novum Testamentum perfecte Bciverunt. Rain. c. 4, 7, 9. Alex. 17, 38, 390, 393. 8 Puriorem quam caeteri Christiani vitam agunt. Seysel, 92. Alex. 17. 387. Me et csetero populo meo Catholico, meliores illi viri sunt. Gamer. 419. 11* savoient cacher leur mechancete sous des habits fort simples, et sous une grande apparence de piete. Hagec, 550. Lenfan. 1. 10. Has conversations external regulas proponebant. Mundum non diligere, malo- rum consortium fugere, pacem habere cum omnibus, quantum fieri potest, non contendere in judicio, non ulcisci injurias, inimicos amare. Alex. 17. 399 58 INTRODUCTION. The Waldensians, notwithstanding the sanguinary persecu- tions of Romanism, still exist, and still are persecuted in their native valleys. A population of twenty thousand always remain, arid exhibit, to an admiring world, all the grandeur of truth and all the beauty of holiness. Their relics still show what they have been, and they continue unaltered amid the revolution of ages. The world has changed around this sacred society ; while its principles and practice, through all the vicissitudes of time, live immutably the same. The Waldensian church, though despised by the Roman hierarchy, illuminated, in this manner, the dark ages ; and appears, in a more enlightened period, the clearest drop in the ocean of truth, and shines the brightest consteUation in the firmament of holiness ; sparkles the richest gem in the diadem of Immanuel, and blooms the fairest flower in the garden of God. Romanism, renounced, in this manner, in the West by the Waldenses, was opposed in the East by the Greeks, Nestorians, Jacobites, Armenians, and Syrians. The Greeks occupy European Turkey and the Mediterranean Islands; and are dispersed, though in fewer numbers, through Mesopotamia, Syria, Cilicia, Palestine, Georgia and Mingrelia. The religion of the Greek Church is also the religion of European and Asiatic Russia, comprehending a territory more extensive than the empire of Alexander or Tamerlane. The Greeks, as they possess an extensive country, comprehend a numerous people. The patriarch of Constantinople, says Allatius, quoted by Thomassin, governed, in the eleventh century, sixty-five Metro- politans and more than six hundred bishops. 1 The Greeks, indeed, agree not with modern Protestants in all things. Some of the Orientals had drunk more and some less from the muddy fountain of human invention, according 1o the period of their connexion with the Romish communion. The Greeks continued longest in conjunction with the Latins; and in consequence, have imbibed most corruption. The assimi- lation indeed between the Greek and Latin communions is, in many points, close and striking. The Greeks, however, concur to a man, in opposing Papal usurpation and tyranny ; in denying that the Romish is the true church ; and in condemning the dogmas of Popinarum frequentatiouem proliibebant. Alex. 17.389. Praetenta specie pie'ta- tis. Labbeus, 13. 285. Us s'appliquerent a cultiver la terre avec tant d'industrie, que les Seigneurs en augmeuterent considerablement leurs revenus. Gaufride, 2. 458. Omnem a se ac suis coetibus iniquitatem eliminare illicitas dejeratiories perjuria, diras, imprecationes, contumelias, rixas, seditiones, &c. Thuan. 2. 85, 89/91. 1 Le Patriarche de Constantinople dominoit encore & soixante-cinq Metropoli tains, et a plus de six cens evesques. Tho. Part IV. 2-17. Allat. I. 24. INTRODUCTION. 59 purgatory, supererogation, half-communion, human merit, cle- rical celibacy, prayers for the dead, and restricting the circula- tion of the Bible. The Greeks excommunicate the Roman pontiff and ah 1 the Latin episcopacy, as the abettors of schism and heresy. Prateolus, Fisher, More, Renaudot, Guido, Inno- cent, BeUarmine, and Aquinas confess the Grecian disbelief in purgatory and in the utility of supplications for the dead. Their rejection of confirmation and extreme unction is testified by Simon ; while their belief in the divine obligation of communi- cating in both kinds is declared by Simon, Prateolus, and More. Thevenot and Le Bruges testify the Greek proscription of pur- gatory, the pontifical supremacy, and communion in one kind. 1 The Greeks have shewed great resolution in opposing papal despotism. Thomassin complains of their peculiar unwilling- ness, beyond all the other Orientals, to acknowledge the ponti- fical supremacy. Matthew Paris deprecates their open or con- cealed hostility, on all occasions, to Romanism, and their blas- phemy against its sacraments. Baldwin, the Grecian Emperor, honored the Latins with the name, not of men, but of dogs ; and this seems to have been their common appellation for all the partisans of popery. The Greeks, says the Lateran Council, detest the Latins, rebaptize those whom they admit to their communion, and wash the altars on which the Romish clergy celebrate mass, and which, in their mind, had been polluted with the defilement of the popish sacrament. 2 The Mingrelians, who belong to the Greek church, appear 1 Us ne reconnoisent point absolument la primaut6 de Pape. Us ni( 1' eglise Romaine soit la veritable eglise. Us excommunient le Pape, et nient que et tous les eveques Latins, comme Heretiques et schismatiques. SIMON c. 1. 'Graeci omnes Latinos, excommunicates reputant. Canisius, 4. 433. Docent nullum purgatorium. Prateol. VII. Graecis ad hunc usque diem, non est creditum purgatorium esse. Fisher, Art. 1 8. Docent esse nullum purgatorium locum. More, 199. Nee tertium ilium locum, quern purgatorium appellamus agnoscunt. Renaudot, 2. 105. Idem tribuitur Graecis a Guidone. Bell. 1. 1370. Locum purgationis hujusmodi dicunt (Graeci) non fuisse. Innocent, 4. Ep. ad Otton. Du Fresne, 5. 931. Credibile est, Graecos de hac haeresi saltern suspectos fuisse; nam B. THOMAS, in opusculo contra Graecos, refellit etiam hunc errorem. Bell. 1. 2. Docent etiam nihil prodesse defunctis orationes. More, *200. Us ne recep turn hujusmodi (confessionis) non fuit adhuc ita in usu, in hoc episcopatu. Sacri Olei usus in sacramentis hue usque in hac episcopali sede, aut nullus fuit, ant Ecclesia? Catholicue ritibus rninime consentaneus. Preshyteri matrimonia con- trahebant. Neque ulla habebatur ratio, an virgo esset, an vidua, an prima uxor esiset, an secunda, an etiam tertia. Cossart, 6. 36, 65, 72, 73. 83, 101, 112, 127. INTRODUCTION. 67 Darkness, within its dominions, covered the earth and gross darkness the people. But the Waldenses, who were nume- rous, held up, in the Western world, a steady light which shone through the surrounding obscurity, and illuminated, with its warming beams, the minds of many. The oriental Christians, more numerous than the Waldenses and divided and disputing about minor matters of words and ceremony, opposed, with firmness and unanimity, the tyranny and corruptions of Ro- manism. All these, overspreading the Eastern and Western world and resisting the usurpations of pontifical despotism, far outnumbered the sons of European superstition and Popery. THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. CHAPTER H. POPKS. THE DIFFICULTY OF THE PONTIFICAL SUCCESSION HISTORICAL VARIATIONS- ELECTORAL VARIATIONS SCHISMS IN THE PAPACY LIBERIUS AND FELIX SILVERIUS AND VIGILIUS FORMOSUS, SERGIUS, AND STEPHEN BENEDICT, SIL- VESTER, JOHN AND GREGORY GREAT WESTERN SCHISM BAStLlAN AND FLOREN- TINE SCHISM DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS VICTOR STEPHEN LIBERIUS, ZOZIMUS, AND HONORIU8 VIGILIUS JOHN MORAL VARIATIONS STATE OF THE PAPACY- THEODORA AND MAROZIA JOHN BONIFACE GREGORY BONIFACE JOHN SIXTUS ALEXANDER JULIUS LEO PERJURED PONTIFFS. THE pontifical succession is attended with more difficulty than the quadrature of the circle or the longitude at sea. The one presents greater perplexity to the annalist and the divine, than the others to the geometrician and the navigator. The quadra- ture and the longitude, in the advanced state of mathematics, admit an approximation. But the papal succession mocks investigation, eludes research, and bids proud defiance to all inquiry. The difficulty on this topic arises from the variations of the historians and electors, and from the faith and morality of the Roman pontiffs. Historians, for a century, differed in their records of the papacy ; and the electors, in thirty instances, disagreed in their choice of an ecclesiastical sovereign. Many of the Popes embraced heresy and perpetrated immorality ; and these considerations render the problem of their legitimate succession an historical and moral impossibility. History has preserved a profound silence on the subject of the first Roman Bishop. This honour, indeed, if such it be, has by Romish partisans been conferred on the apostle Peter. But the patrons of this opinion cannot, from any good authority, show that the apostle was ever in the Roman capital, and still less that he was ever a Roman hierarch. The evidence of his visit to that city is not historical but traditional. History, for a century after the alleged event, presents on this topic an uni- versal blank, which is supplied from the very suspicious testi- mony of tradition. POPES. 69 A single hint on this subject is not afforded by Peter him self, nor by his inspired companions, Luke, James, Jude, Pau., and John. Pope Peter in his epistolary productions, mentions nothing of his Roman residency, episcopacy, or supremacy. Paul wrote a letter to the Romans ; and, from the Roman city addressed the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Philemon. He sends salutations to various Ro- man friends, such as Priscilla, Aquila, Epenetus, Mary, Andro- nicus, Julia, and Amplias : but forgets Simon the supposed Roman hierarch. Writing from Rome to the Colossians, he mentions Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, Justus, Epaphras, Luke, and Demas, who had afforded him consolation ; but, strange to tell, neglects the sovereign pontiff. Addressing Timothy from the Roman city, Paul of Tarsus remembers Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia; but overlooks the Ro- man bishop. No man, except Luke, stood with Paul at his first answer or at the nearer approach of dissolution. 1 His apos- tolic holiness could not then have been in his own diocese, and should have been prosecuted for non-residence. His Infallibility, perhaps, like some of his successors, had made an excursion, for amusement, to Avignon. Luke also is silent on this theme. John, who published his gospel after the other Evangelists, and his Revelation at the close of the first century, maintains, on this agitated subject, a profound and provoking silence. The omission is continued by the Apostolic men, Clemens, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Not one of all these deigns to mention a matter of such stupendous importance to Christendom. Clemens, in particular, might have been ex- pected to record such an event. He was a Roman bishop, an. a Boss. 2. 100. Daniel, 5. 405, 406. Bruy. 3. 620. Coss. 3. 771. Daniel, 5. 444. Giannon. XXIV. 6- Cossart, 3. 771. GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 89 Innocent. He then condemned and annulled all Benedict's ordinations and promotions. His French infallibility, in the council of Arragon, reversed the picture. Having forbidden all obedience, and dissolved all obligations to his rival, he annulled his ordinations and promotions. Gregory convicted Benedict of schism, heresy, contumacy, and perjury. Benedict convicted Gregory of dishonesty, baseness, impiety, abomina- Son, audacity, temerity, blasphemy, schism, and heresy. 1 The perverse and unrelenting obstinacy of the two pontiffs caused the desertion of their respective cardinals. These, weary of such prevarication, fled to the city of Pisa, to concert some plan for the extermination of the schism and the restora- tion of unity. The convocation of a general council appeared the only remedy. The Italian and French cardinals, therefore, now united, wrote circular letters to the kings and prelacy of Christendom, summoning an oecumenical assembly, for the extirpation of division and the establishment of union. 2 The Pisan council, in 1409, unable to ascertain whether (rregory or Benedict was the canonical head of the church, proceeded by deposition and election. The holy fathers, inca- pable of determining the right or title, used says Maimbourg, 4 not their knowledge but their power ;' and having dismissed Gregory and Benedict, appointed Alexander. Gregory and Benedict were summoned to appear, and, on refusal, were, in the third session, convicted of contumacy. The Pisans, repre- senting the universal church, and vested with supreme authority, proceeded without ceremony, in the nineteenth session, to the work of degradation. 3 Their definitive sentence against the French and Italian viceroys of heaven is a curiosity, and worthy of eternal remembrance. The Pisans began with characterizing themselves as holy and general, representing the universal church ; and then de- clared his French and Italian holiness guilty of schism, heresy, error, perjury, incorrigibleness, contumacy, pertinacity, iniquity, violation of vows, scandalization of the holy, universal church of God, and unworthy of all power and dignity. The charac- ter of these plenipotentiaries of heaven, if not very good, is certainly pretty extensive. The sacred synod then deprived Gregory and Benedict of the papacy, and forbade all Christians, on pain of excommunication, notwithstanding any oath of fidelity, to obey tne ex-pontiffs, or lend them counsel or favour. 4 The papacy being vacated by the sentence of depc^itwn, tha 1 Cossart, 3. 381, 382. Du Piu. 2. 6. Labb. 15. 1107. 2 Giium. XXIV. 6. Bruy. 3. 655. Du Pin. 2. 515. 3 Labb. 15. }123, 1229. Du Pin. 3. 3, 5. Dachery 1. 847. Bruy. 3. 671. Labb. 15. 1J31, 1139. 90 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: next step was to elect a supreme pontiff. This task, the coun- cil, in the nineteenth session, performed by the French and Italian cardinals, formed into one sacred college. The conclave, with cordial unanimity, elected the Cardinal of Milan, who assumed the appellation of Alexander the Fifth. He presided in the ensuing session, and ratified the acts of the cardinals and general council. The Pisan council, however, notwithstanding its alleged uni- versality, did not extinguish the schism. The decision of the synod, and election of the conclave only furnished a third claimant for the pontifical chair. The universality and authority ot the Pisan assembly were, by many, rejected ; and Christen- dom was divided between Gregory, Benedict, and Alexander. Gregory was obeyed by Germany, Naples, and Hungary ; while Benedict was recognized by Scotland, Spain, Armagnac. and Foix. Alexander was acknowledged, as supreme spiritual director, by the other European nations. The schism, there- fore, still continued. The Latin communion was divided between three ecclesiastical chiefs, who continued to distract the western church. The inefficiency of the Pisan attempt required the convocation of another general council, whose energy might be better directed and more successful. 1 This remedy was, in 1414, supplied by the assembly of Constance. The Constantian council, like the Pisan, proceeded by depo- sition and election ; and confessed, in consequence, like its predecessor, its inability to discriminate between the compara- tive right and claims of the two competitors. John the Twenty- third Had succeeded to Alexander the Fifth. The rival pontiffs were, at that time, Gregory, Benedict, and John. Gregory and Benedict, though obeyed by Scotland, Spain, Hungary, Naples, and Germany, were under the sentence of synodical deposition. John, on the contrary, was recognized, even by the Constantian council, as the lawful ecclesiastical sovereign of Christendom. The Constantians, though they admitted the legitimacy of John's election, and the legality of his title, required him to resign for the good of the church and the extinction of schism. The pontiff, knowing the power and resolution of the council, professed compliance ; and, in the second session, confirmed his declaration, in case of Gregory's and Benedict's cession, with an oath. This obligation, however, he endeavored to evade. Degradation from his ecclesiastical elevation presented a dreadful mortification to his ambition, and he fled, in conse- quence, from Constance, with the fond, but disappointed * Giannon, XXIV. 6. Labb. 16. 495. Bruy. 4. 7. Bossuet, 2. 101. GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 91 expectation of escaping his destiny. Gregory and Benedict were also guilty of violating their oath. 1 The church, there- fore, at this time, had three perjured heads, and the Messiah three perjured vicars-general. The council, seeing no other alternative, resolved to depose John for immorality. The character, indeed, of this plenipo- tentiary of heaven was a stain on reason, a blot on Christianity, and a disgrace to man. The sacred synod, in the twelfth ses- sion, convicted his holiness of schism, heresy, incorrigibleness, simony, impiety, immodesty, unchastity, fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, rape, piracy, lying, robbery, murder, perjury, and infidelity. The holy fathers then pronounced sentence of deposition, and absolved the faithful from their oath of fealty. 2 Gregory, seeing the necessity, abdicated. His infallibility, in defiance of his oath, and though deposed by the Pisan coun- . cil, had retained the pontifical dignity ; but was in the end, and in old age, forced to make this concession. Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, in Gregory's name renounced the papacy, with all its honours and dignity. John and Gregory, notwithstanding their frightful character, as sketched by the Pisan and Constantian synods, were raised to the Cardinal dignity. The two councils had blazoned their immorality in strong and appalling colours, and pronounced both unworthy of any dignity. Martin, however, promoted John to the cardinalship. The Constantian fathers, in the seventeenth session, and in the true spirit of inconsistency, placed Gregory next to the Roman pontiff', and advanced him to the episcopal, legatine, and cardinal dignity, with all its emoluments and authority. Benedict, though importuned by the council of Constance and the king of the Romans to resign, resolved to retain the pontifical dignity, and retired, with this determination, to Paniscola, a strong castle on the sea-coast of Valentia. The old dotard, however, was deserted by all the European states ; but, till his death, continued, twice a day, to excommunicate the rebel nations that had abandoned his righteous cause. The council, in the mean time, pronounced his sentence of deposition, and convicted him of schism, heresy, error, pertinacity, incorrigibility, and perjury, and declared him unworthy of all rank or title. 3 Martin was raised to the pa- pacy ; and his elevation terminated a schism, which, for half a century, had divided and demoralized the nations of Western Christendom. The pontifical succession, it is clear, was, during this schism, Labb. 16. 142, 148 Du Pin, 3. 10. 8 Labb. 16. 178, 222. Coss. 4. 90, 110. Du Pin. 3. 14. > Labb. 16. 277, 681, 715, Cossart, 3. 881. et 4. 81. Du Pin. 3. 15, 19. 92 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : interrupted. The links of the chain were lost, or so confused, that human ingenuity can never find their place, nor human penetration discover their arrangement. Their disentanglement may defy all the art of man and all the sophistry of Jesuitism. The election of Urban or Clement must have been uncarionical, and his papacy unlawful : and the successors of the unlawful pontiff must have shared in his illegality. Clement and Bene- dict commanded the obedience of nearly the half of Western Christendom ; while the remainder obeyed Urban, Boniface, Innocent, and Gregory. One division must have recognized the authority of a usurper and an impostor. The church dispersed could not ascertain the true vicar- general of Jesus, and hence its divisions. All the erudition of the Parisian university and the Spanish nation was unavailing. The French and Spanish doctors, in the assemblies of Paris and Medina, in 1381, examined the several claims of the com- petitors with erudition and ability. The question was treated by the canonists and theologians of Spain, France, and Italy, with freedom and impartiality. But Spanish, French, and Italian ingenuity on this subject was useless. The Pisan and Constantian councils, in all their holiness and infallibility, were, says Daniel, equally nonplused. These, notwithstanding their pretensions to divine direction, could depose, but could not discriminate ; and were forced to use, not their information or wisdom, but their power and authority. 1 The inspired fathers could, in their own opinion, depose all the claimants, but could not ascertain the right or title of any. This conduct was a plain confession of their inability to discover the canonical head of the church and vicar-general of God. Moderns, in this part of ecclesiastical history, are at an equal loss with the cotem- porary authors and councils. The impracticability of ascertaining the rightful pontiff has been admitted by the ablest critics and theologians of Romanism, such as Gerson, Antoninus, Bellarmine, Andilly, Maimbourg, Alexander, Mezeray, Daniel, and Moreri. 2 Gerson admits 1 Alexander, 24. 466, 467. Daniel, 5. 227. 2 Est varietas opinionum Doctornm, et inter doctissimos et probatissimos ex utraque parte. Gerson, in Alex. 24. 474. Peritissimos viros in sacra pagina et jure canonico habuit uti'aque pars, ac etiam religiossimos viros, et etiam miraculis iiilgentes: nee unquam sic potuit quaestio ilia decidi. Antonin. c. II, Alex. 24. 477. Nee poterit facile praedicari quis eormn verus et legitimus esset Pontifex, cam non decessent singulis doctissimi patroni. Bell. IV. 14. L'affaire etant obscure et difficile d'elle m6me, n'a point encore etc decidee. Andilly, 860. Pour cette impossibilite morale, ou 1'on etoit demeler les vrais Papes d'avec les Anti-Papes. Maimb. I. Bray. 3. 515. Adeo obscura erant et dubia contendentium jura, ut post multas virorum doctissimorum dissertations plurimosque tractatus editos, cognosci non posset quis esset verus et legitimus Pontifex. Alex. 24. 444. On n'a jamais pft vuider ce demelc. Mez. 3. 235. De trea savans horames, et des saintg GREAT WESTERN SCHISM. 93 the reasonableness of doubt, and the variety of opinions among the most learned and approved doctors on the several claims of the rival pontiffs.' Antoninus acknowledges ' the unsettled state of the controversy, notwithstanding each party's shining mirac.es, and the advocacy of pious men, deeply skilled in Sacred Writ and in canon law.' Bellarmine mentions * the learned patrons which supported the several competitors, and the difficulty of determining the true and lawful pontiff.' Andilly agrees with Gerson, Antoninus, and Bellarmine. He grants * the obscurity and difficulty of the question, which has not yet been decided.' Maimbourg, on the Western schism, states ' the moral impossibility of ascertaining the rightful pope, and relates the support which each faction received from civilians, theologians, and universities, and even from saints, and miracles.' Alexander, after an impartial and profound ex- amination, comes to the same conclusion. He shows the im- practicability of ascertaining the true and legitimate pontiff', 'notwithstanding the dissertations and books published on the subject by the most learned men.' Each party, in the state- ment of Mezeray, ' had the advocacy of distinguished person- ages, saints, revelations, and miracles ; and all these could not decide the contest.' Daniel and Moreri confess, on this topic, ' the jarring and contradictory opinion of saints, as well as of lawyers, theologians, and doctors, and the unwillingness or in- ability of the church, assembled afterwards in the council of Constance, to discriminate among the several competitors the true vicar-general of God and ecclesiastical sovereign of Christendom.' Similar concessions have been made by Giannon, Bruys, Panormitan, Balusius, Zabarella, Surius, Turrecrema, and a long train of other divines and critics. The Basilian and Florentine schism, which was the thirtieth in the papacy, troubled the spiritual reign of Eugenius and Felix. This contest presented the edifying spectacle of two popes clothed in supremacy, and two councils vested with in- fallibility, hurling mutual anathemas and excommunications. Martin, who had been chosen by the Constantian Convention, had departed, and been succeeded by Condalmerio, who as- sumed the name of Eugenius, The council of Basil deposed Eugenius and substitited Felix. Eugenius assembled the meme furent partages la dessus. L* eglise assemble, dans le concile de Constance, ne voultit point 1'examiner. Daniel, 5. 227. Le droit des deux partis ne f tit jamais bien 6clairci, et il y a en des deux cot6s de tres savans jurisconsultes, de celebres theologians, et de grands Docteurs. Mpreri. 7. 172. Les deux pape avoient chacun des partisans illustres par leur science et par leur pi fte. Moreri, 94 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: council of Florence, and excommunicated Felix and the council of Basil. The council of Basil met anno 1431. The holy fathers, in the second session, decreed the superiority of a general council to a pope, and the obligation of all, even the Roman pontiff, under pain of condign punishment, to obey the synodal authority in questions of faith, extirpation of schism, and re- formation of the church. The idea of synodal superiority and moral reformation con- veyed horror, in general, to all popes, and in particular to Eugenius. His holiness, in consequence, issued against the council two bulls of dissolution, and annulled all its enactments. The bulls, however, contained no terror for the council. The Basilians, supported by the Emperor Sigismond, entreated Eugenius to repeal his proclamations ; and threatened, in case of refusal, to pronounce his holiness guilty of contumacy. The pontiff, therefore, was under the direful necessity of re- voking his bulls of dissolution, and declaring the legality of the council; and, at the same time, its title, in its commencement and continuation, to his approbation. 1 His infallibility's approbation, however, which was extorted, was soon recalled. New dissensions arose between the pope and the council. The reformation, which the Basilians had effected and which they still contemplated, was, to this head of the church, altogether intolerable. His holiness, therefore, in 1438, translated the council to Ferrara, with the immediate intention to gainsay the Basilian assembly. The Basilians, in return, accused Eugenius of simony, perjury, abuse of authori- ty, wasting the ecclesiastical patrimony, ruining the city of Palestrina, and hostility to their enactments. The Fathers then annulled the translation of the council to Ferrara, cited his holiness to appear at Basil in sixty days, and on his refusal, pronounced Him guilty of contumacy. 2 Sentence of contumacy was only a prelude to sentence of deposition. Eugenius proceeded in hostility to the Basilians, who, therefore, by a formal enactment in 1439, deprived him of the papacy. The sentence against God's vicar-general by the church's representatives is a curiosity. The general council, representing the universal church, in its thirty-fourth session, found this plenipotentiary of heaven guilty of contumacy, per- tinacity, disobedience, simony, incorrigibility, perjury, schism, heresy, and error ; and, in consequence, unworthy of all title, rank, honor, and dignity. The sacred Synod then deposed 1 Labb. 17. 236. Bruy. 4. 104, 105. Du Pin, 3. 22, 24. ' Alex. 23. 39. Bruy. 4. 115. Du Pin, 3. 27. BASILIAN AND FLORENTINE SCHISM. 95 Condalmerio from the papacy, abrogated all his constitutions and ordinations, absolved the faithful from their obedience, oaths, obligations, and fidelity ; and prohibited the obedience of all, even bishops, patriarchs, cardinals, emperors and kings, under privation of all honour and possessions. 1 The Basilians, having cashiered one vice-god, appointed another. The person selected for this dignity was Arnadeus, duke of Savoy. This prince had governed his hereditary realms for forty years. The ability which, during this revolving period, he had* displayed, rendered him the delight of his peo- ple, and the admiration of the age. He was accounted a Solomon for wisdom, and made arbiter of differences among kings, who consulted him on the most important affairs. He possessed a philosophical cast of mind, a love of repose, and a contempt for worldly grandeur. Weary of a throne, which, to so many, is the object of ambition, and disgusted probably with the bustle and tumult of life, Amadeus resigned the ducal administration to his sons, and resolved to embrace the seclusion of a hermit. He chose for the place of his retreat the beautiful villa of Ripaille, on the banks of the lake of Geneva. This solitude possessed the advantage of air, water, wood, meadow, vineyards, and all that could contribute to rural beauty. Ama- deus, in this sequestered spot, built a hermitage and enclosed a park, which he supplied with deer. Accompanied in his retreat by a few domestics, and supporting his aged limbs on a crooked and knotty staff, he spent his days far from the noise and busy scenes of the world, in innocence and piety. A de- putation arrived at this retirement, conveying the triple crown and other trappings of the papacy. The ducal hermit accepted, with reluctance and tears, and after much entreaty, the insignia of power and authority. Western Christendom, amidst the unity of Romanism, had then two universal bishops, and two universal councils. 2 Eugenius and Felix, with the Florentine and Basilian synods, divided the Latin communion, except a few states which assumed an attitude of neutrality. The two rival pontiffs and councils soon began the work of mutual excommunication. Eugenius hailed Felix, on his pro- motion to the pontifical throne, with imprecation and obloquy. He welcomed his brother, says Poggio his secretary, to his new dignity with the appellations of Mahomet, heretic, schismatic, antipope, Cerberus, the golden calf, the abomination of deso- lation erected in the temple of God, a monster that had risen to trouble the church and destroy the faith, and who, willing 1 Bruy. 4. 126. Du Pin, 3. 39. Dan. 6, 167. Boss. 2. 167. Labb. 17. 395. Dan. 6. 168. Boss. 2. 177. Alex. 2-5. 540. Sylv. c XLII1, 96 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: not merely to overthrow a single state but unhinge the whole universe, had resigned humanity, assumed the manners of a wild beast, and crowned the iniquity of his past life by the most frightful impiety. 1 His infallibility, among other accom- plishments, discovered in this salutation a superior genius for elegance of diction and delicacy of sentiment. Luther, so celebrated for this talent in his answers to Leo and Henry, the Roman pontiff and the English king, was in this refinement, when compared with his holiness, a mere ninny. Eugenius congratulated the council of Basil with similar compliments and benedictions. This assembly he called block- heads, fools, madmen, barbarians, wild beasts, malignants, wretches, persecutors, miscreants, schismatics, heretics, vaga- bonds, runagates, apostates, rebels, monsters, criminals, a con- spiracy, an innovation, a deformity, a conventicle distinguished only for its temerity, sacrilege, audacity, machinations, impiety, tyranny, ignorance, irregularity, fury, madness, and the dis- semination of falsehood, error, scandal, poison, pestilence, deso- lation, unrighteousness, and iniquity. 2 Having sketched the character of the holy fathers with so much precision, his infallibility proceeded next, with equal pro- fessional skill, to annul their acts, and pronounce their sentence. This duty he performed in fine style in the council of Florence and with its full approbation. He condemned the Basilian proposition respecting the superiority of a council to a pope, and rescinded all the Basilian declarations and enactments. Their doom, pronounced by the pontiff in full council, soon followed. His infallibility, the viceroy of heaven, in the dis- charge of his pastoral duty, and actuated with zeal for God, and to expel a pernicious pestilence and an accursed impiety from the church, despoiled the Basilian doctors, bishops, arch- bishops, and cardinals of all honour, office, benefice, and dig- nity ; excommunicated and anathematized the whole assembly, with their patrons and adherents of every rank and condition, civil and ecclesiastical, and consigned that * gang of all the devils in the universe, by wholesale, to receive their portion in condign punishment and in eternal judgment with Korah, Da- than, and Abiram.' 3 The pontifical and synodical denuncia- tions extended to the Basilian magistracy, consuls, sheriffs, governors, officials, and citizens. These, if they failed in thirty i Bniy. 4. 130. Coss. 5. 232. Labb. 18. 841, 914, 1394. Poggio. 101, 155. Labb. 18. 914. 12021335. Poggio. 156. 3 Affirmat totius orbis daemonia ad Latrocinium Basileense confluxisee, ut, ad complendnm imquitatem, abominationem desolationis in Dei ecclesia ponunt. Peclarat omnes qui Basilic remanserint, cum Core, Dataa et Abiron, it-term fudicio ease perdendos. Labb. 13. 1884. BASILIAN AND FLORENTINE SCHISM. 9? days to expel the council from the city, Eugenius subjected to interdict and confiscation of goods. Their forfeited property might, by pontifical authority, be seized by the faithful or by any person who could take possession. This edifying sentence his infallibility pronounced in the plenitude of apostolic power, and subjected all who should attempt any infringement on his declaration, constitution, condemnation, and reprobation, to the indignation of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. 1 This was the act of the general, apostolic, holy, Florentine council, and issued with due solemnity in a public synodal session. Nicholas the Fifth, who succeeded Eugenius, continued, on his accession, to follow his predecessor's footsteps, and con- firmed his sentence against Amadeus of Savoy and the council of Basil. Nicholas denominated Eugenius the supreme head of the church and vicar-general of Jesus. But Felix, whom he excommunicated with all his adherents, he designated the patron of schism, heresy, and iniquity. The dukedom of Savoy, his holiness, by apostolic authority, transferred to Charles the French king, to bring the population back to the sheepfold. This plenipotentiary of heaven then proclaimed a crusade against the duke and his subjects. He admonished the French king to assume the sign of the cross, and to act in this enter- prize with energy. He exhorted the faithful to join the French army ; and for their encouragement, his holiness, supported by the mercy of the Omnipotent God, and the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, granted the crusading army a full pardon of all their sins, and, at the resurrection of the just, the enjoyment of eternal life. 2 Felix and the Basilians, however, did not take all this kind- ness for nothing. The holy fathers, with their pontiff at their head, returned the Florentine benedictions with spirit and piety. Their spiritual artillery hurled back the imprecations, and re- paid their competitor's anathemas. The Basilians, with devout cordiality, nullified the Florentine council, and rescinded all its acts. 3 The Basilian congress indeed cursed, as usual, in a masterly style. But Felix, through some defect of intellect or education, was miserably defective in this pontifical accom- plishment. His genius, in the noble art of launching execra- tions, was far inferior to that of Eugenius and Nicholas, who, from nature or cultivation, possessed splendid talents for the papal duty of cursing. He did well afterwards to resign the 1 Du Pin, 3. 28. Bruy. 4. 130. Labb. 18. 915, 12051384. Labb. 19. 47. Cosa. 5. 261. Labb. 18. 1365. Bruy. 4. 130. Du Pin. 3. 42. 7 98 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: office, for which his inability for clothing imprecations in suit- able language rendered him unfit. The council were to blame for choosing a head, who, in this capacity, showed such woful inadequacy. Few of these vice-gods, however, for the honour of the holy See, were incompetent in this useful attainment. Felix, in latter days, seems to have been the only one, who, in this respect, disgraced his dignity. The schism in the prelacy and popedom communicated to the nations. These were divided into three fractions, according to their declaration for Eugenius, Felix, or neutrality. The two popes and synods, though branded with mutual excom- munication, had their several obediences among the people. The majority of the European kingdoms declared for Eugenius. He was patronized by Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Scotland. France and England acknowledged the council of Basil ; and yet, in sheer inconsistency, rejected Felix and adhered to Eu- genius. Scotland, except a few lords, not only declared for Eugenius, but its prelacy, assembled in a national council, ex- communicated Felix. Arragon, through interested motives, declared in 1441 for Felix, and afterwards, in 1443, veered round to Eugenius. 1 Felix, however, commanded a respectable minority. He was recognized by Switzerland, Hungary, Austria, Bavaria, Strasburgh, Calabria, Piedmont, and Savoy. His authority was acknowledged by many universities of France, Germany, and Poland ; such as those of Paris, Vienna, Erfurt, Colonia, and Cracow. The Carthusians and Franciscans also rallied round the standard of Felix. 2 Germany, forming a third party, disclaimed both the com- petitors, and maintained, amid these dissentions, an armed neutrality. Its suspension of obedience commenced in 1438, and lasted eight years. During this period, its priesthood and people contrived, in some way or other, to do without a pope. 8 The Germans, on this occasion, anticipated, on the subject of pontifical authority, their revolt under Luther, which ushered in the Reformation. This schism, however, which had distracted western Christen- dom for about ten years, terminated in 1449. This was effected by the resignation of Felix, at the earnest entreaty of kings, councils, and people. Amadeus, unlike Urban, Boniface, Inno- cent, Gregory, Clement, and Benedict, who were rivals in the great western schism, abdicated with promptitude and facility. 4 Labb. 18. 1396. Daniel, 6. 224. Cossart, 5. 38. Labb. 18. 1397, 1398, 1403. Alex. 23. 45. Labb. 18. 1368 1373. Platina, 173, Du Pin, 3. 43. Dan. 6. 226. BASILIAN AND FLORANTINE SCHISM. 99 He had accepted the dignity with reluctance, and he renounced it without regret. Prior to his demission, however, the popes and the councils of the two obediences annulled their mutual sentences of con- demnation. Nicholas, in the plenitude of apostolic power, and in a bull which he addressed to all the faithful, rescinded, in due form, all the suspensions, interdicts, privations, and ana- themas, which had been issued against Felix and the council of Basil ; while, at the same time, he approved and confirmed all their ordinations, promotions, elections, provisions, collations, confirmations, consecrations, absolutions, and dispensations. He abrogated all that was said or written against Felix and the Basilian convention. This bull overthrows the ultramontan system, which maintains the illegitimacy of the Basilian synod from the deposition of Eugenius. Nicholas confirmed it in the amplest manner. Felix then revoked all the Basilian pro- ceedings against Eugenius, Nicholas, and the Florentine coun- cil ; and, though appointed legate, vicar, first cardinal, and second to the sovereign pontiff, retired again to his retreat at Ripaille, on the banks of the Leman Lake ; and there, till his death in 1450, enjoyed a life of ease and piety. 1 The Basilian and Florentine schism presented an odd pros- pect of papal unity. Two popes and two synods exchanged reciprocal anathemas ; and afterwards, in a short time, sanc- tioned all their several acts with the broad seal of mutual appro- bation and authority. Felix, whom Eugenius had designated Antichrist, Mahomet, Cerberus, a schismatic, a heretic, the golden calf, and the abomination of desolation, Nicholas, in the friendliest style, and kindest manner, called chief cardinal, and dearest brother. 2 The councilof Basil, which Eugenius had represented as an assembly of madmen, barbarians, wild beasts, heretics, miscreants, monsters, and a pandemonium, Nicholas, without any hesitation and in the amplest manner, approved and confirmed. Two general councils condemned each other for schism and heresy, and afterwards exchanged mutual compli- ments and approbation. The French and Italian schools still continue their enmity. The French detest the Florentine con- vention and applaud the Basilian assembly ; whilst the Italians denounce the conventicle of Basil and eulogize the council of Florence. The Basilian and Florentine contest displays all the elements of discord, which distinguish the great western schism. Pope, i 1 Labb. 19. 50. Coss. 5. 247. Lenfant. 2. 210. Bruy. 4. 159. Alex. 23, 53. 2 Carissimum fratrem nostrum Amadeura, primum Cardinalem. Alex. 25, 258. Coss. 5. 274. 7* 100 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I in both, opposed pope. Two viceroys of heaven clashed in mutual excommunications. Western Christendom, on both occasions, was rent into contending factions. Nations, severed from nation, refused reciprocal communion, and acknowledged two jarring ecclesiastical sovereigns. But the latter schism contained also a new element of dissen- sion, unknown to the former. An universal council, as a speci- men of Romish unity, opposed an universal council, and both fulminated mutual execrations. Each assembly in its own and in its party's opinion, and, according to many at the present day, represented the whole church ; and, nevertheless, in the bitterest enmity, and in unequivocal language, thundered re- ciprocal sentences of heresy and reprobation. But doctrinal, as well as historical and electoral variations, troubled the papacy, Historians, for a century, differed in their records of the popedom, while electors, in many cases,' disagreed in their choice of a sovereign. Several of the pontiffs also varied from the faith of the majority. Ah 1 the heads of the church, who patronized heresy, need not be enumerated. A few of the most distinguished, however, may be mentioned ; such as Victor, Stephen, Zosimus, Honorius, Vigilius, and John. Victor, or, according to Bellarmine, Zephyrinus, patronized Montanism. His infallibility approved the prophecies of Mon- tanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla, admitted these fanatics to his communion, and granted the impostors letters of peace or re- commendation to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. The pontiff, deceived by appearances, gave Montanus, says Godeau, * pacific letters, which shews that he had admitted the prophet to his communion.' According to Rhenanus, ' his holiness Montanized.' He sanctioned the blasphemy of these enthu- siasts by the seal of his infallibility. Montanism, when coun- tenanced by the pontiff, had been condemned by the church. Victor's recommendation of the heresy, therefore, was without excuse. The pope afterward revoked his letters of peace ; and in so doing, varied from himself, as he had, in granting them, differed from the church. Praxeas, says Tertullian, remon- strated against the conduct of Victor, who, in consequence, was forced to recant. 1 The hierarch's approbation and recan- tation were equal proofs of his infallibility and consistency. Stephen erred on the subject of baptism. His holiness, fol- lowed by the Spaniards, French, and Italians, maintained the validity of baptism administered by any heretical denomination. 1 Bell. IV. 8. Tertull. 501. Du Pin, 346. Godeau, 436. Spon. 173. 11 Bruy. 1. 40. VARIATIONS. 101 His infallibility's language, according to Cyprian, Firmilian, and the plain signification of the words, taught the efficacy of the baptismal ceremony in any form, even without the name of the Trinity. 1 The cotemporary partizans of heresy, indeed, except the Novatians, who were out of the question, rejected the deity of the Son and the Spirit, and, therefore, in this insti- tution, omitted the names of these two divine persons. Their forms, in the celebration of this sacrament, were, as appears from Irenaeus, distinguished for their ridiculousness and absurd- ity. Persons, however, who had been baptized in any heretical communion did not, according to Stephen's system, need a repetition of the ceremony. Cyprian, the Carthaginian metropolitan, who led the Africans, Numidians, Phrygians, Cappadocians, Galatians, Cilicians, Pontians, and Egyptians, held the opposite opinion. He main- tained the invalidity of heretical baptism, and rebaptized all, who, renouncing any heresy, assumed the profession of Catho- licism. Cyprian's system was supported by tradition and several councils, and had obtained through Africa and Asia. The decisions of Stephen and Cyprian are in direct opposition, and both contrary to modern Catholicism. 2 The pontiff and the saint maintained their respective errors with animosity and sarcasm. The pontiff called the saint anti- christ, a false apostle, and a deceitful workman. To a depu- tation sent on this subject from Africa he refused admission into his presence, or even the rights of common hospitality ; and excommmunicated both the Africans and Orientals. His inflexi- bility was returned with interest by Cyprian and Firmilian. Cyprian accused his holiness of error, apostacy, schism, heresy, pride, impertinence, ignorance, inconsistency, indiscretion, falsehood, obstinacy, presumption, stupidity, senselessness, perversity, obduracy, blasphemy, impatience, perfidy, indocility, and contumacy. 3 Such was a Roman saint's character of a Roman pontiff and the vicar-general of God. Firmilian' s portrait of his infallibility is unflattering as that of Cyprian. The prominent traits in Firmilian's picture of his holiness are inhumanity, insolence, audacity, dissension, discord, folly, pride, ridiculousness, ignorance, contumacy, error, schism, and heresy. He even represented the head of the church as an apostate, worse than all heretics, in supporting error and 1 Cyprian, 210. Bin. 1. 177. Euseb. VII. 2. 2 Les Remains vouloient qu'il fftt bon, par quelque Heretique qu'il ftit confer^ : et lefc Afriquains soutenoient, qu'il 6toit nul s'il etoit confer^ hors de 1'figlise, par les heretiques. II n'y a rien de plus oppos6, que ces deux decrets. Maine b. 88, 90, 97. Du Pin, 347 t . Cyprian, Ep. LXXIV 3 Cyprian, 2J 0215. 102 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I obscuring the light of ecclesiastical truth, who, in attempt uig tc excommunicate others, had separated himself from the whole Christian community. 1 These two moral painters, between them, certainly did great justice to his infallibility's character, and sketched the features as large as life. Stephen and Cyprian, as well as their several factions, were, after all, both in an error. The validity of baptism, according to the Romish system, depends not on the administrator, but on the matter and Ibrm. The administrator may be a heretic or a schismatic, a clergyman, a layman, or a woman, if the element of water and the name of the Trinity be used. Cy- priari and Stephen, the saint and the pontiff, differed from one another, and according to the present popish faith, from the truth. The church, in the clashing systems of the Carthaginian metropolitan and the Roman hierarch, varied on this topic from the church which has been established since their day. Cyprian's opinion, though supported by Athanasius, Cyril, Dionysius, Optatus, arid Basil, with the Asiatic and African communions, was, in 314, condemned by the council of Aries. Stephen's opinion, which supported the efficacy of any baptism, even without the name of the Trinity, was, in 325, condemned, in the nineteenth canon of the general council of Nice. 2 Liberius, Zosimus, and Horiorius patronized Arianism, Pelagianism, and Monothelitism. Liberius excommunicated Athanasius, and signed an Arian confession of faith. Zosimus countenanced Pelagianism, Honorius professed Monothelitism, and was condemned for this heresy in the sixth general council. These three pontiffs, however, will occur in a future part of this work, when their errors will be more fully developed. Vigilius, the next topic of animadversion, was the prince of changelings. The celebrated Vicar of Bray seems to have been only a copy, taken from the original the notorious bishop of Rome. This pontifical shuttlecock, during his supremacy, shifted his ground no less than six times. His infallibility, ac- cording to Liberatus, began his popedom by issuing a declaration in favour of Monophysitism. This confession was intended to satisfy the Empress Theodora, who favoured this heresy. His holiness anathematized the Chalcedonian faith and its patrons, and embraced the Eutychianism of Anthemus, Severus, and Theodosius. This system, however, his infallibility, in the vicissitudes of inconsistency, soon retracted, and shifted round, like the veering vane, to the definition of Chalcedon. The pontiff, in 539, in a communication to the Emperor 1 Cyprian, Ep. 75. Bruy. 1. 65. Challenor. 5. Labb. 1. 1452. et 2. 42. Mairnb. 98. 99. Bin. 1. 20. DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS 103 Justinian and the patriarch Mennas, disclaimed Eutychianism and excommunicated all its partizans. 1 His avowal of Jacobitism, indeed, was during the life of his rival Silverius, when, instead of being lawful pastor, Vigilius, according to Bellarmine, Baronius, and Godeau, was only an illegal intruder, who had obtained the ecclesiastical sovereignty by violence and simony. 2 The usurper, however, even then held the whole administration of the papacy ; and, after the death of his competitor, made four different and jarring con- fessions of faith on the subject of the three chapters, which contained the writings of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus. Vigilius, in 547, opposed Justinian's edict, which condemned the works of these three authors. 3 The emperor, in 545, had issued a constitution, in which he anathematized Ibas, Theo- doret, and Theodorus, and condemned their productions, on account of their execrable heresy and blasphemy. The impe- rial proclamation was subscribed by Mennas, Zoilos, Ephraim, and Peter, patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem ; and by the oriental suffragans, who followed the footsteps of their superiors. His holiness, however, on his arrival in the imperial city, in 547, refused to sign the imperial edict. He declared the condemnation of the three chapters derogatory to the council of Chalcedon, and, in consequence, excommunicated the Grecian clergy, and anathematized all who condemned Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus. His infallibility's hostility to the royal manifesto, however, was temporary. His holiness, in 548, published a bull, which he called his judgment, and which condemned, in the strongest and most express terms, the works of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus. These productions, according to this decision, con- tained many things contrary to the right faith, and tending to the establishment of impiety and Nestorianism. Vigilius, there- fore, anathematized the publications, the authors, and their abettors. Alexander and Godeau, on this occasion, acknow- ledged the inconsistency of his infallibility's judgment with his former decision. 4 Godeau's observation is worthy of remark. The pontiff's compliance with the emperor, says the historian, was a prudent accommodation to the malignity of the times.' 5 1 Liberat. c. XXII. Godeau, 4. 203, 208. Vigil. Ep. IV. V. 8 Bell. IV. 11. Godeau, 4. 206. Binn. 4. 400. 3 Damnation! primum obstitit. Alex. 12 33. Godeau, 4. 229. Theoph. 152. 4 Ilia postmodum judicato damnavit. Alexand. 12. 33. Maimb. 67. Labb. 6 23, 177. C'etoit un jugement contraire au premier, qu'il avoit si fortement soutenu contre 1'Empereur, et pontre les eveques Orientaux. Godeau, 4. 233. 6 Prudent accommodement a la malignite du temps. Godeau, 4. 233. 104 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. The badness of the times, in the good bishop's mind, justified the Pope's discretion and versatility. The Latin clergy, however, had a different opinion of the pontifical judgment. These, to a man, forsook Vigilius : Dacius, Sebastian, Rusticus, and Facundus, with the Illyrians, Dal- matians, and Africans, viewed the decision as the subversion of the Chalcedonian faith, and the establishment of Eutychianism on the ruins of Catholicism. Facundus openly taxed his holi- ness with prevarication and perfidy. 1 His infallibility, ever changing, issued, in 553, in a council of sixteen bishops and three deacons, a constitution which over- threw his judgment. Vigilius, in this constitution, disapproved of sixty extracts from Theodorus, in the bad acceptation in which they had been taken ; but prohibited the condemnation of his person. He could not, he said, by his own sentence, condemn Theodorus nor allow him to be condemned by any. The pontiff, at the same time, declared the Catholicism of the works, and forbade ah 1 anathematizing of the persons of Theo- doret and Ibas. His supremacy ordained and decreed, that nothing should be done or attempted to the injury or detraction of Theodoret, who signed, without hesitation, the Chalcedonian definition, and consented with ready devotion to Leo's letter. He decided and commanded, that the judgment of the Chalce- donian fathers, who declared the orthodoxy of Ibas, should remain, without addition or diminution. All this was in direct contradiction, as the fifth general council shewed, to his judg- ment, in which he had condemned the heresy of the three chapters, and anathematized the persons of their authors and advocates. This constitution, however, notwithstanding its in- consistency with his former declaration, the pontiff' sanctioned by his apostolic authority, and interdicted all of every ecclesias- tical dignity, from writing, speaking, publishing, or teaching any thing a,gainst his pontifical decision. 2 The sixth and last detour of Vigilius was his confirmation of the fifth general council, which condemned and anathematized Ibas, Theodoret, Theodorus, and their works, for impiety, wick- edness, blasphemy, madness, heresy, and Nestorianism. The following is a specimen of the infallible assembly's condemna- tion of the three chapters and their authors, which the holy fathers, as usual, bellowed in loud vociferation. 'Anathema to Theodorus. Satan composed his confession. The Ephesian council anathematized its author. Theodorus renounced the gospel. Anathema to all who do not anathematzie Theodorus, 1 Godeau, 4. 231. Bruy. in Vigil. Labb. 5. 13501360. Maimb. 68. DOCTRINAL VARIATIONS. 105 Theodoret's works contain blasphemy and impiety against the right faith and the Ephesian council. The epistle of Ibas is, in ah 1 things, contrary to the Chalcedonian definition and the true faith. The epistle contains heresy. The whole epistle is blas- phemy. Whosoever does not anathematize it is a heretic. Ana- thema to Theodorus, Nestorius, and Ibas.' All this, notwith- standing his constitution in behalf of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus, his infallibility approved and confirmed. 1 His holiness did not stop with a simple confirmation of the fifth general council. He, also, like the Ecumenical Synod, vented a noisy torrent of obloquy against the departed souls of Ibas, Theodoret and Theodorus, when their flesh was resolved into dust and their bones were mouldering in the tomb. He condemned and anathematized Theodoret and Theodorus,whose works, according to his infallibility, contained impiety and many things against the right faith and the Ephesian council. 2 A similar sentence, he pronounced against Ibas, his works, and all who believed or defended their impiety. The papacy of Vigilius presents a scene of fluctuation un- known in the annals of Protestantism. The vicar-general of God, the head of the church, and the father and teacher of aU Christians shifted his ground six times. He sanctioned Euty- chianism and afterwards retracted. He withstood Justinian's edict, and, in his celebrated judgment, afterwards recanted. The changeling pontiff', in his constitution, shielded Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus, and afterwards confirmed the general council, which condemned these authors for blasphemy and heresy. His infallibility's condemnation of the three chapters was opposed by the whole Latin communion. The Africans, Illyrians, Dal- matians, and many other churches withdrew from his commu- nion, and accused him of overthrowing the council of Chalcedon and establishing Monophysitism. A general council of the Grecian prelacy, in the mean time, condemned the Pope's constitution and the declaration of the Latin clergy ; and this council's sentence, amid the universal distraction of Christendom, was established by Pope Vigilius, and afterwards by Pelagius, Gregory, Nicholas, and Leo. 3 John the twenty-second was another of these pontiffs, who was distinguished for patronizing heresy. 'This father and teacher of all Christians' denied the admission of disem- bodied souls into the beatific vision of God, during their inter- mediate state between death and the resurrection. The spirits of the just, indeed, he believed, entered at death on the enjoy. 1 Labb. 6. 66, 130, 197, 199, 310. Godeau, 4. 265, 268. 3 Labb 6. 241, 244. Bray. 1. 228. 3 Godeau,' 4. 233. Bruy. 1. 327. 106 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : ment of happiness and the contemplation of the Son's glorified numanity. But the vision of Jehovah and the perfection of felicity, according to this head of the church, are deferred till the day of general judgment. 1 This dogma his supremacy taught by sermons, letters, and legations. He preached the heresy in public, according to Balu- sius, Raynal, and Maimbourg, in three sermons in succession, and caused it to be maintained by cardinals, prelates, and doctors. 2 He transmitted letters in all directions, especially through the French nation, in support of his theory. He sent two theolo- gians on a mission to the Parisian faculty, to effect the pro- selytism of that literary seminary to his system. John, says Adrian the Sixth, quoted by Launoy, * publicly taught and declared his innovation, and enjoined its belief on alJ men.' 3 Nangis has transmitted a similar statement. He endeavoured, in this manner, says Du Pin, 'to spread his error, and dissemi- nate a universal heresy through the whole church.' 4 His infallibility's speculation, however, soon met decided hos- tility. The citizens of Avignon, indeed, in which John resided, maintained a profound silence. This, in some, arose from fear, and, in some, from favour. A few believed and countenanced the innovation. Many disbelieved ; but, at the same time, con- cealed their disapprobation through terror of the pontiff's power and tyranny. The king and the Parisian university, however, were not to be affrighted. Philip, in 1333, assembled the faculty, who canvassed the controversy and condemned his infallibility's faith as a falsehood and a heresy. These doctors defined, that the souls of the faithful come at death, to the naked, clear, beatific, intuitive, and immediate vision of the essence of the divine and blessed Trinity. Many doctors con- curred with the Parisians in opposition to the pontiff. Gobelin called his infallibility an old dotard. Alliaco denominated John's theory an error ; while Gerson characterized it as a falsehood. Philip, the French monarch, proclaimed its condemnation by the sound of a trumpet. 5 The statements and reasons of the university and of other divines were unavailing. His infallibility was proof against Parisian dialectics. But the French king was an abler logician, and his reasoning, in consequence, possessed more efficiency. 1 Du Pin, 352. Alex. 22. 451. Maimb. 130. 2 II 1'enseigna publiquement. II la precha lui-meme. II obligea, par son exemple. les Cardinaux, les prelatg de sa cour, et les docteurs, a la soutenir. Maimb. 131. 3 Publice docuit, declaravit, et ab omnibus teneri mandavit. Launoy, 1. 534 4 Joannes Papa XXII. errorem de beatitudine animse, quam ipse diu teuuera^ publice praedicaverat. Nangis, Ann. 1334. Dacheiy, 3. 97. 6 Bruy. 3. 420, 422. Cossart, 4. 434. Maimb. 132. Gobelin, c. LXXI. MORAL VARIATIONS. 107 The royal argument, on the occasion, was composed of fire. His most Christian majesty threatened, if the pontiff did not retract, to roast his Supremacy in the flames. 1 This tangible and sen- sible argument, always conclusive and convincing, was calcu- lated for the meridian of his infallibility's intellect. This luminous application therefore, soon connected the premises with the conclusion, brightened John's ideas, and convinced him, in a short time, of his error. The clearness of the threatened fire communicated light to his infallibility's understanding. His holiness, though enamoured of heresy, was not, it appears, am- bitious of martyrdom. He chose to retract, therefore, rather than be burned alive. His infallibility, accordingly, just before he expired, read his recantation and declared his orthodoxy, on the subject of the beatific vision and the enjoyment of the deity. Bellarmine and Labbe deny John's heterodoxy. 2 These en- deavour to excuse the pontiff, but by different means. Bellar- mine grounds his vindication on the silence of the church on this topic, when John published his opinion. No synodical or authoritative definition, declaring the soul's enjoyment of the beatific vision before the resurrection, preceded the papal de- cision, which therefore was no heresy. Heresy then is no heresy, according to the cardinal, but truth, prior to the sentence oi the church. John's opinion, Bellarmine admits, is now hetero- doxy ; but, on its original promulgation, was orthodoxy. Truth, it seems, can, by an ecclesiastical definition, be transubstantiated into error, and Catholicism into heresy, even in an unchangeable church distinguished for its unity. The popish communion can effect the transubstantiation of doctrinal propositions, as well as of the sacramental elements. John's faith, says Labbe, was taught by Irenaeus, Lactantius, and other orthodox fathers. 3 This is a noble excuse indeed, and calculated to display, in a strong light, the unity of Romanism. The faith of primitive saints and orthodox fathers is, it seems, become heresy. Labbe attempts to acquit John by arraigning Irenaeus and Lac- tantius. The legitimate conclusion from the premises is, that Irenseus, Lactantius, and John, were all three infected with error, Moral, as weh 1 as historical, electoral, and doctrinal variations diversified and disfigured the poped om. Sanctity characterized the early Roman bishops, and degeneracy their successors. Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and many of a later period were distinguished by piety, benevolence, holiness, and humility. 1 Rex rogum ipsi intentans ne revocarit errorem. Alex. 22. 461. 3 Bell. jl. 780. Labb. 15. 147. Alex. 22. 456. 3 Labb. 15. 147. Cassant, 4. 437. 108 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: Some deviations and defects might appear, marking the infirmity and the imperfection of man. The Roman pastors, however, who, during the earlier days of Christianity, did not, in moral character, aspire to excellence, aimed at decency ; and few, for a long series of years, sunk below mediocrity. But the Roman hierarchs of the middle and succeeding ages exhibited a melancholy change. Their lives displayed all the variations of impiety, malevolence, inhumanity, ambition, debauchery, gluttony, sensuality, deism, and atheism. Gregory the Great seems to have led the way in the career of villainy. This celebrated pontiff' has been characterized as worse than his predecessors and better than his successors, or, in other terms, as the last good and the first bad pope. The flood-gates of moral pollution appear, in the tenth century, to have been set wide open, and inundations of all impurity poured on the Chris- tian world through the channel of the Roman hierarchy. Awful and melancholy indeed is the picture of the popedom at this era, drawn, as it has been, by its warmest friends ; such as Platina, Petavius, Luitprand, Genebrard, Baronius, Hermann, Barclay, Binius, Giannone, Vignier, Labbe", and Du Pin. Platina calls these Pontiffs monsters. Fifty popes, says Gene- brard, in 150 years, from John the Eighth till Leo the Ninth, entirely degenerated from the sanctity of their ancestors, and were apostatical rather than apostolical. 1 Thirty pontiffs resigned in the tenth century : and the successor, in each instance, seemed demoralized even beyond his predecessor. Baronius, in his Annals of the Tenth jCentury, seems to labour for language to express the base degeneracy of the popes and the frightful deformity of the popedom. Many shocking mon- sters, says the annalist, intruded into the pontifical chair, who were guilty of robbery, assassination, simony, dissipation, tyranny, sacrilege, perjury, and all kinds of miscreancy . Can- didates, destitute of every requisite qualification, were promoted to the papal chair ; while all the canons and traditions of anti- quity were contemned and outraged. The church, says Gian- none, was then in a shocking disorder, in a chaos of iniquity. Some says Barclay, crept into the popedom by stealth ; while others broke in by violence, and defiled the holy chair with the filthiest immorality. 2 1 Per annos fere 150. Pontifices circiter quinquaginta a loarme scilicet VIII, usque ad Leonem IX, virtute majorum prorsus defecerint, apostatici potius auam apostolici, Geneb. IV. Platina, 128. Du Pin, 2. 156. Bruy. 2. 208. 3 Plurima horrenda in earn rnonstra intruserunt. Spon. 900. I. et 908. III. L'eglise etoi plongee dans un cahos d'impietes. An. Eccl. 344. Giannon, VII. 5. Sanctissimam Cathedram moribus inquinatissimis foedavisse. Barclay, 36. c. 4. On ne voyoit alors des Papes, mais des monstres. An. Eccl. 345. Giannon, VII, 5 PROFLIGACY OF JOHN THE TWELFTH. 109 The electors and the elected, during this period, appear, as might be expected, to have been kindred spirits. The electors were neither the clergy nor people, but two courtezans, Theodora and Marozia, mother and daughter, women distinguished by their beauty, and at the same time, though of senatorial family, notorious for their prostitution. These polluted patrons of licentiousness, according to their pleasure, passion, whim, or caprice, elected popes, collated bishops, disposed of diocesses, and indeed assumed, in a great measure, the whole administra- tion of the church. The Roman See, become the prey of ivarice and ambition, was given to the highest bidder. 1 These vile harlots, according to folly or fancy, obtruded their filthy gallants or spurious offspring on the pontifical throne. Theodora, having conceived a violent but base passion for John the Tenth, raised her gallant to the papacy. The pontiff, like his patron, was an example of sensuality ; and was afterwards, in 924, at the instigation of Marozia, deposed, and, in all pro- bability, strangled by Wido, Marquis of Tuscany. Marozia was mistress to Sergius the Third, who treated the dead body of Formosus with such indignity. She brought her pontifical paramour a son ; and this hopeful scion of illegitimacy and the popedom was, by his precious mother, promoted to the vice- gerency of heaven. His conduct was worthy of his genealogy. He was thrown, however, into prison by Alberic, Marozia' s son by Adelbert, where he died of grief, or, some say, by assassina- tion. 2 The person who can believe in the validity of such elections, and the authority of such pontiffs, must possess an extraordinary supply of faith, or rather of credulity. A person desirous of painting scenes of atrocity and filth, might, in the history of the popedom, find ample materials of gratification. A mass of moral impurity might be collected from the Roman hierarchy, sufficient to crowd the pages of folios, and glut all the demons of pollution and malevolence. But delineations of this kind afford no pleasing task. The facts, therefore, on this topic shall be supplied with a sparing hand. A few specimens, however, are necessary, and shall be selected from the biography of John, Boniface, Gregory, Sixtus, Alex- ander, Julius, and Leo. John the Twelfth ascended the papal throne in 955, in the eighteenth year of his age. His youthful days were charac- terized by barbarity and pollution. He surpassed aL his prede- 1 Le siege de Rome etoit donr.e au plus offerant. Giannon. VII. 5. An. Eccl. 345. 3 Spon. 929. I. et 933. I. Giannon, VII. 5. 6. Luitprand, II. 13. Petavius, I. 418. L'infame Theodora fit elire pour Pape. le plus declare de ses amans, qui fut appelle Jean X. Baroiiius ecrit, qu' alors Rome etoit sans Pape. An. Eccl 345. Giannon, VII. 5. 110 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: cessors, says Platina, in debauchery. His holiness, in a Roman synod, before Otho the Great, was found guilty of blasphemy, perjury, profanation, impiety, simony, sacrilege, adultery, incest, constupration, and murder. He swore allegiance to Otho, and afterwards revolted to his enemy. Ordination, which he often bartered for money, he conferred on a deacon in a stable, and on a boy ten years old by constituting him a bishop. He killed John, a sub-deacon, by emasculation, Benedict by putting out his eyes, and, in the wantonness of cruelty, amputated the nose of one cardinal, and the hand of another. He drank a health to the devil, invoked Jupiter and Venus, lived in public adul- tery with the Roman matrons, and committed incest with Ste- phania, his father's concubine. The Lateran palace, formerly the habitation of purity, he converted into a sink of infamy and prostitution. Fear of violation from Peter's successor deterred female pilgrims, maids, matrons, and widows, from visiting Peter's tomb. His infallibility, when summoned to attend the synod to answer for these charges, refused ; but excommunicated the council in the name of Almighty God. The clergy and laity, however, declared his guilt, and prayed, if the accusations were unfounded, that they might be accursed, and placed on the left hand at the day of judgment. The pontifical villain was deposed by the Roman council. But he afterward re- gained the Holy See ; and, being caught in adultery, was killed, says Luitprand, by the devil, or, more probably, by the injured husband. John, says Bellarmine, * was nearly the wick- edest of the popes.' 1 Some of the vice-gods, therefore, the cardinal suggests, surpassed his holiness in miscreancy. Boniface the Seventh, who seized the papal chair in 974, murdered his predecessor and successor. Historians represent him as the basest and wickedest of mankind. Baronius calls him a thief, a miscreant, and a murderer, who is to be reckoned, not among the Roman pontiffs, but among the notorious robbers of the age. Gerbert and Vignier characterize this vice-god as a monster, who surpassed all mankind in miscreancy. 2 Prompted by Boniface, Crescentius strangled Benedict the Sixth, Boni- face's predecessor, and placed Boniface on the papal chair. But the Roman citizens, provoked with the pontiff's atrocity, deposed him from his dignity, and expelled him from the city. 1 Ordinationes episcoporum faceret pretio. Benedictum lumine privasse, et mox mortuum esse. Joannem virilibus amputatis occidisse. Viduam Roenarii et Stephanam patris concubinam et Annam viduam cum nepte siia abusum esse : et sanctum pal utium lupanar et prostibulum ie^isse. Labb. ii. 881. A Diabolo est percussus. Labb. ii. 873. Platina, 132. Beliarmin. ii. 20. 2 Sacrilegus praedo sedem Apostolicum invasit Bonifacius, annumerandus inter t'araosns latrones. Spoil. 974. I. et 985. Bruy. 2. 265, 271. Boniface, monstre horrible, surmontant tous les huraains en mechancetez. Vignier, 2. 608. CHARACTER OF GREGORY THE SEVENTH. Ill The exiled pontiff, however, was not, it appears, ambitious of travelling in the train of poverty. Th; treasury of the Vatican was rifled by this apostolical robber, and its sacred ornaments and vessels conveyed by his holy hands to Constantinople. Benedict the Seventh was, by universal suffrage, substituted in his stead. He held the papacy nine years, in opposition to Boniface, and was succeeded by John the Fourteenth. Boni- face, in the mean time, having sold the spoils of the Vatican, and amassed a vast sum of money, returned to Rome. This treasure he expended in the bribery of his partizans, who, by main violence, replaced the ruffian, in 985, on the pontifical throne. John, who had succeeded during his absence, he im- prisoned in the castle of Angelo, where, in four months after, he died of starvation and misery. But even the death of his rival could not satiate the vengeance of Boniface. John's cold, pale, stiffened, emaciated corpse was placed at the door of the castle, and there, in all its ghastly and haggard frightfulness, exposed to the public gaze. But the murderer did not long survive this insult on the dead. He died suddenly, and his naked carcass, mangled and lacerated by his former partizans, to whom he had become odious, was, with the utmost indignity, dragged through the streets. Gregory the Seventh, who obtained the papacy in 1073, was another pontifical patron of iniquity. He was elected on the day of his predecessor's funeral, by the populace and soldiery, through force and bribery, without the concurrence of the em- peror or the clergy. Desiderius, abbot of Monte Cassino, on this head, accused Hildebrand to his face of precipitation. He obtained the supremacy, in the general opinion, by gross simony. 1 He had the hypocrisy or hardihood, nevertheless, to pretend that the dignity was obtruded on him against his will. Benno has sketched the character of this pontiff' in strong colours. This cardinal accused his holiness of simony, sacii lege, epicurism, magic, sorcery, treason, impiety, and murder. The Italians of Lombardy drew nearly as frightful a portrait of his supremacy. These represented his holiness as having gained the pontifical dignity by simony, and stained it by assassination and adultery. The councils of Worms and Brescia depicted his character with great precision. The council of Worms, comprehending tbrty-six of the German prelacy, met in 1076, and preferred numerous imputations against Gregory. This synod found his holiness guilty of usurpation, simony, a postacy, treason, schism, 1 Du Pin, 2. 210, 215. Bruy. 2. 427. 112 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : heresy, chicanery, dissimulation, fornication, adultery, and per- jury. His infallibility, according to this assembly, debased sacred theology by innovation, and scandalized Christendom by his intimacy with the Princess Matilda. His holiness, in the sentence of the German prelacy, preferred harlots to women of character, and adultery and incest to chaste and holy matrimony. 1 The council of Brescia, in 1078, pourtrayed his supremacy with equal freedom. This assembly, composed of thirty, bishops, and many princes from Italy, France, and Germany, called Gregory a fornicator, an impostor, an assassin, a violator of the canons, a disseminator of discord, a disturber of the Christian commonwealth, and a pestilential patron of all madness, who had sown scandal among friends, dissension among the peaceful, and separation among the married. The Brescian fathers, then declared his holiness guilty of bribery, usurpation, simony, sacrilege, ferocity, vain-glory, ambition, impiety, obstinacy, perverseness, sorcery, divination, necromancy, schism, heresy, Berengarianism, infidelity, assassination, and perjury. The sacred synod having, in this manner, done justice to his charac- ter, deposed Gregory from his dignity by the authority of Almighty God. 2 The fathers of Worms and Brescia supported the Emperor Henry against Pope Gregory. Their condemnation of the pontiff the re fore has, by Labbe, Alexander, and Binius, been reckoned the effect of personal hostility, and, on this account, unworthy of credit. Their sentence, indeed, is no great evi- dence of their friendship for his holiness. But these two councils were, in this respect, in the same situation with the other synods who have condemned any of the Roman hierarchs. The Roman synod that condemned John the Twelfth, the Parisian assembly that convicted Boniface, the Pisan and Con- stantian councils that degraded Gregory, Benedict, and John, all these were placed in similar circumstances, and actuated by similar motives. But their sentences are not, therefore, to be accounted the mere ebullitions of calumny. Gregory's sen- tence of deposition against Henry was, according to the parti- zans of popery in the present day, an unlawful act, and beyond the limits of pontifical authority. The fathers of Worms and Brescia, therefore, had a right to withstand Gregory in his assumption and exercise of illegal and unconstitutional power. Boniface equalled, if he did not surpass Gregory, in all the arts of villany. These arts he practised on his predecessor 1 Labb. 12. 517, Cossart, 2. 11, 48. Bruy. 2. 471. Alex. 18. 398. 8 Labb. 12. 646. Alexander, 18. 402. CHARACTER OF GREGORY THE SEVENTH. 113 Oelestin, a silly old dotard, who, prior to Boniface, placed on the pontifical throne, and clothed with infallibility, governed Christendom. He had been a visionary monk, who, in his mountain cave, mistook his own dreams for inspiration, and the whistling of the winds for the accents of divine revelation, and spent his useless days in vain contemplation and in the un- relenting maceration of his body. He considered his body, says Alliaco, as a domestic enemy. He would descend into a pit during the cold and snow, and remain till his clothes would be frozen. He wore a knotted hair-cloth which mangled his flesh, till it sometimes corrupted and produced worms. This vision- ary, in his fanaticism, was transferred from a mountain cavern of Apulia to the holy chair of Saint Peter ; and his election, says Alexander, * was the effect of divine afflatus.' 1 Cardinal Cajetan, afterwards Boniface the Eighth, was, in the mean time, ambitious of the popedom. He formed a plan, in consequence, to induce Celestin to resign, that he might be substituted in his stead. Knowing Celestin' s superstition, he spoke through a tube during the stillness of the night to the pontiff, and enjoined him to resign the papacy. The voice of the impostor Celestin mistook for the warning of an angel, and, in obedience to the command, renounced his authority. His reasons for abdication are a curiosity. He resigned on account of debility of body, defect of information, and the malignity of the people. Boniface, who in 1294 was chosen in his place, imprisoned the old man with such circumstances of severity as caused his death. 2 The character of Boniface was placed in a striking point of view by Nogaret and Du Plesis. The pontiff had offended Philip the Fair, King of France, by his bulls of deposition issued against that monarch. His majesty, in consequence, called two conventions of the three estates of the French nation. Nogaret and Du Plesis, in these meetings, accused Boniface of usurpation, simony, ambition, avarice, church- robbery, extortion, tyranny, impiety, abomination, blasphemy, heresy, infidelity, murder, and the sin for which Sodom was consumed. His infallibility represented the gospel as a medley of truth and falsehood, and denied the doctrine of transub- stantiation, the Trinity, the incarnation, arid the immortality of the soul. The soul of man, his holiness affirmed, was the same as a beast's ; and he believed no more in the Virgin Mary than in an ass, nor in her son than in the foal of an ass. 3 1 Clestinus simplex erat. Eberhard, An. 1290. Bruy. 3. 302. Andilly, 806. Alex. 20. 140. Canisius, 4. 223. 8 Bruy. 3. 367. Mariana, 3. 256. 3 Les homnes ont lea memes ames, que lea betes. L'Evangile enseigne plusieure 8 J14 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! These accusations were not mere hearsay, but supported or authentic and unquestionable evidence. Fourteen" witnesses, men of credibility, deposed to their truth. Nogaret and Du Plesis offered to prove all these allegations before a genera] council. But Benedict and Clement, successors to Boniface, shrunk from the task of vindicating their predecessor, or, con- scious of his guilt, spun out the time of the trial by various interruptions, without coming to any conclusion. 1 The simplicity of Celestin and the subtlety of Boniface made both unhappy. Superstition made Celestin a self-tormentor ; while his silliness, united indeed with superstition, rendered him the easy victim of Boniface. The understanding and infidelity of Boniface were just sufficient to pull destruction on his own head. The ambition of Boniface was as fatal to its possessor, as the submission of Celestin. Boniface, on his disappointment, died, gnawing his fingers, and knocking his head against the wall like one in desperation. He entered the papacy, it has been said, like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog. John the Twenty-third seems, if possible, to have exceeded all his predecessors in enormity. This pontiff moved in an exten- sive field of action, and discovered, during his whole career, the deepest depravity. The atrocity of his life was ascertained and published by the general council of Constance, after a tedious trial and the examination of many witnesses. Thirty- seven were examined on only one part of the imputations. Many of these were bishops and doctors in law and theology, and all were men of probity and intelligence. His holiness, therefore, was convicted on the best authority, and indeed con- fessed his own criminality. The allegations against his infallibility were of two kinds. One respected faith and the other morality. His infallibility, in the former, was convicted of schism, heresy, deism, infidelity, heathenism, and profanity. He fostered schism, by refusing to resign the popedom for the sake of unity. He rejected all the veritez, et plusieurs mensonges. La doctrine de la Trinite est fausse, 1'enfantement d'une vierge est impossible, 1'incarnation du fils de Dieu ridicule aussi bien que la transubstantiation. Je ne crois plus en elle qu'en une anesse, ni a son Fils, qu' an poiiiaw d'une anesse. Bruy. 3. 346. Du Puy, 529. Alex. 22. 319, 327. Boss. 1. 278. Papac Bonifacio multa imposuerunt enormia, puta, haeresim, simoniam, >t homo- cidia, Trivets An. 1303. Dachery, 228. Rex Francorem ossa Bonifacii petiit ad conburandum, tanquam hseretici. Trivet. Ann, 1306. Dachery, 3,231. Eberhard, Anno. 1303. Canisius, 4. 228. 1 Daniel, 4. 456. Du Pin, 2. 494. Audiens Rex Franci?e Philippus apluribus fide dignis personis, Papam Bonifacium detestandis infectum crimimbus diversisque haeresibus irretitum. Nangis, Ann. 1303. Dachery, 3. 56. Nogaretus abjecta crimina ediem innovavit, eaque legitime proltare se offereni. Nangis, Ann. 1309. Dachery, 3, 62. Daniel. 4. 456. THE CHARACTER OF JOHN THE TWENTY-THIRD. 115 truths of the gospel and all the doctrines of Christianity. He denied the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and the responsibility of man. The human spirit, according to this head of the church, is, like that of the brute creation, extinguished at death. Agreeable to his belief or rather unbe- lief, he disregarded all the institutions of revealed religion. These principles, he held with the utmost pertinacity. Accord- ing to the language of the Constantian assembly, his infalli- bility, actuated by the devil, pertinaciously said, asserted, dog- matized, and maintained before sundry bishops and other men of integrity, that man, like the irrational animals, became at death extinct both in soul and body. 1 The other imputations respected morality. The list of alle- gations contained seventy particulars. But twenty were sup- pressed for the honour of the apostolic see. John, says Labbe, * was convicted of forty crimes.' 2 The Constantian fathers, found his holiness guilty of simony, piracy, exaction, barbarity, robbery, massacre, murder, lying, perjury, fornication, adultery, incest, constupration,and sodomy ; and characterized his suprem- acy as the oppressor of the poor, the persecutor of the just, the pillar of iniquity, the column of simony, the slave of sensu- ality, the alien of virtue, the dregs of apostacy, the inventor of malevolence, the mirror of infamy , and, to finish the climax, an incarnated devil. The accusation, says Niem, ' contained all mortal sins and an infinity of abominations.' His simony, according to the council, appeared in the way in which he obtained the cardinalship, the popedom, and sold indulgences. He gained the cardinal and pontifical dignity by bribery and violence. He extorted vast sums by the traffic of indulgences in several cities, such as Utrecht, Mechlin, and Antwerp. He practised piracy with a high hand, during the war between Ladislas and Lewis, for the kingdom of Naples. His exactions, on many occasions, were attended with massacre and inhumanity. His treatment of the citizens of Bologna und Rome will supply a specimen of his cruelty and extortions. He exercised legatine authority for some time in Bologna, and nearly depopulated the city by barbarity, injustice, tyranny, rapine, dilapidation, and murder. He oppressed Rome and dissipated the patrimony of Peter. He augmented former impost and invented new ones, and then abandoned the capital to be pillaged and sacked by the enemy. His desertion exposed the women to the brutality of the soldiery, and the men to spoliation, imprisonment, assassination, and galley-slavery. He i Labb. 16 178. Brays, 4. 41. Du Pin, 3. 13. Crabb. 2. 1050. Bin. 7. 1036 8 Criminibus quadraginta convictus. Labb. 15. 1378. et 16. 154. 8* 116 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I poisoned Alexander his predecessor, and Daniel who was his physician. His conduct, through life, evinced mcorrigibility, pertinacity, obduracy, lying, treachery, falsehood, perjury, and a diabolical spirit. 1 His youth was spent in defilement and impudicity. He passed his nights in debauchery and his days in sleep. He violated married women and deflowered holy nuns. Three hundred of these devoted virgins were the unwilling victims of his licen- tiousness. He was guilty of incest with three maiden sisters and with his brother's wife. He gratified his unnatural lust on a mother and her son ; while the father with difficulty escaped. He perpetrated the sin of sodom on many youths, of which one, contracting in consequence a mortal malady, died, the martyr of pollution and iniquity. 2 Such was the pontiff who, according to the Florentine coun- cil, was ' the vicar-general of God, the head of the church, and the father and teacher of ah 1 Christians.' His holiness, it \vould appear, was indeed the father of a great many, though perhaps his offspring were not all Christians. The council of Constance indeed deposed John from the papacy. But pope Martin after- ward raised him to the cardinalship, and treated him with the same honour and respect as the rest of the sacred college. His remains, after death, were honourably interred in John's church. John, with all his miscreancy, was elevated to a dignity second only to the pontifical supremacy. Jerome and Huss, notwith- standing their sanctity, were, by an unerring council, tried without justice and burned without mercy. Sixtus the Fourth, who was elected in 1471, walked in the footsteps of his predecessors, Gregory, Boniface, and John. This pontiff has, with reason, been accused of murder and debauchery. He conspired for the assassination of Julian and Laurentius, two of the Medicean family. He engaged Pazzi, who was chief of the faction, which, in Florence, was hostile to the Medici, in the stratagem. Pazzi was supported in the diabolical attempt by Riario, Montesecco, Salvian, and Poggio. The conspirators, who were many, attacked Julian and Lauren- tius during mass on Sunday. Julian was killed. Laurentius fled wounded to the vestry, where he was saved from the fury of the assassins. The Medicean faction, in the mean time, i Labb. 16. 154, 158, 184. Bray. 4. 3. Lenfant, 1. 281. 3 Multos Juvenes destruxit in posterioribus, quorum unus in fluxu sanguinia decessit. Violavit tres virgines eorores, et cognovit matrein, etfilium, et pater vix evasit. Hard. 4. 228. Lenfan. 1. 290. II etoit claireraent prouve, qu'il avoit joui de la Mere et du Fils, et que le Pere avoit eu de la peine & 6chapper & sea criminels desirs. Bruy. 4. 49. Labb. 16. 163. Bin. 7. 1035. CHARACTER OF JOHN THE TWENTY-THIRD. 117 mustered and assailed the conspirators, on whom they took an ample and summary vengeance. 1 Sixtus patronized debauchery as well as murder. His holi- ness, for this worthy purpose, established brothels extraordinary in Rome. His infallibility, in consequence, became head, riot only of the church, but also of the stews. He presided with ability and applause in two important departments, and was the vicar-general of God and of Venus. These seminaries of pollu- tion, it seems, brought a great accession to the ecclesiastical revenue. The goddesses,who were worshipped in these temples, paid a weekly tax from the wages of iniquity to the viceroy of heaven. The sacred treasury, by this means, received from this apostolic tribute an annual augmentation of 20,000 ducats. His supremacy himself, was, it seems, a regular and steady customer in his new commercial establishments. He nightly worshipped, with great zeal and devotion, in these pontifical fanes which he had erected to the Cytherean goddess. 2 Part of the tribute, therefore, from these schools of the Grecian divinity, his holi- ness, as was right, expended on the premises. Alexander the Sixth, in the common opinion, surpassed all his predecessors in atrocity. This monster, whom humanity disowns, seems to have excelled all his rivals in the arena of villainy, and outstripped every competitor on the stadium of mis- creancy. Sannazarius compared Alexander to Nero, Caligula, and Heliogabalus : and Pope, in his celebrated Essay on Man, likened Borgia, which was the family name, to Cataline. This pontiff, according to cotemporary historians, was actuated, to measureless excess, with vanity, ambition, cruelty, covetousnoss, rapacity, and sensuality, and void of all faith, honour, sincerity, truth, fidelity, decency, religion, shame, modesty, and compunc- tion. 'His debauchery, perfidy, ambition, malice, inhumanity, and irreligion,' says Daniel, ' made him the execration of all Europe.' Rome, under his administration and by his example, became the sink of filthiness, the head-quarters of atrocity, and the hot-bed of prostitution, murder, and robbery. 3 Hypocrisy formed one trait in his early character. His youth, indeed, evinced to men of discernment symptoms of baseness and degeneracy. But he possessed, in a high degree, 1 Bayle, 2598. Bruy. 4. 241. Moreii, 8. 304. 2 Agrippa, c. LXIV. Bruy. 4. 260. Bayle, 3. 2602. 3 Sannazarius ilium cum Caligulis confert, cum Neronibus et Heliogabalis. Sann. II. Montfaucon, Monum. 4. 85. Les debordemens publics, les perfidies, 1'ambition demesuree, 1'avarice insatia- ble, la cruaute, 1'irreligion en avoient fait l'ob}et de 1'execration de toute 1'Europe, Daniel,?. 84. Mulieribus maxime addictus. Nee noctu tutum per urbem itfir, nee interdiu ex tra urbem. Roma jam carnificia facta erat. Alex. 23. 113. 118 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I the art of concealment from common observation. His dissimu- lation appeared, in a particular manner, on his appointment to the cardinalship. He walked with downcast eyes, affected devotion and humility, and preached repentance and sanctity. He imposed, by these arts, on the populace, who compared him to Job, Moses, and Solomon. But depravity lurked under this specious display ; and broke out, in secret, in sensuality, and incest. He formed an illicit connexion with a widow who resided at Rome, and with her two daughters. His passions, irregular and brutal, could find gratification only in enormity. His licentiousness, after the widow's death, drove him to the incestuous enjoyment of her daughter, the notorious and infamous Vannoza. She became his mistress after her mother's decease. His holiness, in the pursuit of variety and the perpetration of atrocity, afterward formed a criminal connexion with his own daughter, the witty, the learned, the gay, and the abandoned Lucretia. She was mistress to her own father and brother. Pontanus, in con- sequence, represented Lucretia as Alexander's daughter, wife, and daughter-in-law. 1 Peter's palace, in this manner, became a scene of debauchery and abomination. Simony and assassination were as prominent in Alexander's character as incest and debauchery, fie purchased the papacy, and afterward, for remuneration and to glut his rapacity, he sold its offices and preferments. He first bought, it has been said, and then sold, the keys, the altar, and the Saviour. He murdered the majority of the cardinals who raised him to the popedom, and seized their estates. He had a family of spurious sons and daughters, and for the aggrandizement of these chil- dren of illegitimacy, he exposed to sale all things sacred and profane, and violated and outraged all the laws of God and man. 2 His death was the consequence of an attempt to poison the rich cardinals for the sake of their possessions. Alexander and Borgia, father and son, actuated with this design, invited the Sacred College to a sumptuous banquet, near the fountain in the delightful garden of Belvidere. Poisoned wine was pre- pared for the unsuspecting guests. But the poisoned cup was, by mistake, handed to the father and son, who drunk without knowing their danger. Borgia's constitution, for a time, over- came the virulence of the poison. But Alexander soon died oy the stratagem he had prepared for the murder of his friends 8 1 Alexandri filia, nupta, nurus. Pontanus in Bruy. 4. 280. Moreri, 1. 270. 3 Labb. 19. 523. Mont. Monum. 4. 84. PROFLIGATE CONDUCT OF ALEXANDER THE SIXTH. 119 Julius the Second succeeded Alexander in the papacy and m iniquity. His holiness was guilty of simony, chicanery, per- jury, thievery, empoisonment, assassination, drunkenness, im- pudicity, and sodomy. He bribed the cardinals to raise him to the popedom ; and employed, on the occasion, all kinds of falsehood and trickery. He swore to convoke a general council, and violated his oath. 1 His infallibility's drunkenness was proverbial. He was 1 mighty to drink wine.' He practised incontinency as well as inebriation, and the effects of this crime shattered his consti- tution. One of his historians represents his holiness as ah 1 corroded with the disease which, in the judgment of God, often attends this kind of filthiness. The atrocity for which Sodom was consumed with fire from heaven is also reckoned among his deeds of pollution and excess. 2 His ingratitude and enmity to the French nation formed one dark feature in his character. The French king protected him against Alexander who sought his ruin. The French nation was his asylum in the time of danger and in the day of distress. This friendship he afterwards repaid with detestation, because Lewis patronized the convocation of a general council. Julius offered rewards to any person who would kill a Frenchman. One of these rewards was of an extraordinary, or rather among the popes of an ordinary kind. He granted a pardon of all sins to any person who would murder only an individual of the French nation. The vicegerent of heaven conferred the for- giveness of all sin, as a compensation for perpetrating the shocking crime of assassination. 3 Leo the Tenth, in 1513, succeeded Julius in the popedom and in enormity. This pontiff has been accused of atheism, and of calling the Gospel, in the presence of cardinal Bembo, a fable. Mirandula, who mentions a pope that denied God, is, by some, supposed to have referred to Leo. His holiness, says Jovius, was reckoned guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains. These reports, however, are uncertain. But Leo, beyond all question, was addicted to pleasure, luxury, idleness, ambition, unchastity, and sensuality beyond all bounds of decency ; and spent whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons. 4 Seventeen of the Roman pontiffs were perjurers. These were Felix, Formosus, John, Gregory, Pascal, Clement, John, 1 Alex. 23. 118. Bruy. 4. 371. Caranza, 602. - Tout ronge de verole. Bruy. 4. 371. Zuing. 140. Duobus nobilisimi generis adolescentibus stuprum intulerit. Wolf. 2. 21. 3 Hotman, 110. 4 Non cai-uit etiam infamia, quod parum honeste nonnullos e cubiculariis ada- mare. Jov. 192. Bruy. 4. 417. Guiccia. XIV. 120 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY . Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Benedict, John, Eugenius, Paul, Innocent, Julius, and Paul. Felix and the rest of the Roman clergy swore to acknowledge no other pontiff' during the life of Liberius, whom the emperor had banished. The clergy, not- withstanding, immediately after, while Liberius survived, elected Felix to that dignity, which, without hesitation, he accepted. 1 A perjured Roman bishop then presided among the perjured Roman clergy. Formosus was deposed and excommunicated by Pope John, who made him swear never again to enter his bishopric or the Roman city. Pope Martin, in the way of his profession, and with great facility, dissolved the oath and restored Formosus to his dignity. The obligation having, in this manner, undergone a chymical analysis in the pontifical laboratory, Formosus re- turned with a good conscience and with great propriety to his episcopal seat, and, in the end, to the Roman See. 2 John the Twelfth, in 957, swore fealty to Otho on the body of Peter. This solemn obligation, his holiness afterward violated and revolted to Adalbert the Emperor's enemy. 8 Gregory the Seventh took an oath, inconsistent with the acceptance of the Pontifical dignity with which he was afterward vested. The council of Worms, in consequence, in 1076, declared his holi- ness guilty of perjury. Gregory, besides, made Rodolph of Germany break the oath of fidelity which he had taken to the Emperor Henry. 4 Pascal the Second, in 1111, granted to Henry an oath, the right of investiture, and promised never to excommunicate the Emperor. Pascal, afterward in a synod of the Lateran, excom- municated Henry. His holiness excused his conduct and pacified his conscience by an extraordinary specimen of casuistry. I forswore, said his infallibility, the excommunica- tion of his majesty by myself, but not by a council. Bravo! Pope Pascal. Clement the Fifth, in 1307, engaged on oath to Philip the Fair, to condemn the memory and burn the bones of Boniface the Eighth. This obligation, his holiness violated. John the Twenty-second, in 1316, swore to Cardinal Napoleon, to mount neither horse nor mule tih 1 he had established the holy See at Rome. His holiness, however, established his apostolic court, not at Rome, but at Avignon. He satisfied his conscience by sailing instead of riding, and substituted a 1 Clerici juraverunt quod nullum alium susceperunt. Plurimi perjuraverunt, Crabb. 1. 347. Du Pin, 1. 190. Prosper, 292. * Alex. 15. 88. Bruy. 1. 187. Luitp. VI. 6. 3 II oublia bientot le serment de fidelit6. Bruy. 2. 242. Joannes Pontifex, immemor juramenti prsestiti, Adelberto se conjunxit. Labb. 11. 872. Du Pin, 2. 214. Labb. 12. 616. Giannon, X. f 121 ship for a land conveyance. John's casuistry was nearly as good as Pascal's. 1 Boniface, Innocent, Gregory, Benedict, and John engaged on oath to resign the Papacy ; but, on being required to fulfil the obligation, these viceroys of heaven refused. The oaths, on the occasion, were of the most solemn kind. Innocent swore on the holy Evangelists ; and Gregory, in the name of God, Lady Mary, the Apostles, and all the celestial court. Benedict swore on the gospels and the wood of the cross. The oaths were attended with dreadful imprecations. The attempt of these vice-gods to evade the accomplishment of their engagements, presents a scene of equivocation and chicanery, which is un- equalled perhaps in the annals of the world. Benedict, said the Parisian University, endeavoured to escape by a forced in- terpretation, contrary to the intention of the obligation. Gregory and Benedict, says Giannone, swore and then shuffled about the performance, and, according to Alexander, resolved to re- tain their dignity contrary to the sanctity of a solemn oath. Gregory and Benedict, howerer, on this occasion, discovered some candor. Gregory, said the council of Pisa, contrary to his obligation, declared publicly and frequently, that the way of cession was unjust and diabolical, and, in this, he agreed with Benedict. Gregory, Benedict, and John were, in the councils of Pisa and Constance, condemned for perjury. 2 Eugenius the Fourth, in 1439, was condemned in the council of Basil for perjury. Paul the Second, as well as Innocent the Eighth, bound himself by oath, to certain regulations, and afterwards disregarded his engagement. Julius the Second took an oath on the gospels, binding himself to call a general council ; but afterward deterred the fulfilment of the treaty. The breach of his obligation occasioned the convocation of the second council of Pisa. Paul the Fourth, in 1556, before the seventh month of his Papacy, created seven cardinals, though he had sworn in the conclave before his election, to add only four to the sacred college for two years after his accession, Seventeen popes, it appears, at the least, were foresworn. 3 The 1 Bruy. 2. 580. et 3. 360, 390. Du Pin, 2. 281. 8 Dixit Gregorius publice et frequenter, quod via cessionis erat mala, injusta, et diabolica, contra juramenta, congruens in his cum Benedicto. Labb. 15. 1202. Du Pin, 3. 16. Juramentis per Joannem Papam super hoc factis deviativum. Labb. 16. 142. Contra eorum juramenta et vota. Labb. 15. 1131. Giannon, XXIV. 6. Bruy. 3. 600. Platina, 246. In dignitate retinenda, contra juramenti solemnis religionem. Alex. 24. 441. Continuata perjuriorum serie, non magis postrema quam priora ejus promissa gervavit. Labb. 15. 1331. 3 Synodo, juramentum violatum occasionem dedit. Alexander, 33. 118. Juleg oublia bientot ses sermens. Mariana, 5. 718. Boss. 3. 81. Carranza, 602. Paolo, . 27 Bruy. 4. 223, 619. Choisi, 8. 275. 122 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! church, therefore, had seventeen perjured heads, and God ; seventeen perjured vicars-general. These heretical and abandoned pontiffs, according to many eminent partizans of Romanism, were not true heads of the church or vicars of Jesus. This was the opinion of Jacobatius, Leo, Mirandula, Baronius, Du Pin, Giannone and Geoffry. Jacobatius declares * the election of a heretic for a pope to be null.' 1 Pope Leo the Great, writing to Julian, excludes all who deny the faith from the pale of the church. These, says the Roman hierarch, as ' they reject the doctrines of the gospel, are no members of the ecclesiastical body.' The partizan of heresy, therefore, unfit, according to Leo, for being a member, is much more incapable of being the head. Mirandula men- tions one Roman pontiff who, in the excess of infidelity, disbe- lieved the immortality of the soul ; and another, who, excelling in absurdity, denied the existence of God. These, the noble author maintains, c could be no popes.' The ruffians who were raised to the Papacy by Theodora and Marozia, Baronius de- clares, ' were no popes, but monsters ;' and the church, on these occasions, was, according to the Cardinal, ' without any earthly head.' Boniface the Seventh, who, says Baronius, ' was a thief, a miscreant, and a murderer, is to be ranked, not among the popes, but among the notorious robbers of the age.' Du Pin and Giannone, the popish Sorbonnist and Civilian, quote and approve the sentence of Baronius the Roman Cardinal. The pope, says Geoffry, ' if he depart from the faith, is no pastor.' 2 The spiritual reign of these sovereign ruffians must have created several interruptions in the popedom, and de- stroyed many necessary links in the boasted chain of* the pontifical succession. The concatenated series of the Roman hierarchs, therefore, with the unbroken continuity of the sacerdotal authority, is, in the admission even of Romish doc- tors, a celebrated nonentity. 1 Papa haereticus, tanquam separatus ab ecclesia, non est papa, et electio de eo facta erit nulla. Jacob. III. p. 107. 2 Bell. II. 30. Canug, IV. 2. Bin. 3. 7. Miran. th. 4. Turrecrema, IV. 20. Bpon. 900. I. et 985. II. Du Pin, 2. 156. Giannon, VII. 6. Baronius ecrit, qu'alors Rome etoit sans Pape. On ne voyoit alors plus de Pape, mais des monstrea. Giannon, VII. 5. Si osorbitaverit a fide, jam non est pastor. Geof. Bp. 194. Apol. 385. CHAPTER III. COUNCILS. THREE SYSTEMS ITALIAN SYSTEM RECKONS THE GENERAL COUNCILS AT EIGHTEEN TEMPORARY REJECTION OF THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SEVENTH, AND TWELFTH GENERAL COUNCILS CISALPINE OR FRENCH SCHOOL REJECTS THE COUNCILS OF LYONS, FLORENCE, LATERAN, AND TRENT ADOPTS THOSE OF PISA, CONSTANCE, BASIL, AND THE SECOND OF PISA SYSTEM OF A THIRD PARTY UNIVERSALITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS ITS CONDITIONS LEGALITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS ITS CONDITIONS CONVOCATION, PRESIDENCY, AND CONFIRMATION MEMBERS UNANIMITY FREEDOM. THE general councils in, ecclesiastical history are as uncertain as the Roman pontiffs. The succession of the popes and the enumeration of the synods are attended with similar difficulty, and have occasioned similar diversity of opinion. Gibert ad mits ' the uncertainty of the western oecumenical councils/ Moreri grants ' the disagreement of authors in their enumeration. One reckons more and another less ; whilst some account these universal and approved, which others regard as provincial, na- tional, or condemned.' 1 A full detail of popish variety indeed would, on this topic, fill folios. This, however, is unnecessary. A statement of each individual's peculiar notions, on this, or indeed on any other subject, would be tedious and useless. The opinions entertained on this question, not merely by a few persons, but by an influential party, are worthy of observation ; and these only, in the following pages, shall be detailed. Three jarring and numerous factions have, on the subject of general councils, divided and agitated the Romish communion. One party reckons the general councils at eighteen. A second faction counts the same number, but adopts different councils. These reject the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent ; and adopt, in their stead, those of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and the second of Pisa. A third division omits the 1 Numerus Conciliorum Generalium, in Occidents habitorum, est incertus. Gibert, 1. 76. Tous lea auteurs ne conviennent pas du nombre des conciles gen6- raux ; leg uns en comptent plus, les autres moins. Les uns en reconnoissept de generaux approuvez, quo les autres regardent ou comme non generaux, ou comma uon approuvez. M->reri, 3. 539. 124 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. whole or a part of the councils which intervened between the eighth and sixteenth of these general conventions The whole of these are omitted by Clement, Abrahamus, and Pole, and a part by Sixtus, Carranza, Silvius, and the council of Constance. One party in the popish communion reckons the general councils at eighteen. Of these, five met respectively at Ephesus, Chalcedon, Vienna, Florence, and Trent ; two convened at Nicaea, two at Lyons, four at Constantinople, and five at the Lateran. The patrons of this enumeration are, in general, the Italian faction, headed by the pope, and maintaining his temporal as well as his spiritual authority. Baronius and Bellarmine in particular, have patronized this scheme with learning and ability, but with a total disregard of all honour and honesty. Bellarmine, besides the eighteen which are approved, reckons eight general councils which are reprobated, and six which are partly admitted and partly rejected. One, which is the Pisan strange to tell is neither adopted nor proscribed. Bellarmine's distinctions and decisions indeed are badly calculated to establish the authority of councils. His hair-breadth distinctions and arbitrary decisions, on the contrary, tend only to overthrow all confidence in his determinations and in universal councils. 1 All the eighteen, however, were not accounted valid or unerring on their first publication. Six, marked now with the seal of approbation and infallibility, were, for a long series of time, in whole or in part, rejected by a part or by the whole of Christendom. These are the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and twelfth general councils. The canons of the second, according to Alexander and Thomassin, were not re- ceived by the Latins till the Lateran council in 1215, a period of 834 years after their promulgation. Its faith indeed, in opposition to Macedonianism, corresponded with that of the westerns, and was, in consequence, admitted by Damasus, Gelasius, and Gregory. Its creed, however, was recognized only on the authority of divine revelation and ancient faith. Leo rejected its canons. Simplicius and Felix, enumerating the councils which they acknowledged, mention only those of* Nicasa, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Gregory the Great declared that the Roman church possessed neither the acts nor canons of the Byzantine assembly, though his infallibility, in glorious inconsistency, elsewhere affirmed that he esteemed the four oecumenical councils of Nicaaa, Ephesus, Constantinople, and Chalcedon as the four gospels. 2 i Bellar. I. 57. 8 Alex. 7. 235. 9. 155. Thorn. 2. 15. Pithou, 29. Crabb.I. 991. Godeau. 4 498. Moreri, 3, 592. IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 125 The Eph.esian synod was anathematized, and, lor seveial years, rejected by the orientals. Its universality, during its celebration, consisted in a few Asians and Egyptians. These being assembled, the sainted Cyril, who presided, and who, actuated by prejudice and temerity, precipitated the first ses- sion, condemned Nestorius, before the arrival of the westerns or orientals, and contrary to all justice or even decency. Sixty- eight bishops, and Count Candidian, who represented the emperor, protested against Cyril's conduct, and absented them- selves from his cabal. The remainder, reduced to 160, con- stituted a hopeful universality, a dashing general council, and a blessed representation of the church. Candidian, who wielded the civil and military authority, reasoned when he should have punished the sainted ruffian and his lawless myr- midons. Cyril's faction, however, contemptible as it was, in the course of one day, tried, and deposed Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople. 1 John, patriarch of Antioch, celebrated for his wisdom and piety, arrived five days after the condemnation of Nestorius, accompanied by twenty-six suffragans. His arrival was fol- lowed by one of the most distinguished cursing-matches of antiquity. The sacred bishops, on occasions of this kind, had immediate recourse to cursing, which uniformly gave ease to their conscience and vent to their zeal. The holy men, for comfort, displayed their devotion in a litany of execrations. Their ardent piety and benevolence, struggling for utterance, burst in ebullitions of anathemas. Cyril and Nestorius, prior to the meeting of the council, had, in the spirit of their MASTER, exchanged mutual imprecations. The saint, in an Alexandrian synod, in 430, had launched twelve anathemas at the heretic ; and the heretic, inclined to make some return, thanked the saint in kind, and with a corresponding number of these inverted blessings. John and Cyril, now at Ephesus, engaged in similar warfare. John and his partizans, amounting to fifty, posted at the Ephesian inn, and informed by Caiididian of the transactions of the adverse party, congratulated Cyril, Memnon, and their accomplices with deposition and excommunication. Nestorius, says Godeau, * instead of recognizing the hand of God in the thunderbolts of the council, continued, with redoubled fury to rebel against the divine majesty.' This honour Cyril and his faction, entrenched in Mary's church, repaid with cordiality and devotion. 2 The spiritual artillery continued, for some time, to 1 Socrat. VII. 34. Evag. I. 3. 4. Liberatus, c. IV. Spon. 430. V. Crabb 1 634. Godeaii. 3. 292, 302, 308. Labb. 3. 946, 971. Crabb. 1. 534, Godeau, 3. 301. Libera. c. VI. 126 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I fulminate mutual anathemas ; and these reciprocal benedictions were the only tokens of esteem which the sacred synods, in their mutual salutations, condescended to interchange. The Greeks called the second Ephesian council a gang of felons, and the designation would, with equal propriety, have characterized the former assembly, which, if possible, excelled its successor in all the arts of villany. The character of Cyril and the council have been portrayed, in strong colours, by the orientals, Candidian, Isidorus, and Gennadius. The orientals called Cyril's decision tyranny and heretical perfidy. Can- didian represented the Ephesian transactions as contrary to all order and regularity. Isidorus accused Cyril of rashness, and the Ephesians of seeking revenge instead of promoting truth or piety. Gennadius declared Cyril guilty of blasphemy; while Dionysius, who wrote in 527, and whose collection had the greatest authority in the west, entirely omits the Ephesian council. 1 The contest was, at last, determined by the emperor. The faith, which, with animosity but without decision, had been debated by the ecclesiastical body, was, at length, adjusted by the civil authority. The unity of the mediator's person was, properly speaking, established, not by the church but by the state. The appeal was, not to the Pope, but to the emperor ; and the synodal decision was reviewed, not by Celestin but by Theodosius. The sovereign and his courtiers, after a protracted and varying negociation, reinstated Cyril and banished Nesto- rius. The orientals, however, persevered for several years in opposition. But the oriental diocese, in the end, was reduced to submission, and the church to unity ; not indeed by ecclesi- astical authority, but by imperial power. 2 The Latins proscribed the twenty-eighth canon of the Chal- cedonian council, which conferred the same honour on the Byzantine patriarch as on the Roman pontiff. Leo and after him Simplicius opposed it with nil their might, but without any success, and confirmed only the faith of the council. Its authority, in consequence, has been rejected by the Latins : though Pelagius, Gregory, Pascal, and Boniface acknowledged the first four councils. 8 The second Byzantine or fifth general council,under Justinian, was, for some time, rejected by Pope Vigilius, by the Africans, 1 Crabb. 1. 552. Bruy. 1. 214. Du Pin, 1. 645. Isid. 1. 310. Da Pin, 1. 407 424. Facun. II. 4. Giann. III. 6. a Evag. I. 5. Libera. c. VI. Labo. 3. 574. Godeau, 3.310. 3 Nullum unquam potuerunt nostrum obtinere consensual. Leo, Ep. 53. Li berate, c. XIII. Sine consensu Papae et legatorum &jus. Canisius, 4, 69. Carranxa, 267. Pithou 14. IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 127 and by many in Illyria, Italy, Liguria, Tuscany, Istria, France, Spain, and Ireland. The emperor convened this congress against the three chapters, a momentous subject, composed by Theodoret, Ibas, and Theodoras. Vigilius, with sixteen bishops and three deacons from Italy, Africa, and the east, was in Con- stantinople during the several sessions of the council, and though invited, refused to attend. But the synod, notwith- standing, proceeded in its task. His infallibility, supported by his partizans, opposed the emperor and council, but in vain, with all his pontifical power and authority. He formed his bishops and deacons into a separate synod, issued a constitution defending, though in qualified terms, the three chapters and their authors, and interdicting by the authority of the holy, apostolic see, all further discussion on the subject. The coun- cil, in reply, pronounced anathemas against the persons and defenders of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus. His holiness, therefore, being a partizan of these authors, who were con- demned by the council, was anathematized for abetting heresy. Vigilius refused to sanction the decision of the synod, and Jus- tinian, without any ceremony, banished his holiness. The pontiff's expatriation brightened his understanding, and enabled him to see the subject in a new point of view. His infallibility, through the happy effect of exile in illuminating his intellect, felt it his duty to approve what he had formerly condemned. 1 Heresy, by the magic touch of imperial power, was, by a speedy transformation, converted into Catholicism, and error, by the same process, transubstantiated into orthodoxy. The Italians, Tuscans, Ligurians, Istrians, French, Spanish, Illyrians, and Africans, who had the effrontery to gainsay the will of the emperor, were, like the vicar-general of God, con- verted by the sword of Justinian. Reparatus the Carthaginian bishop was dismissed, and Primasius, by imperial authority, was substituted, and the Africans, in general, submitted. The Italian clergy who opposed, were banished. The French yielded to the storm. But the Ligurians, and Istrians, who were under the dominion of the Lombards, and, in consequence, feared no persecution from the emperor, avowed a bolder and more protracted opposition. The schism, from its commence ment till the end, lasted near a century. 2 The seventh general council, which assembled at Nicaea, in favour of image-worship, was disclaimed for more than a cen- tury. Irene's son Constantine, in the east, on obtaining a shadow of power, proceeded, saysPlatina, to repeal the synodal 1 Alex. 12. 81, Maimb. 42. Crabb, 2. 91. Godeau, 4 159, 446. Bmy. 1. 343. 128 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY . and imperial laws which countenanced emblematic worship Leo, Michael, and Theophilus followed Constantine's example, with determined resolution and signal effect. Two councils, one in 814 and the other in 821, decided against the Nicene assembly. The Nicene acts remained in a state of proscription among the Greeks, till the final establishment of idolatry by the Empress Theodora. 1 The Nicene decisions were disclaimed by the western emperor and the Latin church. The Caroline books, with the Parisian and Frankfortian councils, showed the minds of the Latins in unequivocal terms. The council of Frankfort exhibited a repre- sentation of the western clergy from England, Italy, France, and Germany ; and amounted in all to three hundred. Ac- cording to Alexander, 'the French did not, in former times, reckon the second Nicene among the general councils.' The Frankfortians, say Aventin, Hincmar, and Regina, rescinded the decisions of the false Grecian Synod in favour of image- worship. Ivo and Aimon also proscribed this convention. Nicholas and Adrian, who lived, the one seventy-five and the other eighty years after the Nicene assembly, reckon only six general councils. 2 The Nicene congress, therefore, was ex- cluded by these pontiffs. The cabal of Nicaea, for it deserves no better name, was, in this manner, accounted, for a series of years, a mere Grecian synod and of no general authority. But its merits, it seems, grew with its age, and, in process of time, the patrons of Romanism and idolatry began to invest the con- temptible junto with the attributes of universality, holiness, and infallibility. The canons of the twelfth general council, which met at the Lateran palace in 1215, lay, for 322 years, neglected and un- known. This celebrated ecclesiastical congress has, in latter days, occasioned a wonderful diversity of opinion. The councils of Oxford, Constance, and Trent maintained its uni- versality and authority. Bellarmine supported its ecumenicity, accounted its rejection a heresy, and called Barclay, who re- flected on its third canon, a pagan and a publican. Perron, Possevin, and Alexander entertained a high opinion of it. But this flattering picture is reversed by Paris, Nauclerus, Platina, Godefrid, Antony, Severin, Du Pin, and Barclay. The Platin. 107. Crabb. 2. 457. Bin. 6. 232. Theod. Ep. XV. 9 Nicaena Secunda Synodus olim a Gallis inter oecumenicos non fuit. Alex. 25. 630. In Frankfordiensi concilio scita Graecorum de adorandis imaginibus rescissa Bimt. Aven. 337. Pseudo-synodus Graecorum destructa est. Hincm. c. XX. Mabillon, 2. 495. Pithou, 18. Omnium sanctorum atque venerandorum sex con- ciliomm autoritate. Labb. 9. 1309. Nihil audemus praodicare, quod possit Nicaeno concilio, et quinque caeteronim conciliorum regulis obviare. Adrian, II in Du Pin, 395. IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. council, according to these historians and critics, did nothing ; and ended in laughter and mockery. Its canons, in all their worth or worthlessness, rested, for more than three centuries, in a state of dormancy, unknown to pontiff, cardinal, bishop, critic, or historian ; and Christendom certainly would have been at no loss, had they slept till eternity. The canons, such as they are, were not, as might have been expected, printed at last from a manuscript in the Vatican or from the Pope's own library ; but extracted, in the year 1537 by Cochlaeus, a Lu- theran, from a German library, and transmitted to Colonia for insertion in Crabb's collection of the councils, though they are not mentioned in Merlin's edition of 1535. 1 The document, in this manner, lay concealed for ages ; and Christendom was de- frauded of its -precious instruction till after the reformation, when its dazzling truths, through the research of a Protestant theologian, burst, in all their splendour and infallibility, on an admiring and enlightened world. The inquisition, in particular, must have felt a great want of its third canon, which teaches the most approved and efficient means of persecution and ex- tirpation of heresy ; though, to do the inquisitors justice, they could rack the suspected in the secret cell, and burn the heretical at a public act of faith, in a Christian spirit and with an edifying effect, without the direction of the infallible Lateran council. Such is the scheme of the Italian faction and their partizans on general councils, and such the diversity of opinion on this subject. A second party rejects the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent. These, in general, are the French school, who disclaim pontifical infallibility and deposi- tion of kings. The French reject the council of Lyons, which is the thirteenth in the plan of the Italian school. The patrons of pontifical despotism and regal deposition extol this assembly to the sky. Their opponents, on the contrary, load it with ridicule and contempt. Paris, Albert, Trithemius, Platina, and Palmerius deny its universality ; and the same idea was entertained by Launoy, Du Pin, and Widrington. Nicolin, Silvius, Sixtus, and Carranza, in their collections, have omitted it as unworthy of general or public attention. Onuphrius, says Du Pin, ' seems to have been the first who invested this assem- bly with universality.' 2 1 Alex. 21. 500, 595. Platina, in Inn. III. Du Pin, 572. Walsh, 65, Pan*, 262. Doyle, 503. Launoy, ad Raym. Platin. in Inn. IV. Giannon, XVII. 3. Du Pin. 551 Caron, 82. 9 J 30 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : The French also reject the Florentine council, which they call a conventicle, neither general nor lawful. Such have been the representations of Alexander, Du Pin, and Moreri. 1 The French and Italians differed on this subject in the council of Trent. The Italians asserted its universality ; while the French refused this title to an assembly, which, they said, was cele- brated by a few Italians and four Grecians. The Florentians raised the pontiff above a council, and, in consequence, offended the Gallicans, who place the supremacy in an universal and lawful synod. The assembly of Florence, besides, was contem- porary with that of Basil, which, in the French account, was general ; and two general councils, it is plain, could not coexist in Christendom. The fifth council of the Lateran, in 1512, under Julius and Leo, is, in a particular manner, obnoxious to the French nation. Its authority was opposed by the French king, clergy, and par- liament. The French, according to Gibert and Moreri, never accounted the Lateran assembly general. Lewis the Twelfth, indeed, who had patronized the synod of Pisa in opposition to that of the Lateran, submitted, in 1513, to the latter convention , which, in accordance with his majesty's will, annulled the pragmatic sanction and substituted the concordat. But the French people continued determined and steady. The parlia- ment, indeed, were compelled to register the concordat ; but with reiterated protestations that they acted by the express command of the monarch, and neither authorised nor approved its publication. The Parisian university, in particular, distin- guished for its learning and independence, opposed Lewis, Leo, the council, and the concordat. This faculty took sufficient liberty with the pontiff and his convention, accused him of acting for the destruction of Catholicism, the divine laws, and the sacred canons ; and boldly appealed from the papal and synodal enactments to a wiser pope, and to a free and lawful council. The appeal, in 1517, was printed and posted in the cross ways and in the most public places of the city. The French king, also, in 1612, abandoned the council of the Lateran, which the French, in the most decided manner, con- tinued to disclaim. 2 The Council of Trent was not only rejected in France, but also in Spain, Flanders, Naples, part of Ireland, and really though not formally in Germany. Its doctrinal decisions, 1 Florentimim nee legitimum, nee generale, agnoscitur. Alex. 25, 415. Floren- timun, nee oecumenicura nee generate, rejicitur. Du Pin, 421. On n'y met point a:i rang des conciles generaux, le cinquieme concile de Latran nicelai de Florence Moreri. 3. i>39. Daniel, 6. J 53. Paolo, VII. * Gibert, 1. 106. Moreri, 3. 558. Du Pin, 430. Bruy 4. 400. IN THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 131 indeed, embodied the prior faith of these kingdoms , and, therefore, was not opposed. The theology, however, inculcated at Trent, was recognized, not on the authority of that assembly, but on the authority of antiquity and former reception. The council was utterly exploded by the French, on account of its canons of discipline and reformation. The French, says Peta- vius and Moreri, respected the faith of this assembly, but disclaimed its discipline. The cardinal of Lorraine, who attended at Trent, was, on his return, reprehended by the king, clergy, and the parliament, for consenting to many things pre- judicial to the French nation. The discord and intrigues of the Trentine theologians became the subject of jest, satire, ridicule, and merriment. The prelatical convention of Trent, it was said, in proverbial but profane wit, excelled the apostolic council of Jerusalem. The ancient assembly required the aid of the Holy Ghost ; while the modern synod was independent of such assistance, and could determine by human wisdom and arbitrary dictation. 1 Its publication was opposed by many persons and arguments. The Parisian parliament notified twenty-three of its reforming and disciplinarian canons, which became the topic of public animadversion ; and which, it was alleged, were repugnant to the regal authority, the common law, and the public good. The canons, it was maintained, which countenanced the excom- munication and deposition of kings, the ecclesiastical punishment of laymen by fine and imprisonment, and the superiority of the pope above a general council, tended to extend the spiritual authority of the church, and to diminish the civil power of the state. Many attempts were made to effect its reception in the French dominions, but in vain. The Roman hierarchs directed all their energy to this end ; and engaged, on one occasion, the interest of the emperor of Germany, the king of Spain, and the duke of Savoy. The Parisian faculty, also, in those days of its degeneracy, used their influence in favour of the Roman court. The united influence of the pope, the emperor, the king, the duke, and the Sorbonne, in 1614, procured the con- sent of the French nobility and clergy, but the project was frustrated by the firmness of the Commons. The French nation, in consequence, to the present day, disclaim the authority of the general, infallible, holy, Roman council of Trent. 2 The council of Trent underwent similar treatment in the kingdom of Spain. Philip, indeed, the king of the Spanish 1 Canones in Gallia de dogmate venerantur, de disciplina vero respuuntur, Petavius, 2. 249. Le concile de Trente n'y est point recu pour la discipline Moreri, 3. 539. Paolo, 2. 685. Gibert, 1. 148. 2 Paolo, 2. 693. Thuan. CV. 21. Dan. 9. 321. 9* 132 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : nation, displayed, on the occasion, a splendid specimen of policy. The Spanish monarch wished to gratify the Roman pontiff, and, at the same time, reject the Trentine council. The sovereign, therefore, made a show of publishing it, and never- theless found means of security against its obnoxious canons of discipline and of reformation. These he was determined to repel, but with wary circumspection. He convened the Spanish clergy in 1564, in the synods of Salamanca, Toledo, Saragossa, Seville, and Valentia ; and sent deputies to preside in these conventions. AU, in consequence, was carried, in these synods, according to the dictation of the king's council. The result was, that in Spain, the land of Catholicism, whose, sovereigns were the most obsequious servants of the Roman pontiff, the universal, holy, Roman synod was acknowledged only so far as was consistent with the prerogatives of the king, the privileges of the people, and the laws of the nation. 1 Similar decisions were enacted in the Netherlands. Margaret, duchess of Parma, was, at this time, governess of these provinces. She consulted the magistracy, clergy, and royal council, who represented the Trentine canons of reformation as unfriendly to the privileges and usages of the Belgian dominions. These counsellors also feared popular commotions, if the council were published without any restriction. Its publication, therefore, was accompanied with a declaration, that its reception would be aUowed to effect no innovation in the laws and customs of the provinces. The duke of Alba, the Neapolitan viceroy in 1594, published the council in the Neapolitan dominions of Spain, with similar provisions against ah 1 innovation. 2 The Trentine discipline is also excluded from part of Ireland. Its faith, says Doyle, in his parliamentary evidence, is admitted through the whole island, but not its discipline. Its canons on matrimony, for example, have obtained only a partial reception. The provincial bishops assembled for the purpose of delibera- ting whether the Trentine discipline would be useful. Those who concluded in favour of its utility published a declaration to that effect in each chapel ; and the annunciation gave it validity in the bounds of their jurisdiction. Those who decided against its utility, omitted its publication ; and the Trentine canons, were excluded from the limits of their ecclesiastical authority. 3 The holy council, in this manner, was subjected to a Eartial exclusion even from the Island of Saints. The Emerald sle itself enjoys only in part the sacred canons, which the Irish prelacy, in some provinces, accounted and declared useless. 1 Giannon, XXXIII. 3. Paolo, 2. 685. Slevin, 226. * Van Espen, c. II. Giannon, xxxiii. 3. Paolo, 2, 686. Gibert, 1. 146. Doyle, 385 RECEPTION OP THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 133 The friends of the reformation in Germany detested the faith of Trent, and the friends of Romanism disliked its discipline. The Emperor, indeed, allowed it a formal reception in his do- minions. But the admission, clogged as it was with many restrictions, was rather nominal than real. Its recognition was by no means uniform; and those who acknowledged its authority interpreted its canons as they pleased. 1 The French, in this manner, dismissing the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent, adopt those of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and the second of Pisa. The French, says Moreri, ' recognize, as general, the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil.' 2 The Pisan assembly in 1409 has occasioned a variety of opinions. Some have denied its universality. Its name is not found among the eighteen approved by the Italians ; and its authority has been rejected by Cajetan, Antoninus, Sanderus, and Raynald. Antoninus endeavours to throw contempt on this assembly by calling it an unlawful conventicle. The statement of Petavius, respecting this congress is amusing. The Pisan assembly, says this author, was, as it were, a general council. 3 Bellarmine characterizes it as neither approved nor condemned. 4 This champion of Romanism and his partizans cannot decide, whether this equivocal convention should be stajnped with the seal of infallibility or marked with the signature of reprobation. Its decisions are consigned, according to this celebrated polemic and his minions, to float on the ocean of uncertainty, and to be treated with esteem or contempt at the suggestion of caprice or partiality. The unfortunate synod, which no person, in Bellar- mine's system, is either to own or disown, is left, like a peaceful and insulated state, without any alliance, either offensive or defensive, among belligerent powers, to defend its own frontiers or to maintain an armed neutrality. Bellarmine, however, had reasons for his moderation or indecision. The Pisans deposed Gregory and Benedict for heresy and schism, and elected Alex- ander, who has been recognized as the rightful pontiff and a necessary link in the unbroken chain of the pontifical succession. Bellarmine, had he approved the Pisan assembly, would, con- trary to his principles, have admitted the supremacy of a general council and its authority to degrade a Roman pontiff. Had the cardinal disapproved, he would have acknowledged the inva- lidity of Alexander's election, and dismissed God's vicar-general 1 Paolo, 2. 697. 3 En France, on reconnoit pour generaux, les Conciles de Constance, de Pise, et de Bale. Moreri, 3, 539. 3 Pisanum, tanquam Generale convocation cardinalibus. Pectavius, 2. 249. Cajetan c. XI. Antonius, c. V. Sanderus, VIII. * Generale nee approbatum, nee reprobatum. videtur esse Concilium Pisanum. Bell. I. 8. J54 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: from the seiies of the pontifical succession. The Jesuit, there* fore, like an honest man, had recourse to an expedient and left the Pisans to their liberty. The French, however, dissenting from Bellarminism, claim the Pisan assembly as their ally : and acknowledge its univer- sality and authority, which have been advocated by Du Pin, Moreri, Alexander, and other historians. These authors record its convocation from all Christendom, and confirmation by pope Alexander. 1 The universality of the Constantian council is maintained in the French school. A variety of conflicting opinions, indeed, has been entertained on the ecumenicity of this assembly. Bosius and Cotton would allow it neither a total or partial generality. Cardinal Cautarin excluded it from his compendium of councils, and pope Sixtus from his paintings and inscriptions in the Vatican. The Florentian and Lateran conventions reprobated its definition of the superiority of a council above a pope. Its authority is disregarded in Spain, Portugal, and the nations under their control. The Italians in the council of Trent, represented it as in part approved and in part con- demned ; and the Italian system on this subject has been adopted by Bellarmine, Canus, Cajetan, and Duviil. Baptista, in the Trentine assembly, extolled the Constantian, says Paolo, above all other councils. The French, in the same synod, declared it general in all its sessions from beginning to end ; and this declaration has been repeated by Lorrain, L annoy, Alex- ander, Moreri, Carranza, and Du Pin. The Constantian council, says Alexander, ' represented the universal church, arid among the French is accounted general in all its parts.' Pope Martin confirmed it, and, by his sanction, sealed it with infallibility. 2 The French school also recognized the Basilian council as general. The Basilians have met with much opposition and much support, with many enemies and many friends. Popes and councils, supported by many critics and theologians, such as Bellarmine", Turrecrema, Cajetan, Sanderus, Raynald, Bzovius, and Duval, declaimed with fury against its authority, and execrated its decisions. Eugenius the Fourth assailed it. with red hot anathemas, and cursed its assembled fathers, in colonel Bath's elegant style, with ' great dignity of expression and emphasis of judgment.' The sacred synod, though exe- crated, were loth to be in debt, and made a suitable return. The holy fathers declared his infallibility guilty of contumacy, ' Du Pin, 403. Moreri, 3. 539. Alex. 24, 551. 2 Apud Gallos, Constantiense Concilium, in omnibus suis partibus, oecumemcutt babetur. Alex 25. 415. Du Pin, 421. Bell. 1. 7. Paolo, VI. et VIT. RECEPTION OF THE COUNCILS OF PISA AND CONSTANCE. 135 pertinacity, rebellion, incorrigibility, disobedience, simuny, schism, heresy, desertion from the faith, violation of the canons, scandalization of the church, and unworthy of any title, rank, honour, or dignity. Leo the Tenth called this assembly, in contempt, a conventicle. Its name, says Paolo, was detested at Trent, as schismatical and destitute of universality and authority. 1 The council, nevertheless, execrated as it was by popes and councils, and exploded by divines, was confirmed by Nicholas the Fifth, and received through the extensive territory and numerous churches of France and Germany. The sanction of Nicholas, it seems, notwithstanding the course of cursing it endured from Eugenius, vested it with infallibility. The French contemplate it with peculiar esteem, and regard its rival of Florence as a conventicle. The Sorbonnists, such as Richerius, Du Pin, Launoy, and Alexander, have, with argument and eloquence, maintained its cecumenicity, and their approval has been repeated by Moreri and even Carranza. 2 The French also acknowledge the second of Pisa, in opposi- tion to the fifth of the Lateran. Julius the Second delighted in war, practised cruelty on the cardinals, excommunicated Lewis the French king, and absolved his subjects from the oath of fidelity. A few of the cardinals, in consequence, separated from the pontiff; and, patronized by Maximilian, the German emperor, and Lewis, the French monarch, summoned a council, in 1511, at Pisa. Julius, in opposition, opened a council, in 1512, at the Lateran. These two conventions, as might be expected, did not treat each other with excess of politeness. Julius characterized the Pisans as a scandal, a pestilence, a convention of the devil, a congregation of wretches, an assembly of malignants, whose head was Satan the father of falsehood and schism ; and found the sacred synod guilty of obstinacy, rebellion, conspiracy, audacity, treason, temerity, abomination, sacrilege, senselessness, fraudulence, dissimulation, contumacy, sedition, schism, and heresy. His infallibility having, with such graphic precision, drawn their character, proceeded, without any ceremony, to pronounce their sentence of excom- munication. Unsatisfied with his sentence against the refractory convention, the vicar-general of God interdicted Pisa, Milan, and Lyons, where the synod was allowed to meet. 3 The Pisans, overflowing with gratitude, and ready at com- pliment and benediction, retaliated in fine style. The holy 1 Alex 25. 427. Crab. 3. 966. Moreri, 2. 100. Bell. III. 16. Paolo, VI. and VTI. L'Eglise Gallicane on tenu ce concile pour oecumenique. Milletot, 572. * Du Pin, 1405. Alex. 25. 408. Bruys, 4. 400. Daniel, 6. 153. Carranza, 579. 3 Labb. 19. 570. 572577. Coss. 5. 356, 357. 360. 136 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I fathers declared the vicar-general of Jesus guilty of contumacy, schism, incorrigibility, obduracy, perjury, and indeed allvillany. The sacred synod, to these compliments, added a benediction couched in very flattering language. This consisted in sus- pending the viceroy of heaven from the administration of the popedom, and prohibiting all obedience of the clergy and laity of Christendom. This sentence, in all its rigour, was actually enforced through the French nation. Lewis commanded his subjects, both clergy and laity, to withdraw all submission. But the martial Julius, in the mean time, who had excom- municated Lewis, died, and the sensual Leo succeeded. Lewis, therefore, in 1513, withdrew his support from the Pisans, and submitted to the authority of Leo and the Laterans. Maximi- lian also discountenanced the Pisan convention, which, in con- sequence, disbanded. But this variation of the French sovereign was not lasting. The French monarchs afterwards returned to the council of Pisa. Its acts, in 1612, were published from the library of his most Christian majesty, and its authority, in opposition to that of the Lateran, which had always been obnoxious to the French parliament and clergy, was again acknowledged. 1 Such on the subject of councils, is the variation between the French and Italian schools. The French reject four councils, those of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and Trent, which the Italians admit ; and admit four, those of Pisa, Constance, Basil, and the second of Pisa, which the others reject. x A third party in the Romish Church reject the whole or a part of the councils, which, in the Italian system, occur from the eighth at Constantinople to the sixteenth at Florence. All these were retrenched by Abrahamus, Clement, and Pole. The edi- tion of the Florentian synod, published by Abrahamus, reckons it the eighth general council. The editor, therefore, expunges the Byzantine council and the seven following. The extermi- nation of the eighth, says Launoy, was in accordance with several Greeks and Latins. 2 The edition of Abrahamus was approved by Clement the Seventh, who stamped it with the seal of his infallibility. Baronius, nevertheless, followed by Binius and Labbe, has found the editor guilty of audacity, ignorance, temerity, and falsehood. 3 Pole, in the synod of Lambeth, in 1 Inveterate nella simonia et ne' costumi infami et perduto. Guicciardin, i. 275. Endurcy en simonie et en erreurs infames et damnables, il ne pouvoit etre capa hie de gouverner la Papaute. It etoit notoirement incorrigible au scandale universe* de toute la Chrestienite vignier. 3. 867. Mariana, 5. 767. Moron, 3. 558. et 5 72. Alex. 25. 27. Bruys, 4. 461. 2 Fuisse Gracos et Latinos, qui octavam synodum e numero generalium syne dorum expunxerint. Launoy, 4. 224. et 5. 233. 3 Magna interprets temeritate, et audacia, sicut et imperitia factum est. Bin. T 1038. Labb. 10. 96. Wilkin, 4. 122. 126. THE RECEPTION OF COUNCILS. 137 1556, adopted the same enumeration, and denominated the Florentian assembly the eighth general council. 1 This was transacted in an English synod, and, therefore, was the general opinion of the English clergy in the reign of Queen Mary. Pole, notwithstanding, in noble inconsistency, recognized the ecume- nicity of the fourth and fifth of the Lateran, and the second of Lyons. This system proscribed the eight general councils which met at Constantinople, Lateran, Lyons, and Vienna. Cardinal Cantarin's account differs little from that of Abra- hamus, Clement, and Pole. The cardinal, in 1562, in his summary of councils, addressed to Paul the third, reckons the Byzantine the eighth, and the Florentian the ninth general council. He therefore omits two of Lyons, four of the Lat- eran, and those of Vienna, Pisa, Constance, and Basil ; and excludes ten which have been owned by the French and Italian schools. Sixtus, Carranza, Silvius, and the Constantian synod omit part of the councils, which intervened between the eighth and sixteenth. Sixtus the fifth, in 1588, erected paintings and in- scriptions of the general councils in the Vatican. These omit the first and second of the Lateran, which, destitute of canons, have no paintings or inscriptions in the Vatican. 2 These two, therefore, are discarded by a celebrated pontiff at the head- quarters of Romanism. Carranza and Silvius omit the first, second, and third of the Lateran as void of authority, or un- worthy of attention. Bellarmine admits the mutilation of their acts and the imperfection of their history. The ecclesiastical annals, according to Gibert, have recorded only the definitions of the council of Vienna, the constitutions of the first and second of Lyons, and the canons of the four former of the Lateran. The Constantian assembly, reckoning in all only eleven, men- tions but three, which assembled at the Lateran, Lyons, and Vienna, between the Byzantine and Florentian conventions. The Constantians, therefore, exclude the five which met at the Lateran, Lyons, and Pisa. The pontiff elect, according to the Constantian assembly in its thirty-ninth session, was, in the presence of the electors, required to profess his faith in these eleven general councils, and especially in the eight which assembled at Nicsea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. 3 Had the Constantians, who omitted five, exterminated the whole of these councils from the annals of time, the holy fathers 1 In Octava General! Synodo Florentise sub Eugenio. Labb. 20. 1018. 1021. * On n'a point les canons de ces deux conciles, et ils n'ont point de tableau, ni description dans le Vatican. Moreri 3, 539. 3 Gibert, 1. ,98. Crabb. 2. i. 55. Alex. 21. 505. Sancta octo universalia concilia immutilata servare Labb. 16. 703, 1046. 138 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : would have conferred a distinguished favour on the world, and merited the lasting thanks of mankind. The critics and historians of Romanism, varying in this man- ner in the enumeration of the general councils, vary also about their universality. Some condition or peculiarity should distin- guish a general from a diocesan, a provincial, or a national synod. This characteristic distinction, however, has never been ascertained. The attempt, indeed, has been made by Bellar- mine, Binius, Carranza, Jacobatius, Holden, Lupus, Arsdekin, Fabulottus, Panormitan, Bosius, and Martinon. But their requisitions differ from each other and from the facts of the councils. The theory of each is at variance with the rest or inapplicable to the councils, the universality of which is ad- mitted. One party, would leave the decision to the pope. These reckon it the prerogative of the Roman pontiff to determine on the universality and sufficiency of a general council. This condition has been advocated by Panormitan, Martinon, and Jacobatius. 1 But its application to the acknowledged general councils would cause the partial or total, the temporary or per- manent explosion of six, which have been admitted into the Italian or French system. The popes, for a long lapse of time, rejected all the canons of the second at Constantinople, and have never recognized the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon. Vigilius, for some time, withstood the fifth oecumenical synod, and his acquiescence was, at last, extorted by banishment. The council of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, applauded by the French school, deposed Gregory, Benedict, John, and Eugenius. A second class, to constitute a synodal universality, require the attendance of the pope, patriarchs, and metropolitans, together with subsequent general reception. 2 This requisition has been advocated by Bosius and Paolo, and is in discordancy with the system of Martinon and Jacobatius, as well as that of Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Canus, Gibert, Lupus, Fabu- lottus. Its application would exclude many of the oecumenical synods. The Roman hierarch attended the second and fifth neither in person nor by proxy. The patriarchs were present in neither the third, fourth, nor seventh, nor in any of the ten western councils. The Ephesian and Chalcedonian synods 1 Pontificis est declarare, an congregatio generalis sufficienter. Martinon, Disput. V. 7. Maimb. c. VII. Anton, c. V. XXXI. Posset numerus episcoporum, cum quibus tenendum est concilium relinqui arbitrio Papae. Jacobatius, II. Concilium generate necessario non potest, quando Papa tali concilio praeest. Pa- normitan, 2. 53. 8 Dico aclesse oportere Sedem Apostolic am, omnes ecclesiae orthodoxoa Patriarchas. Bosius, V. 8. Paol. Rig. Sov. c. IV. UNIVERSALITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 139 condemned Nestorianism and Eutychianism without the pa- triarchs of Antioch or Alexandria. The pretended vicars of the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem in the second of Nicoea, were impostors. During the ten general councils which assembled in the west, the eastern patriarchs were accounted guilty of heresy, or at least of schism. Sub- sequent reception would extend universality to several diocesan, provincial, and national councils, such as those of Anc} r ra, Neocaesarea, Laodicea, and Gangra. 1 A third faction prescribe, as the condition of universality, the convocation of all, the rejection of none, and the actual attendance of some from ah 1 the great nations of Christendom. The presence of the patriarchs, in person or by delegations, may be useful ; but, as they are now heretical, or at least scbismatical, is not necessary. This system has been patronized by Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Canus, Gibert, Lupus, Ars- dekin, Jacobatius, and has obtained general adoption. 2 These requisitions, nevertheless, varying from those of other critics, vary also from the constitution of ah 1 the acknowledged councils. Bellarmine's prescription, exploding all the preceding, would, in its practical application, exterminate, with one sweeping reprobation, all the Grecian, Latin, and French oecumenical synods. The eight Grecian conventions, from the Nicene to the Byzantine, met, as Alexander, Moreri, and Du Pin have observed in the east, and the ten Latin, from the Lateran to the Trentine, in the west. The eastern councils were, with very few excep- tions, celebrated by the Greeks, and the western by the Latins. In the chief part of the general councils, celebrated in the east, there were present, says Alexender, only two or three westerns. The second, third, and fifth of the eastern synods, which met at Constantinople and Ephesus, were wholly unattended with any westerns. The first council of Constantinople, say Thomassin and Alexander, was entirely Grecian, and became general only by future reception ; and its reception was confined to its faith, exclusive of its discipline. Vigilius, with some Latins, was in Constantinople at the celebration of the fifth, and refused notwithstanding to attend. The Ephesian council had effected the condemnation of Nestorianism, which was its chief or only business, before the arrival of the Latins, and was, in consequence, restricted to the Asians and Egyptians. 3 1 Lupus. 306. Bell. I. 17. Carranza, 4. Theod. Stud. Ep. 1. 2 Satis est, ut sit omnibus provinces intimatum, omnibusque liber sit ad illud ao- cesrms. Fabulottus. c. V. Majore parte Christianarum provinciarum, aliqui ad- veniant. Qarranza, 4. Bell, 1. 17. Arsdekin, 1. 160. 3 In plerisque conciliis oecumenicis in Orieute celebratis, duos aut tres duntaxat 140 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : Two or three, indeed, delegated by the Roman hierarch, were present in the first, fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth genera] councils. Vitus, Vicentius, and Hosius appeared in the council of Nicaea ; while Petrus and Vicedomus sat, with legatine authority, in the second of that city. Three represented the pontiff, and three the westerns, in the fourth and sixth at Chal- cedon and Constantinople. The eighth constituted a blessed representation of the universal church. The first session con- sisted of sixteen or seventeen bishops, who, of course, were, in their synodal capacity, clothed with infallibility. The second received an augmentation often, who begged pardon for having supported Photius, and were admitted. The third session consisted of twenty-three, and the fourth of twenty-one bishops. The fifth was fewer in number. The sixth, seventh, and eighth amounted to the wonderful multitude of thirty-seven. The ninth rose to sixty, and the tenth numbered one hundred, who subscribed the synodal decision. 1 Such were the eight Grecian synods, which are, therefore, fairly dismissed by the application of Bellarmine's condition of universality. Bellarmine r s terms would dismiss the ten western as well as the eight eastern councils. The former, as Moreri and Du Pi i have shown, were limited to the Latins, to the exclusion of the Greeks. The first of Lyons consisted of about one hundred and forty bishops from France and England, without any from Spain, Portugal, Germany, or Italy. The French, in the council of Trent, mocked at the Florentian convention, which, they said, was celebrated by only a few Italians and four Grecians. The fifth of the Lateran consisted of about eighty, and nearly all from Italy. The far famed assembly of Trent, when it con- ferred canonicity on the Apocrypha and authenticity on the Vulgate, consisted only of five cardinals and forty-eight bishops, without one from Germany. These, few in number, were below mediocrity in theological and literary attainments. Some were lawyers, and perhaps learned in their profession ; but mere sciolists in divinity. The majority were courtiers, and gentle- men of titular dignity, and from small cities. 2 These could not be said to represent one in a thousand in Christendom. During the lapse of eight months, the council, reckoning even the presidents and princes, did not exceed sixty-four. The councils of the French school, like those of the Italian, cannot bear the test of Bellarmine's requisitions. These, like episcopos occidentalis ecclesiae adfuisse. Alexan. 25. 632. Moreri, 3. 539. Du Pin, 2. 388. Pithou, 29. In secundo et tertio concilio generali, nullus fait episco pus occidentalis. Fabul. c. V. Thoraassin, 1. 6. Crabb, 2. 91. Maimbourg, 68 Godeau, 4. 498. l Bin. 1. 321. Du Pin, cen. V. etcen. IX. c. IX. a Paries seuls eveques d' Occident. Moreri, 3, 539. Du Pin, 2. 388, 430 Paolo, II. VII. Giann. XVII. 3. Launoy, 1. 376. ON THE LEGALITY OF COUNCILS. 141 the others, were composed of Europeans. The Pisans, though they amounted to more than two hundred, were collected chiefly from Italy, France, Germany, and England. The Constantians and Basifians, though more numerous, were westerns and Latins. The second of Pisa was principally collected from the French dominions, and could, therefore, have no just claim to univer- sality or a convocation from all Christendom. 1 Theologians and critics, disagreeing in this manner about the universality of general councils, differ also respecting their legality. A synod, to be general or valid, must be lawful ; and the conditions of the latter as well as of the former, have occa- sioned a striking variety of opinion. The partizans of popery differ concerning a general council's convocation, presidency, confirmation, members, freedom, and unanimity. The Italians, patronized by many theologians and pontiffs, make the pope's convocation, presidency, and confirmation, necessary terms of synodal legality . These account no council lawful without these requisitions. All others, say the Transal- pines, are conventicles. The sovereign pontiff*, according to Jacobatius, Carranza, and Antonius, can call a general council, which depends on him for its authority. His sanction only can confer validity. A synod, says pope Nicholas, without pon- tifical authority, is invalid. The assembling of a general council, says Pelagius the second, is the sole prerogative of the Roman See. Nicholas and Pelagius, in these statements, have been followed by Jacobatius and Antonius. 2 This system, taught in the Italian school and maintained with positivity and arrogance, has been assailed by the French critics, who spurn the papal claim, and have, beyond all question, evinced its groundlessness in point of fact in the eight eastern councils. According to Du Pin and Moreri, ' the eight former councils were convoked by the emperors.' Gibert states that ' all the oriental general councils were assembled by the imperial authority :' and this statement has been repeated by Mezeray, Alexander, Maimbourg, Paoli, Almain, Gerson, Alliaco, and Launoy. 8 1 Du Pin, 403. Moreri, 7. 244. Crabb. 3. 549. 2 Congregare concilium est proprium Romani Pontifici. Jacob. III. Ad solum Romanum Pontificem, generale concilium convocare pertinet. Carranza, 3. Non potest concilium rite congregari nisi authoritate Romani Pontificis. Anton, c. V. Synodus absque authoritate Romani Pontificis, non valet. Nicholas, I. Carranza, 511. Generates synodis non posse convocari, nisi authoritate Apostolicse sedis. Pelagius, II. Carranza, 329. 3 Octo priora concilia ab Imperatoribus convocata esse constat. Du Pin. 337. Lea premiers ont ete autrefois, jusqu' au huitieme general, toujours convoque par les Empereurs. Moreri, 3. 539. Omnia concilia generalia Orientalia ab Impera toribus coacta fuerunt. Gibert, 1. 76, 77. 142 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I Launoy has shown the imperial convocation of the oriental councils by an array of evidence, sufficient, one would conclude, to convince scepticism and silence all opposition. The convo- cation of the Nicene council by Constantine, is, according to this author, attested by Eusebius, Epiphanius, Ruffinus, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, Gelasius, Justinian, Isidorus, Gregory, Mansuetus, Zonaras, Reparatus, Robertus, Vicentius, Nicepho- rus, Antoninus, Sabellicus, Platina, Pighius, Prateolus, Gene- brard, and Sigonius. Theodosius called the Byzantine synod, as appears from Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Gelasius, Vigilius, Justinian, Isidorus, Simeon, Zonaras, Robertus, Nice- phorus, Sigonius, and Petavius. The assembling of the Ephe- sian council by Theodosius and Valentinian, is attested by Theodosius, Basil, Cyril, Theodoret, John, Socrates, Justinian, Valentinian, Sigibert, Nicephorus, and the council itself. Marcian, according to Valentinian, Leo, Theodoret, Prosper, Liberatus, Evagrius, Justinian, Vigilius, Mansuetus, Sigibert, Nicephorus, Gobelin, Mariana, and the synod itself, convened the council of Chalcedon : and Justinian summoned the Con- stantinopolitan assembly, say Justinian, Evagrius, Mansuetus, Nicephorus, Mariana, and Petavius. The emperor Constantine the Fourth convoked the sixth general synod, according to Agatha, Beda, Paulus, Frecolf, Hincmar, Ado, Anastasius, Regino, Lambert,. Cedrenus, Zonaras, Gobelin, Hartmann, Nauclerus, Petavius, the Roman breviary, and the acts of the council. The empress Irene, in conjunction with Constantine, assembled the second Nicene convention, as is related by Tarasius, Adrian, Anastasius, Paulus, Platina, Hartmann, Bergomas, and the acts of the council. The emperor Basil's convocation of the eighth oecumenical assembly is testified by Adrian, Ignatius, Cedrenus, and Zonaras. The council of Pisa** was convened by cardinals. 1 The presidency of the Roman pontiff in a general council is, according to Du Pin, * a matter, not of necessity but of con- venience. He did not preside in the three first general councils.' Cusan ascribes the presidency, not to the pontiffs but to the emperors.' The sovereigns, says Paolo, ' who called these Nous ne trouvom point de concile cecumenique jusqu' an neu vieme siecle, qui n'ait 6tfe assemble par leur autorite. Mezeray, 5. 466. Maimhourg, 42. Nicoena Synodus convocata est a Constantino. Alex. 7. 122. et 8. 82. Hoc con- cilium oec amenicum fuit a Theodosio seniore convocatum, ineonsulto Damaso, Ro- mano Pontifice. Alexander, 9. 79. Synodus o?cumenica Ephesina convocata est Theodosio. Alex. 2. 218. Marcianus Synodum IV. convocavit. Alexand. 2. 305. Constantinus Synodum Sextam convocavit. Alexand. 13. 287. Septima Synodus a Constantino et Irene Augustis convocata est. Alexand. 14. 523. 1 Launoy ad Ludov. 4. 22. et ad Voell. 4. 108. et ad Bray. 4. 191. et ad Malat. 4. 207, 223. Daniel, 5. 444. PRESIDENCY OF COUNCILS. 143 synods, presided in person or by representation, and proposed the matter, prescribed the form, and regulated the discussions of such conventions.' The sovereign pontiff, according to Mariana, Gibert, Maimbourg, and Godeau,did not appear either in person or by proxy, in the second, fifth, or Pisa n assembly. Timotheus and Eutychius, says Alexander, presided in the Byzantine conventions under the emperors Theodosius and Justinian. Photius attributes the presidency of the seventh general council to Tarasius. 1 The first councils, says Du Pin, ' were not confirmed by the popes.' The pontiffs, on the contrary, opposed the canons of the second and fourth, which conferred rank and jurisdiction on the Byzantine patriarch. Vigilius withstood the fifth with all his pontifical authority. Petavius's representation of this hierarch's versatility is a curiosity. His infallibility, says this historian, ' proscribed, and then confirmed the fifth universal council. He afterward a,gain disclaimed, and finally declared its legitimacy.' 2 The general conventions, from that of the Lateran to that of Trent, were held in the west, and enjoyed the distinguished honour of pontifical convocation, presidency, and ratification. This period embraced the ten Latin universal councils. The Roman empire was then divided into many smaller states, whose sovereigns, actuated with petty ambition and engaged in mutual opposition and rivalry, could not agree about ecclesias- tical conventions. The pope, in this emergency, assumed the prerogative of convocation and presidency. He convened the clergy and arrogated the power, which had been exercised by the emperor, and which, in the hands of the hierarch, became an engine of pontifical aggrandisement and despotism. 3 A variety of opinions have been entertained, with respect to the per.sons who should form a general council. A few would admit laymen ; while many would exclude all but the clergy. Some would restrict decisive suffrage to the prelacy, and others would extend it to the priesthood. The former was the usage of antiquity. The latter obtained in some of the councils in 1 Tribus primis conciliis generalibus non praefuit. Du Pin, 337. Cusan, III. 16. II n'ait pas preside au premier Concile de Constantinople, II es tres-certain qu'il ne convoqua pas le cinqueime, et n'y presida point. Mainib. 42. Htiic concilio prrefuit Timotheus. Alexand. 7. 234. Concilio Quinto Oecumenico praftiit Eutychius. Alexand. 12. 574, Paolo, 1. 213, Mariana, 1. 521. Gibert, 1. 66, 38. Godeau, 4. 274. Photius, 57. 1 Prima Concilia a Pontificibus confirmata minime sunt. Du Pin, 337. Gibert, 1. 102. Sedes Apostolica nunc usque contradicit, quod a synodo firmntum est. Liberatus, c. XIII. 111am primum respuit Vigilius, deinde assensione iirmavit, postea repudi^vit iterum. Deriique legitimara esse profeasus est. Petavius, 2. 1 Oi * a Gibert, 1. 70. Paolo, 1. 215 Moreri, 3. 539. 144 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: more modern days. Panormitan would restrict membership in a general council to the pope and prelacy, to the exclusion of the laity. 1 Varying in this way about the number of councils, the Romish doctors vary also respecting the manner of synodal decision. Some would decide by a majority ; while others would require unanimity as a condition of legitimacy. One faction, patronized by Bellarmine, account a majority, if sanctioned by pontifical ratification, sufficient for conferring validity. A second party, countenanced by Du Pin, Canus, Salmeron, Cusan, and Panoi- mitan, would demand unanimity, for bestowing legitimation on a council and validity on its decisions. 2 The requisition of unanimity would, in fact, explode the majority of all the eighteen general councils. A few indeed have been unanimous, but many divided. The Nicene, By- zantine, Ephesian, and Chalcedonian synods contained factions that favoured Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Euty- chiariism, and Monothelitism. Mighty controversy, say both Eusebius and Socrates, arose at Nicaea, and was maintained with pertinacity. But these sons of heresy were, in general, exterminated by deposition, banishment, murder, or some other way of legal ratiocination and evangelical discipline. 3 The patrons of idolatry in the second assembly of Nicsea, anticipated all opposition to their intended enactments by rejecting all who would not execrate the patrons of Iconoclasm. The ten western councils were under the control of the Roman pontiff. His power, combined with ignorance and the inquisition, succeeded in a great measure, in silencing opposition and commanding unanimity. But occasional symptoms of rebellion against the vicar-general of God appeared, notwith- standing general submission, even in western Christendom. No assembly, civil or ecclesiastical, ever showed less unity than the council of Trent. Theologian opposed theologian, and bishop withstood bishop, in persevering impertinence and con- tention. The dominican fought with the franciscan in an endless and provoking war of rancour and nonsense. The French and Spanish encountered the Italians, with inferior numbers, indeed, but with far superior reason and eloquence. All this appears in the details of Paolo, Du Pin, and even Pallavicino. The Trentine contest and decision on original sin may be given 1 Grotty, 83. Alex. 10. 341. Lenfan. 1. 107. Anton, c. V. Du Pin, 3. 9 Synodus generalis constituitur a papa et episcopis, et sic nihil die it de laicis Pannrm. 142. * II faut qu'elle passe du consentement unanime. Du Pin, Dock ch. 1. 3. Nego, cum de fide agitur, sequi plurimorum judicium oportere. Canus, VI. 5 Apol. ]. 103105. 8 Eusefeius, III. ]3. Socrates, 1. 8. WANT OF UNANIMITY IN COUNCILS. 145 as a specimen of Trentine contention and senseless animosity. The bishops, learned in general in the law, but unskilled in divinity, were utterly confounded by the distinctions, scholas- ticism, and puzzling diversity of opinion which prevailed among the theologians. The composition of the canons was over- whelmed with inextricable difficulty. The persons employed in this task could not comprize every opinion, or avoid the hazard of creating a schism. 1 The discord of the Trentine fathers became, in the French nation, the subject of witticism and mockery. The contentions of the French synod of Melun, preparatory to that of Trent, afforded a striking prelude and specimen of the noisy and numerous altercations which were afterwards dis- played in the latter assembly. The French king convened the Parisian doctors at Melun, for the purpose of arranging the dogmas of faith, which, on the assembling of the general coun- cil, were to be proposed for discussion. The Parisians, how- ever, could agree on nothing. These, adhering to a church which boasts of exclusive unity, squabbled and contended on the topics of the sacraments, the Concordat, the Pragmatic sanction, and the Constantian and Basilian councils, without meaning or end. Each, however, without being disconcerted by their discord, would have his own opinion made an article of faith. The king, in consequence, had to dissolve the council without coming to any conclusion. 2 A scene of equal dissension is not to be found in ah 1 the annals of protestantism. Freedom of discussion and suffrage is, according to unanimous consent, a necessary condition of synodal legitimacy. Authors, the most adverse in other things, agree in the requisition of liberty. This, in an ecclesiastical assembly, was the demand of the ancients, such as Hilary, Athanasius, Basil, Facundus, as well as of the moderns, such as Richerius, Canus, and Duval. No council, says Facundus, was ever known, under compul- sion, to subscribe any thing but falsehood. 3 Freedom of speech was one of the conditions of a general ecclesiastical assembly required by the council of Basil. This freedom, it has been admitted, is destroyed, not only by deposition and banishment, 1 Les eveques embarassez par une si grande variete d'opinions, ne savoient quel Jugement porter. II y avoit une si grande variete de sentimens des theologiens, ils ne croyoient pas qu'il fut possible, ni de definir la chose ni de condamner quelqu' une de ces opinions, sans courir le risque de causer quelque schisme. Paolo, 1. 281. Les disputes se reveillerent avec tant de force, que les legate eurent beaucoup de peine a les appaiser. Paolo, 2. 282. Du Pin, 3. 426. 2 Tls etoient aussi partagez sur 1' article des sacremens. Chacun vouloltfaire pas- ser son opinion pour un dogme de foi. Ils ne parent convenir d'autre chose. Paolo, 1. 177, 17^8. 3 Nuuquam coactum concilium, nisi falsitati, subscripsit. Facundus, XII. 3. Gibert, 1. 74. Amb.in Luc. 6. 10 146 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I but also by threats, bribery, gifts, favour, faction, simony, party, money, and influence. The favour of the emperor was, Tny Ambrosius, considered subversive of synodal liberty. Thraldon; or servility may arise from any thing that may bias the mind or influence the vote. The application of this requisition would explode all the general councils that ever met in Christendom. All these were swayed by hope, fear, reward, or punishment, or influenced, more or less, by faction or favour, menace or money. The eighteen councils were controlled by the Roman emperor or the Roman pontiff. The eight oecumenical councils celebrated in the east were influenced by imperial power. The emperors, in person or by representation, presided as judges in the Grecian conventions, and moulded them into any form they pleased. 1 None of these ecclesiastical meetings was ever known to resist the will of its sovereign, but adhered, with undeviatirig uni- formity, to the duty of unlimited and unqualified submission. Constantino's management of the Nicene assembly, the most respectable of all that have been called general, is recorded by Eusebius and Socrates. He gained some, say these historians, by reason and some by supplication. Some he praised and some he blamed ; and, by these means, succeeded, with a few exceptions, in effecting an unanimity. 2 Such are the effects of imperial arguments. A few, however, preferred their conscience or their system to royal favour, and were banished or deposed for error and contumacy. Arius, Eusebius, and Theognis, having for some time felt the blessed effects of these logical and scriptural arguments, subscribed and were restored. Maris, Theognis, and Eusebius, says Philostorgius, declared in self- coridemnation, .that, influenced by terror, they had signed heterodoxy. The easterns and westerns were as accommodating to the Arian Constantius as to the Trinitarian Constantine. Con- stantius, forsaking the Trinitarian system, adopted Arianism ; and the Greeks and Latins, whether united or separated, complied with the imperial humour, and signed, like dutiful sub- jects, the Arian and Semi-Arian confessions of Sirmium, Seleucia, Milan, and Ariminum. The oriental and occidental prelacy, united at Sirmiumin one of the mostnumerous councils that ever met, subscribed, in compliance with their sovereign, in Arian creed, which, as Du Pin has shown, was signed by his infallibility Pope Liberius. The Greeks, consisting of 1 Ces sortes d'assemblees farent dirigees par les Princes. Paolo, 1. 213. a TLoMys a^tJioyia? dvnd'tafjLfvtjf. Eusebius, de vita Constantini, III. 13. Tw$ ftsv tfv/ijtftflcov, forj 8s xcu> Sutfwrtwv I'D Koycpi t'otj 5? v Bocrat. 1. 8. Philostorgius, 1. 10. WANT OF FREEDOM IN COUNCILS. 147 Arians and Semi-Arians, assembled at Seleucia, framed, after a long and bitter altercation, an Arian and Semi-Arian con- fession. These two the holy bishops referred, not to Liberius but to Constantius, not to the pontiff but to the emperor, for his approbation and sanction. The emperor, rejecting both, pro- duced one of an Arian stamp, which had been composed at Nicea and subscribed at Ariminum; and this, the sacred synod with the most obliging condescension unanimously adopted. The Latins, at Milan and Ariminum, followed the footsteps of the Greeks. The world, says Jerome on this occasion, groaned and wondered at its Arianism ; and all in compliance with its sovereign. 1 The annals of image worship, as well as the history of Arian- ism, show the control which the Roman emperors exercised over the consciences and the faith of their subjects, clergy and laity. The emperor Constantine, the enemy of idolatry and the patron of iconoclasm, called a numerous synod at Constan- tinople ; and the bishops, adopting the faith of their prince, anathematized all those who adored the works of the pencil or chisel. But the empress Irene, the votary of images and super- stition, assembled the second Nicene council, which is the seventh general, and the holy fathers, proselyted by imperial arguments, cursed, in long and loud execrations, all the sons and daughters of iconoclasm. The western emperor, in hos- tility to image worship, called, at Frankfort, a council of three hundred bishops, who represented the whole western church, and who overthrew the Nicene enactment in favour of idolatry. 2 The imperial power in the oriental synods prevailed against the pontifical authority. The emperor's influence was para- mount to the pontiff's. The pope, in several councils, sum- moned all his energy and influence in opposition to the emperor, but without success. Papal imbecility, compared with imperial power, appeared in the second, third, fourth, and fifth general councils. The second and fourth councils elevated the Byzantine patriarch to a pitch of honour and jurisdiction, offensive, in a high degree, to the Roman pontiff. The second conferred on the Constantinopolitan chief an honorary primacy, next to the Roman hierarch ; and the fourth, in its twenty-eighth canon, granted equality of honour, and added the jurisdiction of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. These honours, bestowed on a rival, the pope, as might be expected, resisted with all his might and authority. Lucentius, the pope's vicar at Chalcedon on this 1 Bin. 1. 479. Du Pin, in Lib. Hil. in Syn. Jerom. in Cbron. Theoph. 2135. Zonaras, 2. 85. Bruy. 1. 554. Crabb. 2. 599. Bruy, 1. 58i, Carranza, 490. Mabillon, 2. 289. 10* 148 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : occasion, complained, in open court, of faction and compulsion. The bishops, said he, in the sixteenth session, ' are circum- vented and forced to subscribe canons, to which they have not consented.' But pontifical exertion was vain, when opposed to imperial power. Lucentius protested. 1 But the obnoxious canon, nevertheless, was inserted in the code of the church, and obtained validity through Christendom. The Ephesian synod affords another proof of the prevalence of the emperor and the weakness of the pontiff. This assem- bly, indeed, shows the happy effects both of pecuniary and imperial dialectics. The council of Ephesus, according to Ibas, was corrupted by the gold of Cyril. The saint, says the bishop, * gained the ears of all by the poison which blinds the eyes of the wise.' 2 John and Cyril, indeed, headed two rival and jar- ring cabals. Each issued its creed, and appealed, not to the Roman pontiff but to the Roman emperor, for the orthodoxy of its faith. His infallibility, on the occasion, was not even consulted. Theodosius, at first, seemed favourable to the Nes- torian faction. He afterward veered round to Cyril's party ; and the change; it appears, was owing to the efficacy of pecu- niary logic. Cyril, says Acacius, bribed Scholasticus a cour- tier, who influenced the mind of Theodosius. The emperor, not the pontiff, confirmed the synodal decision and stamped the faith of Cyril with the seal of orthodoxy. 3 Justinian, in like manner, in the fifth general council, pre- vailed against Vigilius. This assembly, indeed, enjoyed no freedom, and showed no deference to the pontiff. Liberatus, Lupus, and Eustathius have adduced weighty imputations against its validity. According to Liberatus, the council, whose subject of discussion was the silly productions of Ibas, Theo- doret, and Theodorus, was convened by the machinations of Theodorus of Caesarea, and was swayed by his influence with Justinian and Theodora, the emperor and empress. The episcopal courtier was an enthusiastic admirer of Origen, and a concealed partizan of Monophysitism. The fanciful theologian was his darling author, and the heretical theology was his de- voted system. He was, in consequence, an enemy to Theodo- rus of Mopsuestia, who had written against Origen, and to the council of Chalcedon, which had approved his works, contained in the celebrated three chapters, the mighty topic of imperial animadversion and synodal reprehension. The Csesarean dig- 1 Qua circumventions cum sanctis episcopis gestum sit, ut non conscriptis canon- ibus subscribere sint coacti. Crabb. 1. 938. Lucentius fut reduit a faire une protestation contre ce qui s' etoit fait en cela. Goclea. 3. 500, 503. * Aures omnium veneno obcaecanti oculos sapientium obtinuit. Labb. 6. 131. Godeau, 3. 310. Labb. 3. 574. Liberatus, c. VI. Evag. 1 :. Lupus, c. XL1. WANT OF FREEDOM IN COUNCILS. 149 nitary, however, notwithstanding his heterodoxy, found means of ingratiating himself with the emperor and empress. He in- sinuated himself into the royal favour and ruled the royal councils. This influence he used for the discredit of the Chalcedonian synod and the condemnation of the Mopsuestian critic. He persuaded Justinian to issue an edict against the writings of Ibas, Theodoret, and Theodorus, which had been sanctioned at Chalcedon. These writers, Pontius, an African bishop, in a letter to Vigilius, represents as the authors whom the holy synod of Chalcedon had receired. 1 The emperor, also, actuated by his counsellor's suggestions, called an ecumenical council for the confirmation of his edict, and the condemnation of the ob- noxious publications. This assembly, according to Liberatus a contemporary historian, acknowledged the charms of the im- perial gold, and submission to the imperial will. The emperor, says the Carthaginian deacon, ' prevailed on the occasion, by bribery and banishment. He enriched those who promoted his designs, and banished all who resisted.' 2 The allegations of Liberatus have been repeated by Lupus and Eustathius. According to Lupus, * Justinian became a Dioclesian, and the Grecian prelacy became the tools of his im- perial despotism.' 3 ' All things,' says Eustathius, ' were effected by violence.' Certain it is, however these things be determined, that the Roman pontiff opposed the Roman emperor and the universal council in all its sessions. But the sovereign and the fathers proceeded in the synodal decisions, without hesitation or delay. Vigilius refused to sign the sentence of the council. But his majesty compelled his in- fallibility, unwilling as he was, to confirm decisions which his holiness hated, and to sanction enactments, against which, in the most solemn manner, he had protested. A convention, assembled in this manner by stratagem, disputing about nothing, corrupted by the emperor, repealing the decision of a former general council, and acting in unrelenting hostility to the vicar- general of God, constituted the fifth general, unerring, holy Roman council. The eight eastern councils, in this manner, were subject to the control of the Roman emperor ; and the western, in the same way, were swayed by the authority of the Roman pontiff. The pope became as arbitrary and despotic among the Latins, 1 Les auteurs, que le saint concile de Chalcedoine avoit recus. Godeau, 4. 230. 3 Consentientes episcopi in Trium damnationem Capitulcrum muneribus dita- bantur, vel non consentientes. deposit!; in exilium missi sunt. Liberatus, c. XXIV. Crabb.2. 121. * In hac synodo, Justinianus Diocletianum indicerat : ejus aSectibus serviebant omnes Graocorum episcopi. Lupus, 1. 737. Bruy. 1. 330. 150 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: as the emperor had been among the Greeks. This seivility of the Westerns has been delineated with the pencil of truth, by Gibert, Giannone, Du Pin, and Richerius. 1 According to Gibert, * the pontiffs, in these conventions, did as they pleased.' The Roman hierarchs, says Du Pin, 4 established, in the twelfth century, their sovereignty in the Roman city, and their inde- pendence on the Roman emperor ; and even assumed the right of conferring the imperial crown. Their power over the state and the magistracy, was attended with additional authority and jurisdiction over the church and clergy. Councils were con- vened by their summons, and the synodal constitutions were their productions. The popes were the authors of the eccle- siastical canons, to which the prelacy only gave their assent. The assembly merely sanctioned the will of the hierarch.' The councils, in the twelfth century, were, according to Giannone, 1 called by the pontiff, who, in these meetings, made such regu- lations as were conducive to his own grandeur, while the as- sembled bishops only consented.' Richerius writes in the same strain as Du Pin, Gibert, and Giannone. Synodal liberty, according to this author, ' departed with the elevation of Gregory the Seventh to the papacy. This patron of ecclesiastical despotism, contrary to the custom of more than a thousand years, compelled the clergy of Christen- dom to swear fidelity to the Roman See : and this stretch of papalpower, in a short time, introduced spiritual slavery. The pontiffs, according to the same historian, continued, from the accession of Gregory till the council of Constance, embracing a period of 340 years, to assume the authority of framing canons and definitions at the Vatican, and then summoned servile synods to sanction their arbitrary and oppressive dictations.' A similar statement, in reference to the oath of fidelity to the pope, is given by Gibert and Pithou in their editions of the canon-law. In Gibert' s statements ' bishops should swear fideli- ty to the pope,' and in Pithou's * all who, in the present day, receive any dignity from the pope, take an oath of fidelity to his holiness.' 2 Pius the Fourth, in the Confession of Faith which, in 1564, he annexed to the Council of Trent, exacts an oath of the same kind. According to this bull, issued by the pope and received by the prelacy, all the beneficed clergy in the Romish communion, ' promise and swear obedience to the 1 Pontificem in iis feciose quidquid libuit. Gibert, 1. 100. Du Pin, Cen. XII. c. XX. Giaunon, XIV. 3. Rich. c. 38. 3 Episcopi Papse debent juejurandum. Gibert, 3. 206. Hodie omnes accipientes dignitatem a Papa sibi jurat. Pithou, 107. Romano Pontifici verara obedientiam spondeo ac juro. Labb. 20. 222. Barclay, 11. c. 2. WANT OF FREEDOM IN COUNCILS. 151 Roman pontiff. ' This obligation, it is plain, is inconsistent with freedom or independence. This servility and compulsion appeared in all the ten Latin councils, and in none more than in the council of Trent. The Trentines were under the control of the Roman court. His holiness filled the council with hungry and pensioned Italians, who voted as he pleased. The Italians, in this assembly, amounted to one hundred and eighty-seven ; while those of other nations mustered only eighty. The French, Spanish, and Germans, indeed, endeavored to maintain the freedom of the assembly; but were overwhelmed by numbers. The French and Spanish, however, both confessed the thraldom of the synod. The cardinal of Lorraine complained of papal influ- ence. Lausac, the French ambassador, declared that the Roman court was master in the council and opposed the reformation. Claudius, a French Trentine theologian, said, in a letter to Espensaeus, * you would die with grief, if you should see the villany which is here perpetrated for the purpose of evading a reformation. 1 The Spanish declared that the council contained more than forty, who received monthly pensions from the Roman court. Richerius as well as Paolo admits the utter absence of all liberty in the Council of Trent 1 Prae -dolore, mortuus es, si ea vidisses quse ad eludendam refonnationem, infanda pntrantur. Claud. Ep. ad Espen. Paolo. II. V. VI. A la teaue d'ttfl iOt> ciie libra, celui de Trente ne Vetant pai. Pool. 1. 216. ot 2. 416. CHAPTER IV. SUPREMACY. FOO* VARIATIONS POPE'S PRESIDENCY HIS SOVEREIGNTY OR DESPOTISM HIS SUPPOSED EQUALITY WITH GOD HIS ALLEGED SUPERIORITY TO GOD SCRIP- TURAL PROOF TRADITIONAL EVIDENCE ORIGINAL STATE OF THE ROMAN CHURCH CAUSES OF ITS PRIMACY EMINENCE OF THE CITY FALSE DECRETALS MISSIONS OPPOSITION FROM ASIA, AFRICA, FRANCE, SPAIN, ENGLAND, AND IRELAND UNI- VERSAL BISHOP USURPATIONS OF NICHOLAS, JOHN, GREGORY, INNOCENT, AND BONIFACE. THE Supremacy is, by the patrons of Romanism, uniformly ascribed to the pope. This title the partisans of popery use to represent the Roman hierarch's superiority in the church. But the authority attached to this dignity, remains to the present day undecided. Opinions on this topic have floated at freedom, unfixed by any acknowledged standard, and uncontrolled by any recognized decision. The Romish doctors, in consequence, have, on the pontificial supremacy, roved at random through all the gradations and forms of diversified and conflicting systems. These systems are many, and, as might be expected, are distinguished in many instances by trifling and evanescent shades of discrimination. A full enumeration would be end- less, and, at the same time, is useless. The chief variations on this topic may be reduced to four. One confers a mere presi- dency; and the second an unlimited sovereignty on the Roman pontiff. The third makes the pope equal and the fourth superior, to God. One variety restricts the Roman pontiff to a mere presidency, similar to the moderator's in the Scottish assembly, or the pro- locutor's in the English convocation. The first among his equals, he is not the church's master, but its minister. Such are the statements of Du Pin, Rigaltius, Filaster, Gibert, and Paolo. 1 1 Petrum inter Apostolos primum locum obtinuisse. Du Pin, 313. Primum esse Romanum Pontificem. Du Pin, 333. Non iraperium, non dominatum, non potentatum, sed primum Locum. Du Pin, 314. Le Pape lui-meme n'est que le premier entre les pretres. Lenfant, 1. 107. VARIATIONS IN THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 153 The pontiff, says Du Pin, * like Peter among the apostles, ob- tains the first place. The pontiff has no power over the church, but the church, on the contrary, over the pontiff.' The Roman hierarch, says Rigaltius, quoted by Du Pin, 'possesses not jurisdiction, dominion or sovereignty, but the first place.' Car dinal Filaster, in the council of Constance, and without any opposition, reckoned * the pope only the first among the priests. The pope, says Gibert, ' is only the first of the bishops.' The Roman hierarch, according to Paolo, ' is chief, not in authority, but in order, as the president of an assembly.' This presidency, therefore, Du Pin, observes, is only a primacy of order and unity ; which indeed, is necessary for the efficiency and co- operation of every society. This primacy authorizes a general superintendence, allows the possessor to watch over the faith and morality of the whole community, and to enforce the observance of the ecclesiastical canons. The power, however, is executive, not legislative ; and extends, not to the enactment, but merely to the enforce- ment of laws. The Pontiff's doctrinal definitions and moral instructions, are, on account of his dignity, entitled to attention , but depend on their general reception for their validity. The pontifical primacy, or, as some say, monarchy, is, according to this system, limited by prelatical aristocracy. The episcopacy, in other words, restricts the popedom. The Roman pontiff is inferior to a general council, by which he may, for heresy or immorality, be tried and deposed, and which does not necessarily require his summons, presidency, or confirmation ; though these may, on some occasions, be a matter of convenience. The patrons of this system deprecate the papal claims to infallibility ; and view with detestation, all the Roman hierarch' s pretensions to the deposition of kings, the transferring of kingdoms, and the absolution of subjects from the oath of fidelity. 1 The French have patronized this system on the subject of the papal primacy. The Gallican church maintains this plan of moderation and freedom, and disclaims the ultraism and ser- vility of the Italian school. The same views have been enter- tained by the university of Paris, followed by those of Angiers, Orleans, Bononia, Louvain, Herford, Cracow, and Colonia. The Sorbonne, in several instances, pronounced the contrary Aliud non sit Papa quam episcoporum primus. Gibert, 3. 336. Inter aequales episcopos, primum gradum obtineat, primus inter pares. De Prim. 206. Le Pape est ministre de 1'eglise; il ii'en est pas le maltre. Apol. 2. 82. 1 Us le ci-oyent sou mis aux conciles Generaux. Moreri, 1. 40. Du Pin, 335. Arsdekin, 1. 113. Hotman, 321. 154 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: opinion a heresy. 1 The same scheme has been supported by many distinguished theologians, such as Gerson, Cusan, Tos- tatus, Aliaco, Vittoria, Richerius, Soto, Dionysius, Launoy, Driedo, Pluen, Filaster, Vigorius, Marca, and Du Pin ; and these, again, have been followed by the Roman pontiffs, Pius, Julius, Siricius, Zozimus, Celestine, Sixtus, Gregory, Eugenius, Innocent, and Adrian. 2 A similar subordination of the papal power was patronized by the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. The Pisans de- clared the superiority of a general council over the Roman pontiff; degraded Benedict and Gregory and elected Alexan- der. 3 The Constantians, treading in the footsteps of the Pisans, defined, in the fourth session, the subjection of a pope to a council, and denounced condign punishment on all persons, of every state and dignity, even the papal, who should disobey the synodal enactments. 4 The BasUians, in their second session, renewed the decision of Constance with its penalty against all transgressors. The council of Basil, besides, in its thirty-third session, declared the superiority of a general council to a Roman hierarch, and its incapability of being dissolved, pro- rogued, or transferred against its consent, to be truths of the Catholic faith. Pertinacity in the denial of these truths, the holy unerring Fathers pronounced a heresy. The inferiority of a pope to an universal synod, and his incompetency to order its dissolution, adjournment, or translation are, according to an infallible council, doctrines of Catholicism, and respect not discipline but the faith. 5 A second variety allows the pope an unlimited sovereignty. The abettors of this system, overstepping the bounds of mode- ration, would exalt the primacy into a despotism. The pope- dom, according to these speculators, is a monarchy, unlimited by democracy or aristocracy, by the laity or the clergy. The Roman pontiff's power is civil as well as ecclesiastical, extend- ing both to the church and the state ; and legislative as well as executive, comprehending in its measureless range both the making and enforcing of laws. He is clothed with uncontrolled authority over the church, the clergy, councils, and kings. He 1 Qui decent contrarium, haereticos esse censet. Du Pin, 421. L'eglise Gal- Hcane ont approuve le decret de la superior-it^ des conciles sur les Papes. Milletot, 572. 2 Launoy, 1. 295, 314. Du Pin, 442. Fabulottus, c. 2. 3 Concilium generate universam repraesentans ecclesiam esse superius Papae. Du Pin, 404. 4 Cui quilibet cujuscumque status vel dignitatis, etiara si papalis existat, obire tenetur. Labb. 1(5.73. Summum pontificem subesse conciliis generalibus. Gibert, 2. 7. Cossart, 4. 113. 6 Est veritas ndei Catholicae. Veritatibus duabus praedictis pertinaciter repug- nans est censendus haereticus. Labb. 17. 236, 390. II raerite d'etre cense hereti- que. Bruy, 4. 126. Du Pin, 3. 38. Hotman, 321, 322. SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 155 has a right, both in a legislative and executive capacity, to govern the universal church, and to ordain, judge, suspend, and depose bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs through Christen- dom. These receive their authority from the pope, as he re- ceives his from God. He possesses a superiority over general councils, which, for legitimation and validity, require pontifical convocation, presidency, and ratification. He is the supreme judge of controversy, and, in this capacity, receives appeals from the whole church. He is vested with temporal as weU as spiritual authority ; and may depose sovereigns, transfer king- doms, and absolve subjects from the oath of fealty. His chief prerogative is infallibility. The Roman pontiff, unlike other frail mortals, is, at least in his official sentences, which he pro- nounces from the chair, exempted from all possibility of error or mistake. 1 Such is the monstrous system of the Italian school on the papal supremacy. The Transalpine faction, who are depend- ant and servile minions of the Roman court, clothe the pontiff with all this superhuman power and authority. This party has been supported in these views by Jesuits, canonists, theologians, popes, and councils. The votaries of Jesuitism, dispersed through the world, have advocated the unlimited authority of the popedom, with their accustomed erudition and sophistry. The canonists, such as Gratian and Pithou, have, in general, been friends to the plentitude of pontifical jurisdiction arid despotism. These have been supported by an host of theologians and school- men, such as Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Turrecrema, Sari- derus, Perron, Pighius, Carranza, Fabulottus, Lainez, Jacoba- tius, Arsdekin, Antonius, Canus, Cajetan, Aquinas, Turrianno, Lupus, Campeggio, and Bonaventura. The Roman hierarchs, as might be expected, have, in general, maintained the papal power. Celestine, Gelasius, Leo, Nicholas, Gregory, Urban, Pascal, Boniface, Clement, and Paul supported their overgrown tyranny with peculiar resolution and energy. Gregory the Seventh subjected, not only the church but the state, and monopolized both civil and ecclesias- tical power. Boniface the Eighth taught the necessity of sub- mission to the pontiff for the attainment of salvation. Paul the Fourth seems to have been a model of pontifical ambition, arro- gance, haughtiness, and tyranny. His infallibility contemned 1 Du Pin, 333. Bell. IV. 1, 15, et . 6. Gibert, 3. 36, 487. Cajetan, c. I. Extrav. 52, 101. Labb. 18. 1428. Fabul. c. II. Sub ratione regminis monarchic!. Dens, 2. 147. In Papa residet suprema potestas. Faber, 2. 384. Ecclesiam Christus instituerit instar regni, in qua unus, caeteris imperit. Labb. 20. 670. Papa est Dominas temporalis totius orbis. Barclay, 17 156 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I the authority of councils and kings. The papal power he maintained, was unbounded and above all synods ; and this, he caUed an article of faith ; and the contrary, he denomi- nated a heresy. 1 His holiness declared himself the successor of one who had deposed emperors and kings, and superior to princes, whom he would not acknowledge as his companions, but use as his footstool. This vain glory, these empty boasts, his infallibility enforced with the stamp of his foot and the thunder of his apostolic voice. The Italian system, on the supremacy, was patronized also by the councils of Florence, Lateran, and Trent. Eugenius, in the Florentine Convention and with its approbation, declared, in the thirteenth session, the superiority of the pope to a council, whose enactments he was authorized by his apostolic prerogative to change or repeal. The pontifical dissolution or translation of a council, he declared, is no heresy, notwithstanding the contrary sentence of the Basilian assembly, whose acts, he affirmed, were unjust and foolish, and contrary to the laws of God and man. The Florentines vested his infallibility with the vicegerency of God, and authority to teach all Christians, and the supremacy over the whole world. 2 The fifth council of the Lateran clothed Leo with equal power. This convention decreed the superiority of the Roman pontiff over all councils, and his full power and right of synodal convocation, translation, and dissolution. This assembly also renewed the bull of Boniface, which declared the subjection of all Christians to the Roman pontiff necessary for salvation. 3 The council of Trent, on this subject, was not so explicit as those of Florence and the Lateran. The French and Spanish, in this synod, withstood the Italians, and prevented the free expression of Ultramontane servility. The council, however, in its fourteenth session, ascribed to the pope 'the supreme power in the universal church.' 4 The pontiff, said Cardillusto the Trentine fathers, without any disclaimer, ' holds, as a mor- tal God, the place of Christ on earth, and cannot be judged by 1 C'etoit un article de foi, et que de dire le contraire etoit une her6sie. Paolo, 2. 27. Labb. 19. 968. 2 Constat synodum pontifici esse inferiorem. Labb. 18. 1320. Papa est super potestatem ecclesiae universalis et concilii gencralis. Cajetan, 1. 10. Dissolutionem sive translationem concilii hacresim non pertinere. Labb. 18. 1321. Romanum Pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum, et verum Christi vicarium, existere. Labb. 1.8. 526. 1152. Gibert, 1. 93. 3 Solum Romanum Pontificem, tanquam auctoritatem super omnia concilia habentem, tarn conciliorum dicendorum, transferendorum, dissolvendoram plenum jus et potestatem habere. Labb. 19. 967. Bruys, 4. 806. Du Pin 430. 4 Pro suprema potestate sibi in ecclesia universa tradita. Labb. 20. 9G. Gibert, 1.181. Dens, 8. 232. Is Christi vicem gerit in terris, tanquam mortalis Deus: neque a concilio general! Pontifex judicari potest. Cardil. in Labb. 20. 671, 1177. SUPPOSED EQUALITY OF THE POPE WITH GOD. 157 a general council.' This avowal is inconsistent with Cisalpine liberality and independence. The French, therefore, in this manner, oppose the Italians on the topic of papal supremacy. These two schools are, on this question, at open war. Theologian withstands theolo- gian. Gerson, Alliaco, Richerius, Launoy, Almain, Paolo, Marca, Du Pin, Carron, and Walsh, encounter Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Turiano, Turrecrema, Arsdekin, Cajetcin, Aquinas, and Bonaventura. The universities of Paris, Anglers, Orleans, Toulouse, Bononia, Louvain, Cracow, Cologne, and Herford may be pitted against the schoolmen, the Jesuits, and the Roman court. Pope charges pope, in dreadful affray. Damasus, Felix, Siricius, Celestine, and Pius lead their phalanx against the squadrons of Leo, Gregory, Urban, Nicholas, Pascal Paul, and Sixtus. General councils stand in array against general councils. The Pisans, Constan- tians, and Basilians wage ware against the Florentines, Laterans, and Trentines ; and hurl mutual anathemas from their spiritual artillery. A third variety would raise the pope to an equality with God. The Italian school, one would expect, confers a power on the Roman hierarch calculated to satisfy the highest ambition. But the Transalpine system does not terminate the progression. A third description of flatterers have proceeded to greater ex- travagancy, and vested his holiness with ampler prerogatives. These, in the exorbitance of papal adulation, have insulted reason, outraged common sense, and ascended, in their impious progress, through all the gradations of blasphemy. Pretended Christians have ascribed that Divinity to the Roman pontiff, which the Pagans attributed to the Roman emperors. Domitian, ad- dressing his subjects in his proclamation, signed himself their 1 Lord God.' Caligula arrogated the name of ' the Greatest and Best God ;' while Sapor, the Persian monarch, affected, with more modesty, to be only ' the Brother of the Sun and Moon.' 1 This blasphemy has been imitated by the minions of his Roman infallibility. The pope, says the gloss of the canon law, * is not a man.' This awkward compliment is intended to place his holiness above humanity. According to Turrecrema and Bar clay, ' some DOCTORLINGS wish, in their adulation, to equal the pontiff to God.' These, says Gerson, quoted by Carron and Giannone, ' esteem the pope a God, who has all power in heaven and earth.' The sainted Bernard affirms that, l none, except God, is like the pope, either in heaven or on earth.' 2 1 Suetonius, 322, 555. 3 Papa non est homo. Sext. Decret. L. I. Tit. VI. c. 18. Doctorculi volant adalando eos quasi sequiparare Deo. Barclay, 219. Torrecrem. 158 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I The name and the works of God have been appropriated to the pope, by theologians, canonists, popes, and councils. Gratian, Pithou, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, Gibert, Gregory, Nicholas, Innocent, the canon law, and the Lateran council have complimented his holiness with the name of deity, or bestowed on him the vicegerency of heaven. Pithou, Gibert, Durand, Jacobatius, Musso, and Gratian, on the authority of the canon law, style the pontiff the Almighty's vicegerent, ' who occupies the place, not of a mere man, but of the true God.' According to Gregory the Second, ' The whole Western Nations reckoned Peter a terrestrial God,' and the Roman pontiff, of course, succeeds to the title and the estate. This blasphemy, Gratian copied into the canon law. * The emperor Constantine,' says Nicholas the First, 'conferred the appellation of God on the pope, who, therefore, being God, cannot be judged by man.' According to Innocent the Third, ' the pope holds the place of the true God.' The canon law, in the gloss, denominates the Roman hierarch, ' our Lord God.' The canonists, in general, reckon the pope the one God, who hath all power, human and divine, in heaven and in earth. Marcellus in the Lateran council and with its full approbation, called Julius, ' God on earth.' 1 This was the act of a general council, and, therefore, in the popish account, is the decision of infallibility. The works as well as the name of God have been ascribed to the pope, by Innocent, Jacobatius, Durand, Decius, Lainez, the canon law, and the Lateran council. * The pope and the Lord,' in the statement of Innocent, Jacobatius and Decius, ' form the same tribunal, so that, sin excepted, the pope can do nearly all that God can do.' Jacobatius, in his modesty, uses the qualifying expression nearly, which Decius, with more ef- frontery, rejects as unnecessary. The pontiff, say Jacobatius and Durand, ' possesses a plentitude of power, and none dare say to him, any more than to God, Lord, what dost thou ? He can change the nature of things, and make nothing out of some- thing and something out of nothing.' These are not the mere Q. II. Estiment Papam unicum Deum esse qui habet potestatem omnera in coelo et in terra. Carron, 34. Giannon, X. 12. Prseter Deum, non est similis ei neo in coelo, nee in terra. Bernard, 1725. 2. These. II. 4. 1 Papa vicem non puri hominis, sed veri Dei, gerens in terra. Jacob. VII. Barclay, 222. Pithou, 29. Decret. I. Tit. VII. c. III. Papa locum Dei tenet in terris. Gibert, 2. 9. Durand. 1. 51. Omnia Occidents regna, velut Deum terres- trem habent. Labb. 8. 666. Bruy. 2. 100. Constantino Deum appellatum, cum nee posse Deum ab hominibus judicari manifestum est. Labb. 9. 1572. Dominus Deus noster Papa. Extrav. Tit. XIV. c. IV. Walsh, p. IX. Deus in terris. Labb. 19. 731. Bin. 9. 54. Canonist dicunt, Papam esse unum Deum, qui habet potestatem omnem in cffilo et in terra. Potestatem omnem et Divinam et humanam Papae tribuunt Barclay, 2, 4, 920. ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 159 imaginations of Jacobatius, Durand, and Decius ; but are found, in all their absurdity, in the canon law, which attributes to the pope, the irresponsibility of the Creator, the divine power of performing the works of God, and making something out of nothing. The pope, according to Lainez at the council of Trent, ' has the power of dispensing with all laws, and the same authority as the Lord.' This, exclaimed Hugo, ' is a scandal and impiety which equals a mortal to the immortal, and a man to God.' An archbishop, in the last Lateran synod, called Julius ' prince of the world :' and another orator styled Leo, ' the possessor of all power in heaven and in earth, who presi- ded over all the kingdoms of the globe.' This blasphemy, the holy, unerring, Roman council heard without any disapproba- tion, and the pontiff with unmingled complacency. The man of sin then ' sat in the temple of God, and showed himself that he was God.' * Some popes,' says Coquille, ' have allowed themselves to be called omnipotent.' 1 A fourth variety, on this subject, makes the Pope superior to God. Equality with the Almighty, it might have been expected would have satiated the ambition of the pontiff and satisfied the sycophancy of his minions. But this was not the giddiest step in the scale of blasphemy. The superiority of the pope over the Creator, has been boldly and unblushingly maintained by pontiffs, theologians, canonists, and councils. According to Cardinal Zabarella, 'the pontiffs, in their arro- gance, assumed the accomplishment of all they pleased, even un- lawful things, and thus raised their power above the law of God.' The canon law declares that, ' the Pope, in the pleni- tude of his power, is above right, can change the substantial nature of things, and transform unlawful into lawful.' 2 Bellar- mine's statement is of a similar kind. The Cardinal affirms that, ' the Pope can transubstantiate sin into duty, and duty into sin.' He can, says the canon law, ' dispense with right.' Stephen, archbishop of Petraca, in his senseless parasitism and blasphemy, declared, in the council of the Lateran, that 1 Papa et Christus faciunt idem consistorium, ita quod, excepto peccato, potest Papa fere omnia facere, quae potest Deus. Jacob. III. Papae nullus audeat discere, Domine, cur ita facis 1 Extrav. Tit. IV. c. II. Sicut Deo dici non potest, cur ita facis ? Ita nee in iss, quae sunt juris positivi, Papas potest dici cur hoc facis ? Jacob. III. De aliquo facit nihil, mutando etiam rei naturam. De nihilo, aliquid facit. Durand, 1. 50. Extrav. De Tran. c. 1. q. 6. Coram te, hoc est, coram totius orbis principe. Labb. 19. 700. Tibi data est, omnis potestas, in coelo etin terra. Super omnia regna mundi sedens. Labb. 19. 920, 927. Du Pin. 3. 602. 2. Thess. II. 4. Aucuns ont endure d'etre appeliez omnipotens. Coquille, 408. 3 Pontifices multa sibi arrogaverunt, et omnia se posse existiment, et quidquid liberit, etiam illicita ; sicque supra Dei prssceptum potestatem illam exteudisse. Zabarel. de Schism. Thuan. 6. 397. Habet plenitudinem potestantis, et supra jus est. Gibert, 2, 103. Immutat substautialem rei naturam puta faciendo de illegitimo, legitimum. Durand, 1. 50. 160 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: Leo possessed ' power above all powers, both in heaven and in earth.' 1 The son of perdition then ' exalted himself above all that is called God.' This brazen blasphemy passed in a general council, and is, therefore, in all its revolting absurdity, stamped with the seal of Roman infallibility. But the chief prerogative of the Roman hierarch seems to be his power of creating the Creator. 2 Pascal and Urban plumed themselves on this attribute, which, according to their own account, raised them above all subjection to earthly sovereigns. This, however, is a communicable perfection, and, in consequence, is become common to aU the sacerdotal confra- ternity. His holiness keeps a transfer office at the Vatican, in which he can make over this prerogative to all his deputies through Christendom. These, in consequence, can make and eat, create and swallow, whole thousands of pastry-gods every day. But these deities, in the opinion of their makers, aret)er- haps not new gods, but merely new editions of the old one. Those who would restrict his infallibility to a presidency, and those who would exalt his dignity to a sovereignty, contending with one another, have also to contend with such as maintain his equality or superiority to God. The two latter descriptions, indeed, seem to be divided by a thin partition. Having elevated a sinful mortal to an equality with Jehovah, the remaining task of conferring a superiority was easy. But both vary from the French and Italian schools, as well as from reason and common sense. Such are a few of the opinions, which speculators have enter- tained of the pope's jurisdiction and authority. These opinions have not been confined to empty speculation ; but have, as far as possible, been realized in action on the wide theatre of Christen- dom, and before the public gaze of an astonished world. The Roman hierarchy has, in reality, passed through all the grada- tions of humility, pride, power, despotism, and blasphemy. The friends of Romanism differ as much in the proof of the supremacy as in its extent and signification. The pontiffs and their minions, about the begining of the fifth century, fabricated an extraordinary story about Pope Peter's Roman episcopacy and ecclesiastical supremacy ; and his transmission of all this honour and jurisdiction to his pontifical successors. The tale, if arranged with judgment and written with elegance, would 1 Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes, malas. Bellarmin, IV. 5. Possumus supra jus dispensare. Decret. Greg. III. 8. IV. Extrav. Comrn. 208. Potestas supra omnes potestates tamcoeli, quam terras . Labb. 19. 924. 2 Deum cuncta creantem creent. Hoveden, 268. Labb. 12. 960. Elev6s a cet honneur supreme de creer le Createur, Bray. 2. 535. ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 161 make an entertaining religious novel ; but as destitute oi evi- dence as Roderic Random, Tristram Shandy, or the Seven Champions of Christendom. The fiction too has been composed by bungling and tasteless authors. The plot is far inferior to that of Don Quixote or Tom Jones. The characters, emblazoned with ridiculous and legendary miracles, the offspring of credu- lity and tradition, bear no resemblance to probability ; whilst the language, in which it has been uniformly couched, is un- polished and repulsive. The machinery is such as might be expected in a romance of the dark ages. Simon a magician is introduced, accompanied with Helen a goddess, who had been taken from the Tyrian brothels, and who had been transformed from a courtezan into a divinity. This man had, by the arts of necromancy, obtained an infamous notoriety : and the apostle, it would appear, was conducted to Rome for the purpose of withstanding the en- chanter. The new pope was opposed to the old conjurer. Simon, before the emperor Nero and the whole city, flew into the air. But Peter kneeling invoked Jesus ; and the devil, ki consequence, who had aided the magician's flight, struck with terror at the sacred name, let his emissary fall and break his leg. 1 One stone, in the Roman capital, retains, to the present day, the print of Peter's knee where he prayed, and another, the blood of Simon where he fell ! The hero of this theological romance is the alleged pope Peter. His supremacy is the basis of the whole superstructure. This ecclesiastical sovereign is the main-spring which puts into motion the entire machinery ; and the busy actors in the scene, accordingly, have endeavoured, as well as they can, to support the illusion with some kind of evidence. The proof, such as it is, these doctors extort from the phraseology of the Messiah transmitted by the sacred historian Matthew. 2 Our Lord, say these theologians, built, according to the state- ment of Matthew, his church on Peter, whom, by this charter, he constituted his plenipotentiary on earth. His authority de- volves in succession on all the Roman pontiffs, and, of course, on Liberius, Zosimus, Honorius, Vigilius, John, Boniface, and Alexander, who have been immortalized by heresy or villany. Matthew's relation is conveyed in metaphorical language, laid has given rise to a variety of interpretations. Different exposi- tors, even among Romish critics, explain the ROCK, mentioned by the inspired historian, in various senses. The diversity of these opinions is freely admitted by Launoy, Du Pin, Calmet, and Maldonat. All these confess the variety of opinions Cii this 1 Cyril, 88. Catech. VI. Matth. xvi. 18. 11 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : passage of Revelation. 1 Launoy, followed by Du Pin, Calmet, and Maimbourg, distinguish the interpretations on this part of sacred writ into four classes, according as they make the foun- dation to be Peter ; the Apostles ; Peter's confession ; or Jesus himself. Each class boasts the authority of popes, saints, and other commentators. One class refers the rock or foundation, mentioned by the in- spired historian, to Peter. These support their opinion by seventeen fathers or theologians who entertained this interpre- tation ; among whom were Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrosius, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril, Basil, Epiphanius, Gre- gory, and Theophylact. These, in modern times, were followed by Baronius, Calmet, Binius, Maldonat, and Alexander. Pope Leo the First patronized the same opinion. Fontidinius and Cardillus, in the council of Trent, advocated this explanation, without any contradiction ; and, therefore, it appears, expressed the mind of that assembly. 2 A second class interpret the rock or foundation to signify the APOSTLES. This exposition has been embraced by theologians, saints, and councils. It was adopted by Origen, Theodoret, Tarasius, Etherius, Theophylact, and Pascasius. The same was admitted by Du Pin, Calmet, Alexander, Cusan, La,unoy, and Maldonat, as well as by the saints Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrosius, Chrysostom, and Augustine. 3 This signification of the word was also sanctioned by the general councils of Constance and Basil. Gerson delivered a statement to this purpose in the general council of Constance, in a speech made by its authority, and published by its com- mand. The same was taught in the general council of Basil, by its president Julian, in his celebrated speech delivered before the unerring assembly in the name of the Catholic Church, for the purpose of proselyting the Bohemians. Pa- normitan, in this synod, followed Julian in the same strain, stating that * Jesus gave no greater power to Peter, than to the 1 Ab interpretibus et sanctis patribus varie exponitur. Du Pin, 304. Les diver- sitez dans les peres surles sensde ce passage. Calmet, 18. 364. Maipibourg, c. v. De Prim. I, 5. 2 Launoy, ad Voel. Du Pin, Diss. IV. Maldon. in Matt. xiv. De Launoi 17 patres seu ecclesiasticos auctores laudat huic interpretation! consentientes. De Pn.^iatu, 10. Princeps Apostolorum Petre, cujus hnmeris hanc molem ecclesiae Christus impo- suit, ^ontid. in Labb. 20. 658. Cujus fundamentum Petrus est. Super hunc Petrum, tanquam supra firmam pe- tram, Christus aedificavit ecclesiam suam. Cardill. in Labb. 20. 668, 671. 3 Launoy. 2. 11. Du Pin, Diss. IV. Maldon. in Matt. xvi. Apostoli omnes, sequo jure, fuerint ecclesiae fundamenta". Alex. 1. 283. Nihu dictum eet ad Petrum, quod etiam aliis dictum non sit. Cusan, II. 3. Tous les Apotres en sont les fondemeus. Calmet, 18. 363. Eph. ii. 20. Rev xxi 14. ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OP THE POPE TO GOD. 163 other apostles.' Neither pope nor council, on any of these oc- casions, remonstrated or shewed any opposition. The infallible fathers acquiesced in silent consent, and, in this way, according to Launoy, Dens, and other popish doctors, conveyed their approbation. 1 A third class interpret the rock or foundation to signify Peter's faith or confession. This signification, according to Launoy, Du Pin, Bellarmine, Maimbourg, Calmet, and Maldo- nat, has been maintained by theologians, saints, popes, and coun- cils. Launoy and Du Pin reckon forty-four fathers and popish authors who held this opinion : and the roll might be enlarged to any extent. Amongst these were Eusebius, Beda, Theodoret, Damascen, Theophylact, Odo, Ragusa, Alphonsus, Pole, Jonas, Eckius, and Erasmus. A long train of saints might be added, such as Hilary, Ambrosius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Cyril, Augustine, and Aquinas. The popes are Leo, Felix, Hormisdas, Gregory, Nicholas, John, Stephen, Innocent, Urban, Alexan- der, and the two Hadrians. These facts have been admitted even by Bellarmine and Maimbourg, as well as by Calmet and Maldonat. Anno 825, Jonas, bishop of Orleans, ascribed this explanation to nearly all ecclesiastical writers : and none, said the celebrated Eckius so late as 1525, deny this interpretation. Erasmus not only accounted Peter's faith or profession the foundation, ' but wondered that any person would wrest the passage to signify the Roman pontiff.' 2 I In apostolorum et propketarum doctrinis fundata est. Gerson in Labb. 16. 1315. In Apocalypsi dicitur, murum civitatis descendentis de Coelo, qua9 est ecclesia, habere fundamenta duodecem apostolorum et Agni. Orat. Praesed. in Labb. 17. 696. Nee in hoc, majorem potestatem dedit Petro quam caeteris apostolis simul. Panorm. in Cassant, 4. 1405. Cum a synodo admittatur, pro synodi doctrina haberi merito potest et debet. Launoy. 2. 30. Sufficit consensus tacitus. Facere, in hoc casu, est consentire. Dens, 2. 129. 3 Launoy, 2. 18. Du Pin, 305. Calmet et Maldon. in Matt. xvi. 18. Maim- bourg, c. 6. Idem alterius istius interpretationis patronos 44 patres aut scriptores ecclesiasticos laudat. Du Pin, 2. Bellarminus, ut expositionem tertiam, hanc veterum patrum testimoniis posse, fateatur. Launoy, 2, 51. II y en a d'autres, qui les ont entendues de cette celebre confession. Maim- bourg, c. 6. Hanc confessionem, portae inferni non tenebunt. Leo I. Serin. II. Super ista confessione aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Felix. III. Ep. adZenon. Labb. 5. 166. Apostoli fidem secuti sunt. Horm. in Comm. In petra ecclesiae, hoc est, in cou&ssione Beati Petri. Greg. I. in Labb. 6. 872. Super solidam fidem apostolorum principis. Nich. I. ad Mich, super solidam confessionis petram, suam Dominus fabricavit ecclesiam. John viii. ad Petrum. Ecclesia fundata super firmam petram apostoli, videlicet Petri confessionem. Steph. vi. Ep. 2. Super hauc petram aedificabo ecclesiam : petram utique firmi- tatem fidei. Inno. II. ad Epis. Supra petram fidei fundavit. Urban III. ad Arch. Promeruit confiteri fidem, super quam fundatur ecclesia. Hadrian I. ad Coo. 11* 164 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : Peter's faith or confession is the foundation, also, according to the general councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Constance, Basil, and the Lateran. Pope Hadrian, in a letter to the empress Irene, read and received with acclamation in the second general councils of Nicea, gave this interpretation. The same pontiff's letter to Tarasius, containing a similar statement, was read in this synod, and admitted with equal approbation. A similar reception attended the letters of Germanus, concur- ring with Hadrian, in this unerring assembly. All the bishops approved. The eighth general council of Constantinople ac- cepted pope Nicholas' Epistle to Photius, which avowed the same opinion. The Constantian theologians, in their censure of Wickliffism, read and sanctioned in the council of Constance, likewise explained the expression to denote 'the rock of faith.' The council of Basil, through Julian and Ragusa,its advocates against the Bohemian heresy , was equally express in maintaining this exposition, which had been avowed at Nicea, Constantino- ple, and Constance. The foundation or rock, in these famed orations, * is faith, on which the Creator built the church, and which sustains the superstructure.' The council of the Lateran concurred with that of Basil. Peter, said Archbishop Ste- phanus, addressing Pope Leo in the tenth session of the fifth general council of the Lateran, ' confessed the Catholic Apos- tolic faith, ordained by the eternal father and the eternal son for the foundation of the church.' The holy pontiff and the holy fathers, in silent approbation, admitted the unquestioned truth, which, sanctioned by the five general councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Constance, Basil, and the Lateran, was, there- fore, on five several occasions, emblazoned with the insignia of infallibility. 1 In confessionis petra. Hadrian IV. ad Fred. Labb. 8. 747. Cyril. 2. 593. Hilary, 77. Ad annum DCCCXXV. Jonas expositionem tertiam traditoribus ecclesiae poene omnibus tribuit. Launoy, 2. 51. Ad annum MDXXV. Eckius earn a nemine negari pugnat. Launoy, 2, 51. Miror ease, qui locum hunc detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem. Enism. 6. 88, 92. 1 Promeruit confiteri fidem, supra quam fundatur ecclesia. Fides nostra eat petra super quam Christus ledificavit suam ecclesiam. Germ, ad Thorn. Labb. 8. 747, 770, 951, 1193, 1303. Du Pin, 2, 34, 35. Christus supra soliditatem fidei suam sanctam dignatus est stabilire ecclesiam. Nich. Photio. Labb. 10. 539. Illam ipse solus Christus fundavit, et super petram fidei mox nascentis erexit. Theol. Constan. in Labb. 16, 868, 870. Canisius, 4. 765. Fides est fundamentum in domo rnoa. Hoc iiutom fidei fundamentum firmiter eustentet aedificium. Super bane petram, videlicet fidei, atdificabo ecclesiam meam. Labb. 17, 686, 692, 693. Crabb. 3. 294. Christus rogavit pro fide, quam ipse confessus fuerat, et supra quam ipse Christua fundavit suam ecclesiam. Rag. in Labb. 17. 896. Fidem Catholicam et apostolicam ab oeterno Patre pro CBterno Filio ordicitam&d fundamentum ecclesiae, confessus est. Oral. Steph. in Labb. 19. 921. ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 165 A fourth class make Christ himself the rock or foundation. This explanation also has been patronized by theologians, saints, popes, and councils. Launoy enumerates sixteen fathers or popish doctors of this descripton ; and the list might be vastly increased. Among the fathers and doctors are Origen, Eusebius, Theodoret, Beda, Paulinus, Dungal, Etherius, Raban, Tarasius, Anselm, Theophylact, Lombard, Ragusa, Lyra, Pole, and Vatablus. The saints are Cyprian, Cyril, Jerome, Augustine, and Aquinas, as well as many more that might be mentioned. The popes are Celestine, Innocent, Pius, Alexan- der, Hadrian, Nicholas, and Leo : and to these might be added many other Roman pontiffs. 1 The rock or foundation, say also the general councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Basil, and Trent, was the Lord. This was expressed in Pope Hadrian's letter to Tarasius, which was read and received in the second Nicean council : and in the speech of Epiphanius to the same assembly. The same was declared in a letter of Pope Nicholas to Michael, which was read without any declamation in the eighth general council that met at Constantinople. The Basilian council con- curred with those of Nicea and Constantinople. This assembly, through Julian and Ragusa, its advocates for Catholicism against the Bohemian heresy, also sanctioned this interpreta- tion. The general council of Trent followed in the same path. Fragus in this synod, declared without any disclamation, that * the church was builded on the living stone, the firm and divine rock.' 2 This interpretation, therefore, giving the honour to the Messiah, was, in four- general councils, marked with the seal of synodal infallibility. Augustine's language on this question is, in several places, very strong and emphatical. He makes a distinction between 1 Laun. ad veoll. Du Pin, 305. Theophylact, 2. 186. Lyra, 5. 52. Canisius, 2. 298. De Launoi sexdecim numerat patres seu ecclesiasticos auctores sic hunc textum exponentes. Ue Prim 2. Christus qui est petra. Cyprian. Ep. 63. Avto$ coy d dsps Juoj . Cyril, 2. 612. Fundamentum unus est Domines. Jerom. c. 7. Petra Christus est Jerom. 3. 1430. Aug. Ret. I. 21. Christus est ecclesiae fund amentum. Aquin. 2. 6. Ant. 6. De seipsa veritate dicente, super hanc petram. Celest. III. ad Lin. Labb. 13. 702. Petra erat Christus. Inn. Serai. II. Super firmam petram, quae erat Christus. Pius. II. de Gest. Launoy, 2. 45 Labb. 8. 770, et 10. 529. De Prim. 14. In fundatneuto quod est Christus. Leo 9. ad Mich. Labb. 11. 1323. 2 Christus fundamentum est. Had. I. ad Taras. Labb. 8. 770. 1268. A firmi- tatepetrae, quae Christus est. Nicolai Epistola ad Michaelem Imp. in Labb. 10. 529. Christus Jesus hujus ledificii basis et fundamentum fieri dignatus est. Fundata est h;Kc sacrosancta mea domus super petram Christ! vivam. Julian in Lnbb. 17. 692. 693. Crabb. 3. 293, 294. Petra significabat Christum. Joannes de Ragus. in Labb. 17. 821. Canisius, 4. 469. Super vivum saxum firmamque et Divinam jwtratn constructs Orat. Frag Labb. 166 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. the word, which in the English version, is translated Peter, and that which is rendered Rock. The two terms, indeed, both in the original and in the vulgate, in the Greek and in the Latin, are different in form and signification. Augustine, ac- cordingly, as Erasmus has remarked, applies the word rock, not to Peter, but to Christ. Jesus, observes the saint, ' said not, thou art the rock, but thou art Peter. The rock was Christ, whom Peter confessed.' 1 Maldonat characterizes this distinc- tion by the epithet, silly and ridiculous. But the distinction, whether silly or solid, is the work, not of a Protestant commen- tator, but of a Roman saint. The interpretation of the third class was adopted by Luther. The Saxon reformer, therefore, notwithstanding his heresy, was supported in his opinion by saints, popes, and general councils. Calvin embraced the interpretation of the fourth class. His opinion, therefore, like Luther's, was patronized by the highest authority in the Romish communion. Luther and Calvin therefore, if they were mistaken, erred, even in popish estimation, in good company ; and their explanations flow in the same channel with the stream of antiquity. These four expositions, seemingly at variance, may all, say Launoy and Du Pin, be shown to agree. The two former are the same in sense, and so are the two latter. The meaning of both the foregoing, signifying the apostles, is, in no respect in- consistent with the acceptation of both the ensuing, when as- sumed to denote the Lord. Account the apostles the sub- ordinate, and the Lord the supreme foundation, and the whole train of doctors, saints, pontiffs, and councils, however they may appear to differ, will, in reality, immediately be reconciled. The first and second interpretations, say Launoy and Du Pin, are the same in sense. The two, differing in appearance rather than in reality, may easily be reconciled. The commentators, who represent Simon as the foundation, do not exclude; his apostolic companions. None of the ancients characterized Peter as the only foundation. Those who ascribe to him this honour, never in a single instance, attribute it exclusive to him alone, but refer it, in common, to the whole apostolic college. Both explanations, accordingly, were patronized by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine. Cyprian, at an early period, declared that ' our Lord conferred equal power on all the apostles, who, in this respect, were certainly the same as Peter ;' and the 1 Non enim dictum est illi, tu es petra, sed tu es Petrus. Petra autem erat Christus quern confessus Simon. Aug. Ret. I. 21. Non supra petram quod tu es, sed supra petram quam confessus es. August. Serm. 270. Augustinus base verba super hanc petram ipsi accommodat Christo, non Petro Erasm. fi. 88. ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD. 167 saint has been followed in more modern times by Panormitan, Alexander, Launoy, Du Pin, Maldonat, Cusan, and Calmet. The cardinals also, who convoked the council of Pisa, and a long train of other popish doctors, have taken the same view of the subject. 1 This seems to be the scriptural statement. The church, says Paul, is * built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.' The twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem, accordingly had, says John, ' the names of the twelve apostles.' This, in the metaphorical and prophetic language of Revelation, is an emblem of the extraordinary commission which these mission- aries executed as the primary heralds of the gospel. All the sacred college, therefore, are represented as the foundation of the new Jerusalem, \vhich, in their master's name, and as his spiritual kingdom, was, by their united exertions, to be reared. The apostles, says Du Pin, were called the foundation, on ac- count of their promulgation of the gospel and their government of the church. The third and fourth interpretations, as well as the first and second, are the same in sense. The two, though they differ in expression, agree, like the other two, in signification. The Lord and Peter's faith or confession are identical : for the ob- ject of Peter's faith was the Lord, whom the apostle confessed. Such is the deduction of reason, and such the conclusion of candid professors of Popery, of Launoy, Du Pin, and many others of the same description. 2 Many saints, popes, and coun- cils, as the preceding statements show, acknowledged both foun dations, plainly manifesting their conviction of their identity. These observations, in clear terms, show the identity of the two former, as well as of the two latter interpretations. But the identical meaning of both the preceding, signifying the apostles, and of both the following, denoting the Lord, are in no respect inconsistent or contradictory. The one is ministerial and subordinate, and the other sovereign and supreme. This is a distinction, not merely of protestant origin, but warranted >y popish authority. Dens, the treasury of Romanism, the darling of the popish prelacy in Ireland, adopts, on this question, a similar distinction. The celebrated Gerson, in a speech 1 Expositiones primae et secundae Patris sibi ipsis conciliantur facile. Launoy, 2. 46. Apostolis omnibus parem potestatem tribuat. Cyprian, 107. Apostoli Dmnes, sequo jure, fuerunt ecclesiae fundam^nta. Alex. 1. 283. H;cc non secus apostolis caeteris ac Petro data sunt. Du Pin, 308. Maldon. 'n Matt. xvi. 18. Tons les Apotres en sont les fondemens. Calmet. 18. 363. Labb. 15. 1159 2 Tertia et quarta expositio reipsa conveniunt. Launoy, 2. 53. Ab ista expositions, non multum abluunt, ii qui Petrum interpretantur Christum, quern Petrus erat confessus. Du Pin, 305. De Prim. 2. 168 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : delivered in the council of Constance, and armed with all its unerring authority, discriminated, on this topic, in the same manner. Many doctors, saints, popes, and councils, as appears from the preceding statements, have admitted both foundations, but certainly, in accordance with the foregoing discrimination, in a different sense, accounting the one subordinate, and the other supreme. Pope Leo the Ninth represents the church as built on the rock, which is Emmanuel, as well as on Peter or Cephas. Fossus, Archbishop of Reginum, in the council of Trent, and countenanced with at least its tacit consent, referred the rock or foundation to Christ, to faith, and to Peter, The pontiff and the prelate, on this occasion, must have intended to distin- guish between the apostolic and mediatorial foundations. All these authors, therefore, as Launoy remarks, may, in this man- ner, be reconciled with themselves, as weU as with reason and revelation. 1 The donation of the KEYS, mentioned by Matthew, and addu- ced in proof of the supremacy by Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, and their party, affords another topic of diversified opinion among the friends of Romanism. This argument, if it deserve the name, forms one of the most pitiful sophisms that ever dis- graced the pages of controversy. The keys, conveying the power of binding and loosing, of remitting and retaining sin, were, according to the ancients and many moderns, given to all the apostles and to all Christians who belong to the ecclesi- astical community. This has been shown, beyond all question, by the warmest friends of the Papacy, such as Du Pin, Calmet, Maldonat, and Alexander. The proof of the donation of the keys to the whole apostolic college and to the whole Christian commonwealth, has been collected by Du Pin and Maldonat. The Sorbonist and the Jesuit declare the unanimity of the ancients on this opinion. 2 Du Pin, for the exposition, instances the saints Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrosius, Augustin, Leo, Ful- gentius, and the fathers Tertullian, Optatus, Gaudentius, Theophylact, Eucharius, Beda, Raban, Hincmar, and Odo. 1 Solus Christus est quidem ftmdamentum essentials et primarium. Petrus est fundamentum secundarium in Christo fundatum. Dens, 2. 149. Ad unum caput primarium Christum, et vicarium summum Pontificem. Gerson in Labb. 16. 1315. Ecclesia super petram, id est Christum, et super Petrum vel Cepham eedificato. Le.-> ad Mich. Labb. 11. 1323. Ad Christum et ad fidem, quam Petrus confessus est, refertur, ut nisi ad Petrum ipsum referri etiam intelligas, diminut^ credes et prope nihil. Foss. in Labb. 20. 52.9 Si auctores illi omnes inter se componantur, ut antea, componi facile possunt. Launoy, 2. 51. 9 Antiqui, unanimi consensu, tradunt, clavesistas, in persona Petri, toti ecclesia* dntas. Du Pin, 308. Omnes veteres auctores decent, dicentes, claves omnibus datus fuisee. Maldonat, 340. ALLEGED SUPERIORITY OF THE POPE TO GOD 169 Maldonat specifies, for the same interpretation, the names of Chrysostom, Ambrosius, Origen, and Theophylact. Calinet, for this opinion, enumerates Cyprian, Augustin, Origen, and Theophylact ; while Alexander mentions Origen, Hilary, Am- brosius, and Augustin. 1 The system, therefore, which is now deprecated by the Italian school of Romanism, was patronized by the whole sainthood, from Cyprian to Fulgentius and Chrysostom. The ancients, indeed, with the utmost harmony and without one murmur of dissent, ascribe the reception of the keys to the universal church. A single sentence to the contrary could not be extorted from all the ponderous volumes and all the diversi- fied monuments of Christian antiquity. Many learned moderns in the Romish communion have entertained the same senti- ments, such as Lyra, Du Pin, Calmet, Maldonat, Pithou, Alex- ander, Moreri, Faber, Pole, and even the Rhemists. 2 The same opinion has been advocated by Gerson, Cusan, and Launoy. The gift of the keys, therefore, being common, could confer on an individual no peculiar jurisdiction or authority. Bellarmine and his numerous partizans have endeavoured to torture a third argument from the admonition. " Feed my sheep." This, say these theologians, is an evidence of Simon's universal pastorship. But this reason, if possible, surpasses the former, in superlative silliness and impertinence. Similar admonitions, in the book of inspiration, are addressed to all the pastors, ordinary and extraordinary, of the Christian common- wealth. Jesus, Paul, and Peter concur in enjoining this duty. 3 Simon indeed was a distinguished herald of the gospel ; and 1 Caeteri apostoli, quod fait Petrus, pari consortio praediti honoris et potestatis. Tertul. in Scorp. Cuncti claves Regni Coelorum accipiant. Jerom. adv. Jov. Quod Petro dicitur, caeteris Apostolis dicitur, tibi dabo claves. Ambros. in Ps. xviii. Ecclesiee claves regni coelorum datae sunt. August, de Agon. c. xxx. Cunctis ecclesise rectoribus forma praeponitur. Leo, Serm. III. Deus, in persona beati Petri, ecclesiae ligandi ac solvendi tribuit potestatem. Fulgentius de Fide. c. III. Apostoli coelorum claves sortiti sunt. Hilary, 688. 3 Potestas data Petro, intelligitur dari aliis. Lyra, 5. 52. Falluntur, qui soli Petro datas claves ess autumant. Du Pin, 308. On ne peut pas dire, que Saint Pierre ait recu les clefs du ciel a 1'exclusion des autres Apostres. Calmet, 18, 368. Non nego caeteros Apostolos suasetiam claves habuisse. Maldonat, 340. Petrus, quando claves accepit, ecclesiam sanctam significavit. Pithou, Caus. 24. Qu. I. Caeteris Apostolis datae sunt claves. Alexander, 1. 331. Les passages, si 1'on consulte 1'explication qu'en donnent les peres, s' addressent a tous les apotres et a toute 1' eglise. Moreri, 7. 40. Auctoritas haec non est concessa personae soli Petri, sed ipsi ecclesiae. Faber 2. 385. Haec, quae Petro dicuntur, ad caeteros pastores onmes pertineant. Pol us, in Labb. 23, 961. On a toujours fait profession en France de croire que les clefs ont etc donnees a P eglise. Apol. 2. 82. 3 Matt. ii. 8, 19. Murk xvi. 15. Luke xxiv. 47. John xxi. 16. Acts xx. 28 I. Peter v. 2. Du Pin. Diss. IV 170 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: successful, to an extraordinary extent, in proclaiming salvation to the Jews. Paul, however, was inferior to none in the evan- gelical transcendency of exertion and success. This statement is corroborated by the authority of Ambrosius, Chrysostom, Augustin, and Basil, who are quoted for this purpose by Du Pin. 1 The evangelists, therefore, make no mention of the supre- macy, and the other sacred penmen are guilty of the same omis- sion. Nothing of the kind is to be found in the works of Luke, Paul, James, Peter, Jude, or John. Luke mentions the elec- tion of Matthias and the deacons, the mission to Samaria, and the council of Jerusalem. 2 Pope Peter, however, in none of these, claimed or exercised any superiority. The apostolic pontiff, on no occasion, issued a single bull or launched a soli- tary anathema. Paul, in his fourteen epistolary productions, supplies no proof of the supremacy ; but the contrary. He declares, in unquali- fied language, his own equality, and disclaims the imputation of inferiority. He reproved Cephas in strong terms, for tempo- rizing dissimulation in his treatment of the Christian converts from Judaism and Gentilism. He addressed a long letter to the Roman Christians. He transmitted salutations from many infe- rior names, but neglected the Roman pontiff' who reigned in the Roman capitol. The Christian missionary, with all his erudi- tion, seems not to have known his holiness, who, it would ap- pear, had no name in the apostolic vocabulary. He mentions the civil governor ; but neglects the sacerdotal viceroy. He is mindful of the emperor ; but unmindful of the pope. 3 This was very uncourteous. The pupil of Gamaliel might have imbibed some Rabbinical learning, and the citizen of Tarsus might have acquired some Grecian literature. But he must have been wofully defective in politeness. Paul, however did not, after all, speak evil of this dignity. His apostleship only forgot to say any thing of his spiritual majesty, who then wielded through Christendom, all the vicegerency of ecclesiastical omnipotence. Pope Peter has obliged the world with two ecclesiastical pub- lications. The sovereign pontiff, in these official annunciations, might have been expected to mention his vice-regal authority, if it were only for the purpose of enforcing his commands. But the viceroy of heaven preserves, on this topic, a vexatious and provoking silence. He discovers not one solitary or cheering 1 Suscepit Petrus, sed et nobiscum eas suscepit. Amb. de Dign. II. 2. EipjfT'ot rtpoj exaatov qpup. Chrysostom, 7. 749. Non ipso Petro, sed in corpore suo, ait, pasce oves meas. Augus. de Agon. c. xxx, Hdoi tots ?f|;7J ftoiptot, xcu StSaffxcaotj, t^v idrjv Ttapf^oyfoffilovcftav. Basil 2- 579. 3 Acts i. 26. : vi. 16. : xv. 1 22. 3 2 Corin. xi. 5. Gal. ii. 11. 2 Corin. xii. 11. SILENCE OF TRADITION CONCERNING THE .AkA'L SUPREMACY. 171 hint of any such dignity. The Galilean fisherman exercises no prerogative of the modern papacy in commanding the Apostles, issuing bulls, enacting laws, judging controversy, deciding ap- peals, summoning councils, transferring kingdoms, wielding the civil and spiritual swords, and dissolving the oath of fealty to princes. James, Jude, and John say nothing that can be pressed into the service of the pontifical supremacy. The silence of these, as well as the other inspired penmen, on an event, which, if true, is of the last importance, must seal its condemnation. The papacy, if a divine institution, would, from its magnitude, be written with sunbeams in Divine Revelation. This, if any thing, required perspicuity and detail. But an insinuation of the kind is not to be found in the whole volume of inspiration. The pope and the popedom, both in name and reality, in sign and signification, in -expression and implication, are utterly excluded from all the Book of God, all the pandects of Divine legislation, and ah 1 the monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity. The Deity in His word, utterly neglects the promulgation of the papal polity. The Heavenly Majesty, reversing the example of earthly kings, who notify their viceroys by special commissions, deigns not, in his gospel, to mention his vicar-general. The inspired penmen detail the propagation and settlement of the ecclesias- tical kingdom, the qualifications and mission of its governors, and the prevention and remedy of error and schism. But the ecclesiastical sovereign is consigned to silence and oblivion. The vast, misshapen, unwielded, overgrown, menacing mp.ss of superstition and despotism is passed, without mention, in the scriptural records, except in the tremendous denunciations of scriptural prophecy foretelling the future rise and final destruc tion of " the man of sin, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." Innocent the Third indeed discovered the popedom in the Book of Genesis. According to his infallibility, the firmament mentioned by the Jewish legislator signifies the church. The greater light, according to the same unerring commentator, de- notes the pontifical authority ; and the less, represents the royal power. 1 The prince therefore derives and exercises this juris- diction from the pontiff, as the moon borrows and reflects the light of the sun. This, no doubt, was very sensible in his in- fallibility, and makes the thing very clear. The Roman hierarchy indeed may be as plainly found in Genesis as in any 1 Fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas instituit dignitates, qu.ee sunt potitificalis auctoritas et regalis potestas. Gibert, 1. 11. ~ ^ ~ Faifcet, 193. 172 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : other book of the Bible. The same kind of exposition would enable an ingenious mind to find any thing in any book. The popedom, by the same kind of alchymy, might be found in Ovid, or a system of divinity in Homer or Virgil. But the system, which requires the extorted evidence obtained by straining, wresting, torturing, and mangling scriptural language carries in itself its own condemnation. Tradition, on Pope Peter's supremacy, is silent as scripture. The ancients, on this subject, vary from the modern friends of Romanism. Du Pin, Bellarmine, and Alexander among many others, have, with extensive erudition and research, investigated this controversy ; and the Sorbonist, the Jesuit, and the Dominican, notwithstanding all their learning and labour, have failed in attempting to find the supremacy of his apostolic holi- ness in the monuments of traditional antiquity. 1 Du Pin, with his usual candour, admits the silence of the most ancient fathers, such as Justin, Irenaeus, and Clemens of Alexandria. 2 These, in no instance, condescend to mention the pontifical dignity of the sacerdotal viceroy, who with spiritual sovereignty, first governed Christendom. The Sorbonist begins his quota- tions in proof of Peter's prerogative with Origen, who flourished about the middle of the third century. But the Greek original, he grants, is lost, and the Latin translation of Ruffin us abounds with interpolations. He mentions Cyprian and Eusebius, whose testimony he rejects for interpolation or inadequacy. His first authority, on which he rests any dependence, is Optatus, who wrote about the year 370. Bellarmine's first authority, if Origen, Cyprian, and Eusebius, whom Du Pin rejects, be omitted, is Basil the cotemporary of Optatus. Alexander begins with Cyril, who was later than either Optatus or Basil. A period of 370 years had run its ample round, and its annals, scrutinized by- three learned doctors, could not supply a single document, witnessing the vicegerency of his apostolic holiness. This, to every unprejudiced mind, must be a clear evidence of its non- existence. No person, free from prepossession, can believe that an ecclesiastical monarchy existed so many years in Christen- dom, and, at the same time, remained unnoticed by so many ecclesiastical authors, and, in consequence, unnotified to pos- terity by any hint or declaration. Admitting the authenticity of Origen' s attestation, 240 years from the commencement of the Christian era remain, notwith- standing, on this topic an historical blank. No vestige of this spiritual sovereignty can be discovered in Clemens Romanus, 1 Du Pin, 313. Bell, I. 25. Alexander, 1. 283. 8 De Petri primatu, nihil apud Justinum, Irenaeum, Clementem, Alexandrinum, et alius autiquissimos. Du Pin 313 PAPAL SUPREMACY UNKNOWN TO ANTIQUITY. 173 Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, or Tertullian. The most extraordinary monarchy, that ever astonished the world, continued, according to the popish state- ment, during a long series of time, to exist in the view and to regulate the minds of its devoted subjects, and passed, never- theless, without leaving a single monument of antiquity to perpetuate its memory. The subjects of the papacy seem to have paid little attention to their sovereign. But his apostolic infallibility should not have endured such disrespectful treat- ment. His holiness or his successors, during this interval, should have roared from the Vatican and aroused Christendom from its lethargy. The viceroy of God should have fulminated his anathemas as in modern times, and taught men the sin and danger of neglecting his universal sovereignty. Bellarmine's system, void of all evidence prior to Basil, is un- sustained by competent authority even after the era of the Grecian saint. The inadequacy of later testimony for the fish- erman's supremacy is as striking as its former utter want of it. Bellarmine's quotations from Basil to Bernard evince nothing. These citations, as they are late, are also useless. The ancients, indeed, from towards the end of the fourth century, embellished their works and flattered the Apostle with many sounding names and titles; such as prince, head, foundation, leader, president, governor, master, guardian, captain, and, to crown all, the divine Dionysius called Peter l the vertical summit of theolo- gians.' 1 These, BeUatmine and Alexander applied to Cephas, and, in consequence, infer h;s supremacy. The conclusion, however, is illogical. The argument would prove too much, and therefore proves nothing. The fallacy consists in reckoning peculiar what is common. Similar or even superior eulogiums, for example, have, by some writers, been bestowed on James, John, and Paul. The Clementine recognitions call, ' Ja.mes the Prince of Bishops,' and Hesychius styles him ' the Head of the Apostles, and the Chief Captain of the New Jerusalem.' John, according to Chrysostom, was ' the Pillar of all the Churches in the world, and had the keys of heaven.' 2 Paul is represented as equal to Peter by Bernard, Ambrosius, and Leo. Bernard styles * Peter and Paul princes 1 Diviuus Dionysius verticalem theologorum summitatem magnum Petrum no- minavit. Barlaam, 374. Bell. 1. 25. Dti Pin, 314. Alex. 1. 283. Leo, Serm. 3. Jerom, 4. 101. Ber- nard, 220. Optntns, II. 2 .Jacobum episcoporum principem orabat. Clem. Recog. 1. 68. Cotel. 1. 509. Tov t7$ vfaj frpovffttXttu ap^KTfparryo*, fwa artocrToXwv *ov f|ap^ov. Photius* Codex, 275. p. 1525. '() crrvXos rwv xata t^v oLxovfiiv^v txxtyaiuv o raj xtetj *2wv * ov ovpavov Chrysostom, 8. 2. Houi. I. 174 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY* of the Apostles.' According to Ambrosius. ' Paul was not in- ferior to Peter.' Paul and Peter, says Pope Leo, were equal in their election, labour, and end. 1 Paul's superiority to Peter is maintained by Origen, Chrysostom, and Gregory. Origen terms ' Paul the greatest of the Apostles.' According to Chry- sostom, ' Paul had no equal.' ' Paul,' says Gregory, ' was the head of the nations, and obtained the principality of the whole church.' 2 These are higher compliments than any which the fathers have given to Peter. Sounding titles, therefore, if they j^oly the supremacy of Peter, must, in stronger language, imp!y the supremacy of James, John, and Paul. These turgid expressions characterized the bloated style of later authors. The earlier fathers affected no such tinsel or finery. Clemens, Justin, Irenseus, and Tertullian speak of Simon as of the other Apostles, with the respect due to his dignity ; but with modera- tion and simplicity. The supremacy of the Roman bishop, as well as that of the Galilean fisherman, was unknown to antiquity. Some of the fathers indeed have, in the language of exaggeration, bestowed many sounding titles on the Roman patriarch, and pompous Bulogiums on the Roman church. Irenaeus styles the Roman See, ' the more powerful principality.' Cyprian calls the Roman i the principal church.' These and many other en- comiums of a similar kind have been collected by Beliarmine, Du Pin, and Alexander. 3 All these, however, are unmeaning and unmerited compliments, conveyed in the language of exag- geration and flattery. The ancients, in the same inflated style, have complimented other bishops and other churches in higher strains of hyperbolical and nauseous adulation. Gregory, Basil, Constantine, and Paulus, in all the fulsome exaggeration and pomposity of diction, bestowed the supremacy on Cyprian, Athanasius, Miletius, Constantine, and Irene. Cyprian, says Gregory Nazianzen, ' presided not only over the Carthaginian and African church, on which he reflected splen- dour ; but over all the nations of the West, and nearly over all the East, and North, and South.' Gregory and Basil confer an universal, ecclesiastical legislation and supremacy on Athanasius the Alexandrian patriarch. * Athanasius,' says Gre- gory quoted by Alexander, ' prescribed laws to the whole world.' ' The Alexandrian patriarch, says Basil, * bestowed the 1 Apostolorum principes Bunt Petrus et Paulus. Bernard, 220. Nee Paulus inferior Petro. Arab. 11. Illos et electio pares et labor similes, et finis fecit aoqualea. Leo, Serm. 8. a Paulus Apostolorum maximus. Origen, Horn. 3. Kcrfa JIavhvv p.ev ovSsij tcf-z't. Chrysostom, 11. 200. Caput effectus est nationum, quia obtinuit totius ecclesiaa principatum. Gregory. IV. 5. 3 Iren. III. 3. Cyprian, Ep. 55. Bell. II. 15. Du Pin, 314. Alex. 1. 294. SUPREMACY ASCRIBED TO OTHER SEES, BESIDES ROME. 175 same care on all, as on the particular church that was entrusted to his inspection by our common Lord.' Basil who, with such kindness, had promoted Athanasius to a general episcopacy, con- fers, with equal condescension, the same honour on Miletius, patriarch of Antioch. ' Miletius,' according to the Roman saint, * presided over the whole church.' Constantine appropriated the government of the church and the superintendence of the faith to himself. * God,' said the emperor, ' hath appointed me to the chief command in the church, and to maintain the purity and integrity of the faith.' / This assumption of ecclesiastical authority was addressed to the Roman pontiff without oppo- sition, and afterward read in the sixth general council with uni- versal approbation. The imperial theology, therefore, was stamped with the broad seal of synodal and pontifical infalli- bility. Paulus, the Byzantine patriarch, when dying, when the parting spirit is supposed to catch a brighter ray from heaven, ascribed the jurisdiction of the whole ecclesiastical community to the empress Irene. ' The grand flock of Jesus,' said the departing patriarch, * is attached to the imperial dignity,' 1 His dying speech, which committed the superintendency of the Christian commonwealth to a woman, was received with general applause, and has been transmitted to posterity as a specimen of Catholicism and piety. The ecclesiastical supremacy, in the same kind of swollen diction, has been attributed to the Sees of Caesarea, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, by Gregory, Basil, Chrysos- tom, Justinian, and the Council of Chalcedon. 2 Gregory as- cribed the presidency to Csesarea. According to the saint of Nazianzum, ' the whole Christian republic looked to the Caesar- ean church as the circumscribed circle to the centre.' Basil and Chrysostom bestow the supremacy on Antioch. Basil repre- sents the Antiochean church as calculated, ' like a head, to supply health to the whole body.' Chrysostom's language is Upoxadsfai, rtactyj -titf jtfTtfptoi;, a%s8ov fts f^j ccoacft ain^s votov -ts xat fiopsov Xjftswj. Gregory, Orat, 18. Leges etiam rursus orbi terramm prsescribit. Greg, in Alexand. 1. 384. AM, * rj /^spc/tra ffot rfaffwv tfcov fjexXttficov. Basil, 1. 161. Ep. 69. Tw fov *wto{ (jw/taf oj tys txxhyaias avrov Ttpofcrravat. Basil, 3. 160. Ep. 67. Jussit Deus principaliter nos imperare. Constituti sumus servare fidem sane tarn, et immaculatam. Labb. 7. 614, 618. Le 6oin de grand troupeau de Jesus Christ est attache a votre dignite Imperiale, Andilly, 413. 2 ilj xsv-r'pio xvxho$ rteptypa^o^ttsvoj. Gregory, Ep. 22. flaits p xtfyotyv jppWjUf vijv rtavrt -tco crco/tan s iti ^op^yftv -tr^v vytetav. Basil 3. 160. Tovto rtotacoj oijtw/ta, fovto 7tpo?6pta. Chrysostom, 2. 176. Horn. XVII. Orbis oculum, ad qara extrema terrse undique conveniunt, et a qua velut communi fidei emporio incipi- unt. Nazianzen, Orat. XXXII. H sv Kwvff-r'av'nvovrtoX-ft exxtyata rtauav saf-r't xsfyahrj. Justin. Cod. 1. 129. Dioecesis Exarcham adeat, vel Impe rialis urbis Constantinopolis throiium, et apud cum litiget. Labb. 4. 1686. 176 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: still more emphatical. ' Antioch,' says the Byzantine patriarch, * is beyond every other city the dearest to the Son of God. This metropolis bestowed the designation which is beyond even the city of Romulus, and which confers the primacy or presi- dency.' Gregory, Justinian, and the council of Chalcedon con- ferred the ecclesiastical sovereignty on the Constantinopolitan See. Gregory called this city ' the eye of the world, and the emporium of the common faith.' According to the emperor Justinian, * the Constantinopolitan church was the head of all others.' Justinian was an emperor, a legislator, a philosopher, and a theologian, and renowned for learning and wisdom. His information and opportunity must have secured him from mis- taking and his integrity and veracity from misrepresenting the opinions entertained, in his day, on this topic. The council of Chalcedon, in its ninth canon, granted a general right of receiv- ing and deciding appeals to the Byzantine See. A suffragan, according to the Chalcedonian decision, ' might appeal from the Metropolitan to the Exarch, and from the Exarch, for a final sentence, to the Constantinopolitan patriarch.' The Chalcedonian canon so annoyed Nicholas the First that ne had recourse, in his distress, to an extraordinary or rather to an ordinary remedy. His holiness explained the canon by- writing nonsense ; and in this ingenious manner and by this simple process, removed the difficulty. Diocese, said Nicholas, is, by a figure of speech, used for dioceses, and the diocesan Exarch, in this canon, signifies the Roman pontiff. 1 His infal- libility's explanation is very sensible, and must have been very satisfactory to himself and his friends. The Roman Church in its early days, unlike the same society in the time of Nicholas, was characterized by humility. All its members, according to the primeval records, could meet in one house. The whole society, on the first day of the week, assem- bled in the same place, and communicated at one table. ' Cor- nelius the Roman bishop read all public letters,' says Cyprian, * to his numerous and holy flock.' 2 On the death of Anterus, * all the brethern met in the church to elect a successor, and the whole people, with promptitude and unanimity, declared the eligibility of Fabian.' 3 The pastor's superintendency extended from the highest to the lowest concerns of the fold, from the rich and the free to the inmate of indigence and the subject of slavery. He was entirely 1 Quantum si perhibuisset Dioeceseon. Labb. 9. 1331. 3 Scium sanctissimae atque ampli-ssimae plebi legere te semper literas nostraa. Cyprian, Ep. 59. p. 139. 3 ASsX^ov artavtw . . . f ttt, Ir^ fxxtyata$ tfvyxt'fxpoi'j^f vcov, Toy rfovfa XaOF . . . rtpoOv/jiia, ftaay jecu picf. fyvz'y d|tov frtijSojJfla*. Euseb. VI. 29. PAPAL SUPREMACY ASSERTED BY FALSE DECRETALS. 177 unacquainted with the ambition which actuated the soul of a Leo or a Gregory. The bull of a modern pontiff would, to his unaspiring mind, have been unintelligible. Possessing no civil authority, and exposed to imperial contempt, his jurisdiction was confined to the boundary of his own flock. An humble and holy pastor, in this manner, administered to a humble and holy people. But the Roman church outlived its humility. The Apostolic See emerged from obscurity, raised its head into notoriety, and displayed all the madness and extravagance of ambition in the pursuit of dominion and power. The Roman hierarchs varied from poverty to emolument, from obscurity to eminence, and passed through all the gradations of presidence, primacy, super- intendence, supremacy, and despotism. The primacy of the Roman bishop, so far from being a divine institution, originated in the superiority of the city in which he presided. The episcopacy was, in rank, assimilated to the magistracy of the Roman empire. The metropolitan, the exarch, and the patriarch corresponded with the president, the vicar, and the prefect. The church, in this manner, was, in its divisions, adjusted to the state. The church, says Optatus, ' was formed in the empire, and not the empire in the church, and, therefore, assumed the same polity.' The conformity of the sacerdotal with the civil goverment has been clearly shown by Du Pin and many others, such as Giannone, Mezeray, and Thomassin. 1 A bishop, therefore,-obtained a rank in the hierarchy in pro- portion to the city in which he ruled. Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, in the East, South, and West, surpassed all the other cities in the empire. Antioch was the third city in the state, and its bishop ranked in the third place in the church. Alexandria was the second city, and its patriarch obtained the second rank in the prelacy. Rome was the metropolis, and its pontiff accordingly enjoyed the primacy. The Roman church, says Du Pin, gained the precedence, ' because Rome was the chief city. 1 Giannone also ascribes the rank of the Roman patriarch to the same cause. ' The ecclesiastical,' says he, formed itself on the civil goverment, and the Roman city may boast of being chief in religion, as formerly in the empire and the universe. The innovation was so natural that any other event would have been a kind of miracle.' 2 The dependence of the bishop's dignity on the eminency of 1 Ad cujus formam ecclesia constitute est. Du Pin, 23. L'egliae est etablio dans 1'empire. Giannon, II. 8. Mezeray, 5, 464. Thomassin I. 12. An. Eccl. 56. 3 Quia Roraana urbs erat prima. Du Pin, 335. Parce qu'il avoit son siege dans la Capitale de 1'vnivers. Giannm, III. 6. Une espece de miracle. Giannoc. II. 8. An. Eccl 56 142. 12 178 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! the city appeared, in striking colours, in the original obscurity and future greatness of the Byzantine hierarch. This bishop had been suffragan to the metropolitan of Heraclea and exarch of Thracia. But the suffragan, when Constantinople became the imperial city, became a patriarch. The second general council, in its third canon, raised the Constantinopolitan See above those of Antioch and Alexandria, and placed it next to that of Rome, because Constantinople was new Rome and the royal city. The patriarch, in consequence, usurped the juris- diction of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. The fourth general council, in its twenty-eighth canon, conferred equal ecclesiasti- cal privileges on the Byzantine and Roman Sees. 1 The usurpation of the papal hierarch was aided, with singular efficiency, by the publication of the false decretals. This col- lection, about the year 800, was ushered into the world as the work of the early pontiffs. All the authority assumed by mo- dern popes was, in this forgery, ascribed to their predecessors in the days of primitive Christianity. A Linus and a Clemens were, by this author, represented as claiming the supremacy and wielding the power afterward arrogated by a Bonifa.ce or an Innocent. 2 Any pontiff, however arbitrary or ambitious, could, from this store, plead a precedent for any act of usurpa- tion or despotism. This fabrication, which promoted pontifical domination, displays in a strong light the variations of Romanism. The for- gery was countenanced by the sovereign pontiffs, and urged by Nicholas the First against the French prelacy. 3 Its genuine- ness and authenticity, indeed, from the ninth century till the reformation, were generally admitted ; and its authority sus- tained, during this period of superstition and credulity, the mighty fabric of the pontifical supremacy. An age, enveloped in darkness and monkery, and void of letters and philosophy, was incapable of detecting the imposture, though executed with a vulgar and bungling hand. Turriano and Binius, even in modern times, have maintained its authenticity. The dawn of the reformation, however, exposed the cheat, in all its clumsy and misshapen deformity. 'Its anachronisms and contradictions betrayed the silly and stupid fiction. Its forgery has been admitted by Bellarmine, Baronius, Erasmus, Petavius, Thomas- sin, Pagius, Giannone, Perron, Fleury, Marca, Du Pin, and 1 Eo quod sit ipsa nova Roma. Crabb. 1. 411, 930. Labb. 2. 1125. Godeau, 4. 497. Recte iudicaiites, urbem qua? et imperio et senatu honorata sit, etaequall 'bus cum antiquissima regina Roma privileges fruatur etiam in rebus ecciesiastici* Labb. 4. 1694. ThomasBin, 1. 19. Coquelle, 406. 2 Du Pin, 132. et 2. 486. Giannon, V. 6. 3 Has statim epistolas. Summi Pontifices avide arripuerunt. Du Fin, 13f Adnitente Nicolao I, et cffiteria Romania Pontificibus. Labb. 1. 79. REJECTION OF PAPAL SUPREMACY IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES. 179 Labbeus. Du Pin calls the collection a medley. Labbeus calls it ' a deformity, which can be disguised by no art or colouring.' 1 The forgery remains a lasting monument of the barbarism and superstition of the period of its reception and authority. The domination of the papacy was, also, promoted by mis- sions to the kingdoms of Paganism. The vast wealth and rich domains of the Roman See, both in Italy and the adjacent islands, enabled the pontiff' to support missions on an extensive scale through the European kingdoms, for the purpose of pro- selytism. These exertions displayed the Roman hierarch's zeal, and their success promoted his aggrandizement. The churches, established in this way, acknowledged a dependence on the see by which they had been planted. Romanism, from the ninth till the fourteenth century, was extended over Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Den- mark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Livonia, Prussia, and the Orkney Islands. A few of the missionaries sent to these nations were actuated by piety, accompanied indeed with weakness and superstition. These visited the abodes of idolatry and polytheism in the midst of danger and privation, to communi- cate the light of the gospel. But many of these nations were proselyted by missions of a different description. Violence and compulsion were often substituted for persuasion and Chris- tianity. The Pagans of Poland, Prussia, and Livonia were dragooned into popery by military dialectics. The martial apostles, who invaded^ these nations under the standard of the cross, were attached only to their own interest, and the Roman pontiff's domination and tyranny. 2 The popedom was en- larged by the accession of the northern nations, which, con- verted by Latin missions, submitted to papal jurisdiction, and swelled the glory of the Romish communion. The papal yoke, received in this manner by the proselyted nations of the north, was rejected with resolution by trie Asiatic, African, and European kingdoms who had professed Chris- tianity. The Asians despised Victor's denunciations on the subject of the paschal solemnity. The Africans contemned Stephen's excommunication, on the topic of heretical baptism. The prelacy of Africa, amounting to 225 bishops, forbade, in 41 8, on pain of excommunication, all appeals beyond the sea. 8 This canon they renewed in 426 ; while Faustinus, who repre- 1 Acleo deformes videntur, ut nulla arte, nulla cerussa, aut purpurisso fucari possint. Labb. 2. 78. Bellarniin, II. 14. Alex. 2. 218. 2 Alex. 14. 321. Gibbon, c. LV. Giannon, iii. 6. Bruy. 2. 259. 3 Ad transmarina qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo inter Airicam in communi onera suscipiatur. Crabb. I. 517. Du Pin, 143. Socrate*, V. 22. Euseb. V.21. 12* 180 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. sented the pope in the council, blustered, vapoured, threatened, and stormed, but all in vain. The bishops contemned his fury, issued their canons, and, with steady unanimity, repelled papal aggression. The usurpations of the popedom were also long withstood by several of the European nations, such as France, Spain, Eng- land, and Ireland. These continued, for ages, to repress Roman despotism with vigor and effect. Gaul or France op- posed pontifical encroachment, and maintained metropolitical authority with the utmost resolution. The synod of Lyons, in 667, directed all dissentions among the clergy to be terminated in a provincial council. Gregory the Fourth, in the beginning of the ninth century, pretended to excommunicate the French prelacy, who, inclined to retaliation, threatened to excom- municate Gregory. Hincmar, the celebrated French bishop and statesman, wrote, in 865, the famous epistle, in which he exploded the novelty of the Decretals and advocated the canons of Nicea and Sardica. The French, says Du Pin, maintained, in the tenth century, the ancient discipline and interdicted appeals. The Metropolitans preserved their rights inviolated, " till beyond the twelfth century." 1 This, Du Pin shows from the works of Alcuin, the council of Laodicea, and the Epistles of Nicholas, John, Stephen, Gregory, and Urban. Spain remained free of pontifical domination till the beginning of the ninth century. The Spanish prelacy and nobility, under the protection of the king and independent of foreign control, continued, prior to the Moorish conquest, to conduct the ad- ministration of the Spanish church. Provincial councils, says Du Pin, in the end of the sixth century, judged the Spanish prelacy without any appeal. Arnolf, Bishop of Orleans, even at the close of the tenth century, declared, in the council of Rheims, without contradiction, that the Spanish church dis- claimed the authority of the Roman pontiff. 2 Britain continued independent of papal authority, till the end of the sixth century. The English, dissenting from the Romish institutions and communion, disclaimed the papal supremacy. Baronius himself, practised in all the arts of evasion and chicanery, admits, on this occasion, a long and dreadful schism. The British, says Bede, differed from the Roman Christians in the celebration of baptism, the paschal solemnity, " and in many other things." The points of dif- ference, according to the Anglo-Saxon historian, were not few, but many. Augustine gave the same statement as Bede. The 1 Ad duodecimum useqne asecnlum et amplius. Du Pin, f>6. 130, 133. et2. 191. * In Hispania qnoque vigebat, etiam sub Gregorio, veins ilia disciplina, ut causae ESpiscoporum synodi Proviucialis judicio finireutur. Du Pin, 131, et 2. 176 PAPAL SUPREMACY REJECTED IN BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 181 English, says the Roman missionary, " acted, in many respects, contrary to the Roman usage." 1 Bede's report has been corroborated by Goscelin, Ranulph, and Malmsbury. The Britons, says Goscelin, " differed in their ecclesiastical ritual from the common observance of all other churches ; while, formed in hostile array, and opposing the request and admonition of Augustine, they pronounced their own usages, superior even to those of pontifical authority." 2 Ranulph's statement is of a similar description. Augustine ; observes this historian, " admonished the British clergy to correct some errors, and promised, if they would concur with him in evangelizing the English, he would patiently tolerate their other mistakes. This offer, however, these refractory spirits wholly contemned." 3 Malmsbury's language is still stronger than Ranulph's. These islanders, says this annalist, " preferred their own to the Roman traditions, and to some other tenets of Catholicism ; and presisted in their opinions with pertinacity. The time of observing the paschal festival formed one principal point of controversy between the Roman missionary and the British clergy. The Britons, as well as the Scots, who on this topic, differed from the Roman traditions, obstinately refused to admit the Roman usage. In this, they manifested the utmost in- flexibility. When the English afterward, in the synod of Whitby, in 664, determined, in conformity with foreign pre- scription, to change the day of celebration, the Scottish clergy left England. On this occasion, Colman, bishop of the Northumbrians, seeing, says Bede, " his doctrine slighted and his sect despised, returned to Scotland." 4 The Britons, in consequence, disclaimed the supremacy of Gregory and the episcopacy of Augustine, whom the pontiff had commissioned as a missionary and archbishop in England. Augustine, on this topic, conferred with Dinoth, accompanied by seven British bishops and several Bangorian monks, at Augustine's oak on the frontiers of the Anglo-Saxons. Augus- tine, on this occasion, recommended an acknowledgment of the papal supremacy. Dinoth, speaking for the English, * pro- fessed himself, his fellows, and the nation, attached to all 1 In multis quidera nostrae consuetudini contraria geritis. Beda, II. 2. Perplura ecclesiastics castitati et paci contraria gerunt. Beda, 203. Spon. 604. VIIJ. 3 Non solum repugnant, verum etiam suos turns omnibus pneeminentiores Sancti Papse Elutherii auctoritate pronunciant. Goscelin, c. 24. Wbarton, 2. 65. 3 Monuit eos ut quaxlam erronea corrigent. Ipsi omnino speruerent. Ranulph. V. Ann. 601. 4 Snis potins quam Romanis obsecundarent traditionibus et plura quidem ali catholica. Pertinacem controversial^ ferebant. Malmsbury, V. P. 349. Colman, videns spretnm suam doctrinam, sectamque esse despectam, iu Scottiam regressus est. Beda. III. 26. 182 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! Christians, by the bonds of love and charity. This subjection, he said, the British were ready to pay to the pontiff and to every Christian ; but were unacquainted with any other sub- mission, which they owed to the person whom Augustine called the pope.' 1 Dinoth and his companions, though men of learn- ing in their day, seem to have known nothing of the Roman hierarch. The English bishops, at the end of the sixth cen- tury, had never heard of God's vicar-general on earth ; rind what was nearly as bad, cared no more about his infallibility, after his name had been mentioned, than about any other man. Dinoth also informed Augustine, that the British church was governed by the bishop of Caerleon, and, therefore, hnd no need of the Roman missionary's service or superintendency. The obstinate people refused the archbishop ready provided for them by his Roman holiness. Augustine reasoned and remon- strated, but in vain. His auditors, who, according to Bede, preferred their own traditions to the universal church, were deaf to entreaty and reproof. Ireland maintained its independency still longer than Eng- land. This nation rejected the papal supremacy and indeed all foreign domination, till its conquest by Henry at the end of the twelfth century. The Scottish and Irish communions, Ba ronius admits, were involved in the same schism. Bede accuses the Irish of fostering hatred to Romanism, and of entertaining a heterodox profession. Laurentius, Justus, and Mellitus in 614, in their epistolary communication to the Irish clergy and laity, indentified the Hibernian with the British church. Dagan* an Irish bishop, refused to eat, sit in company, or remain under the roof with the Roman bishops. 1 Ireland, for many ages, was a school of learning for the Eu- ropean nations ; and she maintained her independency, and repressed the incursions of foreign control during the days of her literary glory. But the Danish army invaded the kingdom, slew her sons, wasted her fields, and demolished her colleges. Darkness, literary and moral, succeeded, and prepared the way for Romanism. The dissensions of the native sovereigns aug- mented the misery of the distracted nation, and fa.cilita.ted the progress of popery. King Henry, patronized by Pope Adrian, 1 Aliam obedientiam quam hanc non scio debitam ei qnem vos nominates Papam Sed obedientiam hanc sumus noa parati dare et solvere ei et cuique Christiano Beda, 71G. Bruys, 1. 371. Mabilion, 1. 279, 280. 9 Romanam constietudinem odio habuerunt. Bcda, 702. Professionem minus ecclesiasticam in multis esse cognovit. Beda, II. 4. Spon 604 VIII. Dagaims episcopus ad nos veniens, non solum cibum nobiscum, sed nee in dem hospitio, quo vescebamnr, sumere voluit. Beda, 83, 702 Ecclesi;e Romans? de singulis domibus annuatim unius denarii pensare. Tri rtus, An. 1155. Dachery, 3. 151. TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP CONFERRED BY PHOCAS. 1S3 completed the system of pontifical subjugation. The vicar- general of God transferred the whole island to the monarch of England for many pious ends ; and especially for the pay- ment of an annual tax of one penny from each family to the holy Roman see. The usurpations of the papacy, therefore, were effected by gradual innovation. Several nations, in defiance of pontifical claims and ambition, maintained thek freedom for many ages. The progress of Roman encroachments, was, for many years, very slow, though supported by the energy of Leo, Gregory, Nicholas, John, Innocent and Boniface. Leo the Great, indeed, seems to have felt all the activity of genius and am- bition : and he attempted in consequence, by many skilful and rapid movements, to enlarge the circle of his power. He pointed his spiritual artillery against the Gallican church ; but was repelled with resolution and success. His ecclesiastical tactics, though well concerted, were in the main unsuccessful ; and papal usurpation made little progress through any part of Christendom, till the accession of Gregory in the end of the sixth century. The sainted Gregory was distinguished, not by his learning or integrity, but by his ambition and activity. His works are void of literary taste, and his life was a tissue of superstition, priestcraft, monkery, intolerance, formality, arid dissimulation. He maintained a continual correspondence with kings ; and as occasion dictated, employed, with temporising versatility, the language of devotion or flattery. His great aim was to repress the Byzantine patriarch, and to exalt the Roman pontiff. During Gregory's reign, the Constantinopolitan patriarch, actu- ated by a silly vanity and countenanced by the Emperor Mau- ricius, assumed the title of universal bishop. This appellation, noisy and empty, was unattended by any new accession of power. But the sounding distinction, unmeaning as it was in itself, and suitable, as the emperor seems to have thought it, to the bishop of the imperial city, awoke Gregory's jealousy and hostility. His holiness, accordingly, pronounced the dignity, vain-glorious, proud, profane, impious, execrable, heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, and antichristian : and endeavoured, with unremitting activity, to rouse all the powers of the earth for its extinction. His saintship, had the spirit of prophecy been among the number of his accomplishments, would, in all probability, have spoken with more caution about a title afterward arrogated by his successors. The usurper of this appellation, according to Gregory, was the harbinger and herald of Antichrist. His infallibility, of course, in designating 184 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: the pope antichrist, had the honour of anticipating Luther neai a thousand years. Mauricius refused to take the title of universal bishop from the Byzantine patriarch. But the emperor's reign soon termi- nated in the rebellion of Phocas, a centurion who assassinated the royal family and seized the imperial throne. The usurper, on this occasion, was a monster of inhumanity. Some tyrants have been cruel from policy. But Phocas seems to have been actuated with unalloyed disinterested malignity, unconnected with any end except the gratification of a malevolent and infer- nal mind. He massacred five of his predecessor's sons before the eyes of the father, whom he reserved to the last that he might be a spectator of his family's destruction. The youngest boy's nurse endeavoured to substitute her own child in the place of the emperor's. Mauricius, however, discovered and pre- vented the design, and delivered the royal infant to the execu- tioner. This noble action extorted tears from the eyes of all the other spectators, but made no impression on the tyrant. The assassination of the emperor's brother and the chief patri- cians followed. The empress Constantina and the princesses were next, by the most solemn oaths and promises of safety, allured from their asylum in a church, and fell the helpless victims of relentless fury. Phocas was deformed in body as well as in mind. His aspect inspired terror ; and he was void of genius, learning, truth, honour, or humanity, and the slave of drunkenness, impudicity, licentiousness, and cruelty. 1 This demon of inhumanity , however, became the object of his infallibility's unqualified flattery, for the promotion of pro- jects of ambition and despotism. His holiness hailed the miscreant's accession, in strains suited only to the advent of the Messiah, The hierarch celebrated the piety and benignity of the assassin, and welcomed the successful rebellion or the usurper as the joy of heaven and earth. 2 His saintship, in fond anticipation, grasped the title of universal bishop as the reward of his prostituted adulation and blasphemy. But death arrested his career, and prevented the transfer of the disputed and envied honour. Gregory's ambition and ability, however, succeeded in extending the limits and advancing the authority of the pope- dom. Claims, hitherto disputed or half-preferred, assumed under his superintendence a more definite form ; while nations, too ignorant to compare precedents or examine principles, yielded to his reputation and ability. Gregory's successors, for nearly one hundred and fifty years, seems to have obtained no material accessions of ecclesiastical 1 Spon. 602. VI. Godeau, 5. 43. Bray. 1. 402, 400. * Poiitilex. Phocam crudelissimum multis laudibua extulit. Du Pin. 279. USURPATION OF THE POPES. 185 power. The infernal Phocas, indeed, according to many Historians, wrested the title of universal bishop from the Byzan- tine patriarch, and entailed it in perpetuity on the Roman pon- tiff? Some modern publications annex considerable importance to this transaction, and even date the papal supremacy from this epoch. But this, as many reasons show, was no leading fact, much less a marked era in the history of the papacy. The truth of the narration is very questionable. The contemporary historians are silent on this topic. The relation rests on the sole credit of Baronius, who, on account of his modernness as well as his partiality, is no authority. Pelagius and Gregory had disclaimed the title, which, for some centuries, was not retained by the successors of Boniface. The Roman pontiff, says Gratian, ' is not universal,' though some refer its assump- tion to the ninth century. 2 But the account, even if true, is unimportant. The application, intended merely as complimen- tal and honorary, was not new nor accompanied with any fresh accessions of authority. The title had been given to Pope Leo the Great, by the council of Chalcedon, and to the Byzantine patriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian. Leo had called Stephen Universal, and Justinian, at a latter date, had, in the same style, mentioned Mennas, Epiphanias, and Anthemius. The patriarchs of Constantinople, before, as well as after Boni- face, were called universal bishops. Phocas, indeed, rescinded the dignity. But the title was afterwards restored by Hera- clius the sucessor of Phocas, and retained with the utmost pertinacity. 3 But Phocas, if he did not bestow the title of universal bishop on the Roman pontiff, conferred something, which, if belief may be attached to Anastasius, Bede, and Paul the Deacon, was equivalent or even superior. The primacy, claimed by the eastern patriarch, this emperor, according to these historians, transferred to the western pontiff'. 4 The primacy, ho\vever, obtained in this manner, could have no pretensions to be of ecclesiastical or divine origin ; but on the contrary, like all the honours of the papacy, was of civil and human authority. 1 Nomen universalis episcopi decere Romanam tantummodo ecclesiam. Spon. 606, 11. 2 Nee etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus. Gratian, 303 Anon. 180. 3 Godeau, 4, 500. Thorn. I. 2. Du Pin. 328. Giannon, III. 6. 4 Hie obtinuit apud Phocam principem, ut sedes Apostolica beati Petri Apostoli, caput esse omnium ecclesiarum, id est, ecclesia Romana, quia ecclesia Constanti- nopolitana primam se omnium acclesiarum scribebat. Anastasius, 24. in Bon. 3. Hie, rogante Papa Bonifacio, statuit, sedem Romanse et Apostolicse ecclesise caput esse omnium ecclesiarum, quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat. Beda in Chron. 29. Paul Diacon, 4, 47, Apud Phocam obtinuit, ut Romae ecclesia omnium caput eccleiiarum decernere- tar. Hermann Ann. 608. Canasius, 3, 231. Fordun. III. 32. 186 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. Nicholas and John, in the ninth century, laid the foundation, and Gregory, in the eleventh, raised the superstructure. The latter completed the outline, which the two former had begun. The skeleton, which Nicholas and John had organized, Gregory clothed with flesh, supplied with blood, and inspired with life and activity. Innocent the Third seemed, if possible, to out-rival Gregory in the career of usurpation and tyranny. Unwearied application, extensive knowledge of ecclesiastical law, and vigilant observation of passing events, sustained this pontiff's fearless activity ; and he obtained the three great objects of his pursuit, sacerdotal sovereignty, regal monarchy, and dominion over kings. Boniface the Eighth walked in Innocent's steps, and endeavored to surpass his predecessor in the paths of despotism. During the period which elapsed from Innocent till Boniface, the sun of pontifical glory shone in all its meridian splendour. The thirteenth century constituted the noonday of papal domination. Rome, mistress of the world, inspired all the terrors of her ancient name, thundering anathe- mas, interdicting nations, and usurping authority over councils and kings. Christendom, through all its extended realms of mental and moral darkness, trembled while the pontiff fulmi- nated excommunications. Monarchs quaked on their thrones at the terror of papal deposition, and crouched before his spiritual power like the meanest slaves. The clergy considered his holiness as the fountain of their subordinate authority, and the way to future promotion. The people immersed in gross ignorance and superstition, viewed his supremacy as a ter- restrial deity, who wielded the temporal and eternal destinies of man. The wealth of nations flowed into the sacred treasury, and enabled the successor of the Galilean fisherman and head of the Christian commonwealth, to rival the splendour of eastern pomp and grandeur. CHAPTER V. INFALLIBILITY. PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY ITS OBJECT, FORM, AND UNCERTAINTY SYNODlt, INFALLIBILITY PONTIFICAL AND SYNODAL INFALLIBILITY ECCLESIASTICAL INFALLIBILITY ITS ABSURDITY ITS IMPOSSIBILITY. THE infallibility of the church, like the supremacy of the pope, presents an inviting theme to the votary of papal superstition. A genuine son of Romanism expatiates on this topic with great pride and volubility. But the boasted unity of pretended Catholicism has on this, as on every other question, diverged into a heterogeneous medley of jarring opinions and contending systems. The ablest advocates of infallibility cannot tell in whom this prerogative is placed. Its seat, in consequence, has, even among its friends, become the subject of tedious as well as useless discussion. All indeed seem to agree in ascribing infallibility to the church. But this agreement in word is no proof of unity in opinion. Its advocates differ in the interpretation of the term ; and apply to the expression no less than four different signifi- cations. Four conflicting factions, in consequence, exist on this subject in the Romish communion. One party place infallibility in the chitrch virtual or the Roman pontiff'. A second faction seat inerrability in the church representative or a general council. A third class, ascribe this prerogative to a union of the church, virtual and representative, or, in other terms, to a general council headed by the Roman pontiff*. A fourth division, rejecting the other systems, persist in attributing exemption from error only to the church, collective or dispersed, embracing the whole body of professors, clergy and laity. One party place infallibility in the church virtual, or Roman pontiff. 1 This may be called the Italian system. The Italian clergy, placed under the influence of the pope, concur with abject submission in this opinion. These receive the official 1 Per ecclesiam intelligimus pontificem Romanum. Gretser. c. 10. Papa vir tualiter est tola ecclesia. Herv. c. XXIII, Jacobatius, I. p. 63. 188 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : definitions of the supreme hierarch on faith and morals as the divine oracles of infallibility . This system, in all its absurdity, has been patronized by theologians, popes, and councils. Many Romish doctors have entertained this opinion, such as Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Carranza, Pighius, Turrecrema, Canus, Pole, Duval, Lainez, Aquinas, Cajetan, Pole, Fabulottus, and Palavicino. Several pontiffs, as might be expected, have been found in the same ranks ; such as Pascal, Pius, Leo, Pelagius, Boniface, and Gregory. 1 These, and many others who have joined the same standard, form a numerous and influential faction in the bosom of the papacy. Bellarmine, Duval, and Arsdekin, indeed, have represented this as the common sentiment entertained by all popish theologians of distinction. 2 This system seems also to have been embraced by the councils of Florence, Lateran, and Trent. These conventions conferred on the pontiff an authority, above all councils. The pontifical, therefore, is superior to synodal authority, and according to the Florentine ana Lateran decisions, must possess infallibility. The Lateran synod, besides, renewed and approved the bull of Boniface the Eighth, which declared subjection to the Roman pontiff necessary to all for salvation. * The pope.' said Cardillus in the council of Trent, without contradiction, ' is so supplied with the divine aid and light of the Holy Spirit, that he cannot err to a degree of scandal, in defining faith or enacting general laws.' 3 These councils were general, and accounted a repre- sentation of the whole church. The belief of pontifical exemption from error, therefore, was not confined to a mere party, but extended to the whole communion. The infallibility of the Roman pontiff, maintained in this manner by theologians, popes, and councils, has also been rejected by similar authority. Doctors, pontiffs, synods, and indeed all antiquit} r , have denied the inerrability of his Roman holiness. The absurdity has been disclaimed by Gerson, Launoy, Almain, Richerius, Alliaco, Victoria, Tostatus, Lyra, Alphonsus, Marca, Du Pin, Bossuet, and many other Romish divines. Many popes also have disowned this prerogative, such as Damasus, Celestin, Pius, Gelasius, Innocent, Eugenius, * Bell. IV 2. Fabul. c. 8. Caron, c. 18. Du Pin, 336. Labb. 18. 1427. Maimbourg, 56. 2 H;L>C doctrina commnnis est inter omnes not theologos. Aradekin, 1. 118. 3 Arsdekin, 1, 114, 118. Du Pin, 3. 148- Crabb, 3. 697. Labb. 19. 968. Romanum pontificetn, neque in rebus fidei definiendis neque etiam in condendii legibus general ibus, UBquam sic errane posse, ut scnndalo sit aliis. Nam in his rebua perpetuo illi adest Sjiiritus Sancti patrocini&m lumenque Divinnm, quo ejus niens copiose adomodum itlustrata, velut manu ducatur. Cardill. in Labb. 20. 1177, PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY. 189 Adrian, and Paul. 1 The French likewise explode this claim. These superhuman pretenisons have been also rejected by the general councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil. The assertors of pontifical infallibility, outraging common sense and varying i'rom others, have also, on this subject, differed among themselves. Few indeed have had the effrontery to represent even the pope, as unerring in all his decisions. His holiness, according to Bellarmine and Dens, may, in a personal and private capacity, be subject to mistake, and, according to Costerus, be guilty of heresy and infidelity. The Transalpines accordingly, have disagreed among themselves on the object, form, and certainty of infallibility. The object of infallibility has been one topic of disputation among the partizans of the Italian school. These contend whether this prerogative of his holiness be restricted to faith or extended to fact. The majority seem to confine this attribute of the pontiff' to faith, and admit his liability to error in fact. Bellarmine and his partizans seem to limit inerrability to the former, and leave the latter to the contingency of human ignorance and imbecility. One party, however, though a small one, in the Romish communion, would cover even the varying form of discipline with the shield of infallibility. The Jesuits in general, would extend infallibility both to questions of right and of fact. These patrons of syncophancy and absurdity, in their celebrated thesis of Clermont, acknow- ledged an unerring judge of controversy in both these respects. This judge, according to Jesuitical adulation, is the pope, who, seeing with the eye of the church and enlightened with divine illumination, is unerring as the Son of God, who imparts the infallibility which he possesses. 2 We tremble while we wnte such shocking blasphemy. John, Boniface, and Alexander, monsters of iniquity, were, according to this statement, inspired by God and infallible as Emmanuel. Talon, the French advocate general, protesting against this insult, on reason and common sense, stigmatized it as impiety and blasphemy. This blasphemy, however, was not confined to the cringing, unprincipled Jesuits. Leo, in the Lateran council in the 1 Certum est quod pontifex possit errare etiam in iis, qua; tangunt fidem. Adrian, G. De min. Art. 3. Maimbourg, 138. Non dubito. quin ego et decessores mei errare aliquando potuerimus. Paul, 4 in Maimb. 139. Du Pin, 364. Caron, c 18. Launoy, 1, 145. Galli aliique moderni ipsius infallibilitatem impugnant. Dens, i. 5. Ptipa solas potest errare et ease hareticus. Panormitan, Q. I. N. 21. P 140. " Papam non minus infallibilem in materia facti vel juris ease quam fuerit Jesus Christus. Caron. 60. Walsh, p. 9. Nullum errorem cadere posse in doctrinam, quam Pontifex authoritate summa definit et proponit universae ecclesiu?, sive ills juris sive facti quaestionem contineat. Arsdekin, 1, 124. Fapam, nee dicto nee facto, errare posse credebant. Barclay, 35. c. 4 190 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY . eleventh session, recognized the same principle in all its hatefulness and deformity. He declared his ability to * supply the defects both of right and fact, from his certain knowledge and from the plenitude of his apostolic power.' 1 The declaration was made with the full approbation of the holy Roman synod, which represented the universal church. Its belief, therefore, should, in the papal communion be an article of faith and its rejection a heresy. The Jansenists, on this topic, opposed the Jesuits, and betrayed, by their disputations, the boasted unity of Catholicism. The Italian school also vary with respect to the form of infallibility. This party indeed confess the pope's liability to error and deception, like other men, in a private or personal capacity, and limit his infallibility to his official decisons, or when he speaks from the chair. But the friends of official infallibility, agreeing in word, have disagreed about the inter- pretation of the term. One variety, on this topic, represents nis holiness, as speaking with official authority when he decides in council. This explanation has been patronized by Viguerius, Bagot, and Monilian. But these, it is plain, betray their own cause, by transferring infallibility from the pope to his council. A second variety limit his judicial sentences to the determina- tions which he delivers according to Scripture and tradition. This interpretation has been countenanced by C allot and Turrecrema. But these, like the former, miss their aim, and ascribe infallibility, not to the pope, but to Scripture and tradi- tion. The difficulty still remains, to know when his holiness speaks in accordance with these standards. A third variety, supported by Canus and his partizans, reckon these official instructions, such as are uttered after mature and diligent examination. 2 But all the wisdom of Canus, and his friends, and perhaps a subsidy, would be necessary to distinguish between the pontiff's deliberate and hasty determinations. The fourth and commonest variety, on this topic, is that of Bellarmine, Duva.1, Raynald, Dens, and Cajetan. His holiness, according to these doctors, utters his oracles from the chair when, in a public capacity, he teaches the whole church con- cerning faith and morality. 8 But a difficulty still remains to determine when ihis is the case ; and this difficulty has divided the advocates of this folly into several factions. The pontiff, 1 Tarn juris quam facti defectus supplentes, ex certa nostra scientia, et de Apoa* tolica? potestatis plenitudine. Labb. 19. 968. 2 Launoy, ad Metay. Du Pin, 340. Mtrimb. 55. Launoy, 3. 29, 40. 3 Censetur loqni ex cathedr& qu?mdo loquitur ex plenitudine potestatis, praescribena tmiversali ecclesire aliquid tanquam dogma fide credendum vel in moribus obser* vandum. Dens, 1. 159. Du Pin, 341. Launoy, 3. 24. Maimbourg, 56. PONTIFICAL INFALLIBILITY. 191 say some, teaches the whole church, when he enacts laws and say others, when he issues rescripts. The pontift, says Tannerus and Compton, instructs the whole ecclesiastical community, when his bull has, for some time, been affixed to the apostolic chancery. This, which Du Pin calls the height of folly, is indeed the concentrated spirit of sublimated nonsense. Maimbourg requires public and solemn prayer, with the con- sultation of many councils and universities. The certainty or uncertainty of pontifical exemption from error has, in the Romish communion, been a subject of dis- agreement and disputation. While the Ultramontane contends for its truth, and the Cisalpine for its falsehood, a numerous and influential party maintain its utter uncertainty, and represent it as a question, not of faith, but of opinion. The class-book of Mavnooth stoutly advocates the probability of both systems. 1 The sage writer's penetrating eye could, at a glance, discern the probability of two contradictory propositions. The author must have been a man of genius. Anglade, Slevin., and Kenny, at the Maynooth examination, declared, on oath, their indecision on this inquiry. The learned doctors could not tell whether their visible head be the organ of truth or the channel of error, even in his official decisions and on points of faith. A communion, which boasts of infallibility, cannot determine whether the sovereign pontiff, the plenipotentiary of heaven, and ' the father and teacher of all Christians,' be, even when speaking from the chair, the oracle of Catholicism or of heresy. A second faction seat inerrability in the church representa- tive or a general council. An ecumenical synod, according to this class, is the sovereign tribunal, which all ranks of men, even the Roman pontiff himself, are bound to obey. An assembly of this kind, guided by the Holy Spirit, is superior to the pope, and supreme judge of controversy. The pontiff, in case of disobedience, is subject to deposition by the same authority. 2 This is the system of the French or Cisalpine school. The Gallican church has distinguished itself, in every age, by its opposition to pontifical usurpation and tyranny. The pontiff's authority, in consequence, never obtained the same prevalence in France as in several other nations of Christendom, and his infallibility is one of those claims which the French school never acknowledged. His liability to error, even on questions of faith, has accordingly been maintained by the ablest French ''Utramque sententiam esse probabilem. Anglade, 180, 181. Slevin, 201. 202 Kenney, 37. 8 Du Pin, 3, 283. Gibert, 2. 7. Crabb. 2. 1018. Carranza, 5G5. 192 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: divines, such as Launoy, Gerson, Aknain, Ricberius, Maim- bourg, Marca, Bossuet, and Du Pin. These doctors have been supported by many French universities, such as Paris, Angiers, Tolouse, and Orleans, which have been followed by those of Louvain, Herford, Cologne, Cracow, and Vienna. Many pontiffs, also, such as Damasus, Celestine, Felix, Adrian, Gelasius, Leo, Innocent, and Eugenius, admitting their own liability to error, have referred infallibility to a general council. 1 The general councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, enacted a similiar decision. These proceeded, without any ceremony, to the demolition of pontifical supremacy and inerrability. All this is contained in the superiority of a council to the pope, as established by these synods, as well as by their deposition of Benedict, Gregory, John, and Eugenius. These pontiffs, the fathers of Pisa, Constance, and Basil found guilty of contu- macy, incorrigibility, simony, perjury, schism, and heresy, and founded synodal authority on the ruins of papal presumption and despotism. The Basilians, in express terms, declared the pope's fallibility, and, in many instances, his actual heresy. Some of the supreme pontiffs, said these legislators, * have fallen into heresy and error. The pope may and often does err. History and experience show, that the pope, though the head and chief, has often been guilty of error.' 2 These quo- tations are plain and expressive of the council's sentiments on the Roman hierarch's pretended exemption from the common weakness of humanity. The French, in this manner, are opposed to the Italian school. Theologian is opposed to theologian, pope to pope, university to university, and council to council. The council of the Lateran, in a particular manner, contradicts the council of Basil. Leo, in the former assembly and with its entire approbation, declared his certain knowledge both of right and fact. The latter congress, in the plainest language, admitted the pope's fallibility and actual heresy. 3 A third class ascribe infallibility to a union of the church virtual and representative, or to a general council headed by the Roman pontiff. These, in general, require pontifical con- vocation, presidency, and confirmation to confer on a council legality and validity. A pope or synod, according to this theory, may, when disconnected, fall into error; but, when 1 Hanc ease ecclesiae Gallicanae certain et indub'itabilemdoctrinam. Arsdekin, 1.117. Affirmativam tuentur Galli. Dens, 2. 156. Launoy, 145. Du Pin, 362, 364. Maimbourg, c. 15. Caron, c. 18. 2 Nonnulli summi Pontifices, in haereses et errores lapsi leguntur. Errante Pontifice, sicut saepe contingit, et contingere potest. Crabb, 3. 12, 146. 148 Bin. 8. 22. Carranza, 580. Du Pin, 361, 404. 3]xi*pense of bloodshed and usurpation. The reduc- tion of Ireland and the murder of its inhabitants, his holiness represented as the means of enlarging the bounds of the church, teaching the truths of Christianity to a barbarous and unlettered people, and eradicating the tares of vice from the garden of God. All this, in his infallibility's statement, would tend to the honour of God and the salvation of souls. His holiness, anxious in this manner for the salvation of men, was also mind- ful of another important consideration. He had the recollec- tion to stipulate for peter-pence, which was an annual tax from each family. 2 This fruit of Henry's military mission, which Adrian repeats in his apostolic bull, seems to have been conge- nial with his infallibility's devotion, and gratifying, in a par- ticular manner, to his pontifical piety. The pontiff; like a holy humble successor of the Galilean fisherman, reminds the English monarch of his right to bestow Ireland on Henry. This island, his infallibility discovered, and all others which have been enlightened by the sun of righteousness and shown evidence of their Christianity, belong to the Roman pontiff. Adrian, who, it appears, had a respectable domain, considered Henry's application for apostolic sanction to his expedition, as an earnest of victory. Adrian's bull was confirmed by Alexander the Third. The Irish clergy also met at Waterford, submitted to the papal dictation, and took an oath of fidelity to Henry and his successors. Mageoghegan and Caron, the friends of Romanism, have both condemned the bull of Adrian, which transferred Ireland to Henry. 3 Adrian's sentence, says Mageoghegan, i violated 1 Homines illos bestiales ad fidem et viam reducere veritatis. Paris, 91. 2 De singulis domibus, annuam unius denarii Beato Petro velle solvere pensionem. Labb. 13. 14, 15. Mageogh. 1. 439, et 2. 12. Spon. 1152. III. Ut . . . quae ad honorem Dei et salutera pertinent animarum taliter ordinentur, at a Deo sempiternae mercedis fructum consequi merearis. Trivettus Ann. 1155. Dachery, 3. 151. Mageogh 1. 440. Caron, c. 13. ADRIAN TRANSFERS IRELAND TO HENRY II. 223 the rights of nations and the most sacred laws of men, under the specious pretext of religion and reformation. Ireland was blotted from the map of nations and consigned to the loss of freedom, without a tribunal and without a crime.' The historian represents Henry, who undertook to reform the brutal Irish, * as a man of perfidy, superstition, selfishness, and debauchery, and void of gratitude, goodness, and religion.' Adrian's bull, says Caron, ' proclaims the author a tyrant and a transgressor of the law of nations and equity.' Innocent divested John of England, as Adrian had vested Henry with Ireland. Innocent the Third, says Orleans, might boast of striking nearly all the crowned heads with anathemas. The Roman pontiff opened the campaign against the British sovereign by a national interdict. This, which he published in 1208, presents to the eye of superstition an awful spectacle. All the institutions of religion were suspended, except Baptism, Confession, and the Viaticum in the last extremity. The churches were closed. The images of the saints were laid on the ground, and the bells ceased to toll. The dead, borne from the towns, were, without ceremony or funeral solemnity, depo sited in pits or buried, like dogs, in the highways. 1 The interdict being found ineffectual, John, in 1209, was excommunicated. All were forbidden to hold any communica- tion with the king at table, in council, or even in conversation. His deposition followed in 1212. Innocent, in a consistory of the sacred college, and in accordance with their unanimous advice, declared John's dethronement, the recision of his people's oath of allegiance, and the transfer of the kingdom to Philip the French monarch. The English sovereign was denounced as the public enemy of God. 2 The French king was encouraged to take possession of the English realm. His holiness exhorted all Christians in the British and French States to rally round the standard of Philip ; and offered a. pardon of all sin as an induce- ment to engage in the holy expedition. He granted the sol diery of the pious enterprise the same remission as the pilgrims who visited the sa,cred sepulchre, or the crusaders who marched for the recovery of the holy land. The British nobility and people were invited to rebellion ; and ' the English barons rejoiced in being freed from the obligation of fidelity.' 3 Philip's piety and ambition were kindled by the prospect of obtaining 1 Corpora quoque defunctorum de civitatibus et villis efferebantur, et more canum, in biviis et fossatis sine orationibus et sacerdotum ministerio sepeliebantur. M. Paris, 217. Polyd. Virg. 271. Orleans, 1. 118. 3 Tanquam Dei publicura hostem persequantur. Poly. Virgil. XV. Orleans, 1. 119. 3 Les Seigneurs ravis de se voir absous de leur serment de fidelite. Dan. 3. fi62, 554. 224 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I the expiation of sin, and the possession of a kingdom. He mustered an army, equipped a fleet of one hundred sail, and only waited a favouring gale to swell the canvass and waft his army to the British shores. The thunder of the Vatican, the disaffection of the English, and especially the armament of the French king, alarmed the British sovereign and shook his resolution. He submitted to all the despotic demands of the pontiff. British independence struck to Roman tyranny. John, in an assembly of the English nobility and clergy, took the crown from his head, delivered it, in token of subjection, to Pandolphus the pope's Nuncio, from whom the king condescended to receive this emblem of royality. 1 The monarch confirmed his submission with an oath. These transactions completed the degradation of majesty. This important day witnessed the debasement of the British sove- reign, and the vassalage of the British nation. Pandolphus, in consequence, who was vested with legatine authority, counter- manded Philip's expedition. Philip had only been the tool of Innocent's despotism ; and his agency, when John submitted, became unnecessary. Paul the Third, in 1535, issued sentence of deposition against Henry the Eighth, in retaliation for the British sovereign's rejection of the pontifical authority. Henry, indeed, according to Mageoghegan and Du Pin, ' was guilty, not of heresy, but merely of schism. He changed nothing in the faith. His majesty, without any discrimination, persecuted the partizans of popery and protestantism. The Reformation indeed, in England, had not appeared under Henry. This Revolution was reserved for the following reign.' 2 But Henry withdrew from the papal jurisdiction, and, in consequence, was exposed to papal execration. Paul excommunicated and deposed Henry, interdicted the nation, and absolved his subjects from their oath of allegiance. He transferred the kingdom to any successful invader, and prohibited all communication with the English monarch. He deprived the king of Christian burial, and con signed the sovereign, and his friends, accomplices, and adherents to anathemas, maledictions, and everlasting destruction. ' Paul,' says Paolo, ' excommunicated, anathematized, cursed, and con- demned Henry to eternal damnation.' 3 He stigmatized his Diadema capiti ademptum Pandolpho legato tradit, nunquam id ipse aut hseredes accepturi, nisi a Pontifice Romano. Polydorus Virgilius, 273. M. Paris. 227. Daniel 3. 556. Orleans, 1. 121. Concedimus Deo et nostro Papa? Inno ceutio ejusque successoribus totum regnum Angliae et totum regnum Hibernias, pro redemptione peccatorum nostrorum. Trivettus, Am. 1213. Dachery, 3. 1 83 2 La reforme ne s'etoit pas encore montree a decouvert sous Henri VIII. Cette revolution etoit reservce au regne suivant. Le Roi n'etoit que schismatique Mageoghegan/ 2. 310. Nihil quidem in fide mutans. Du Pin, 568. 3 Eos anathematis, maledictionis, et damnationis asternae mucrone peTculimus DEPOSITIONS OF HENRY VIII. AND QUEEN ELIZABETH. 225 posterity by Queen Anna, with illegitimacy and incapacity of succession to the crown ; while he delivered his partizans to slavery. The English clergy, his holiness commanded to leave the kingdom, and admonished the nobility to arm in rebellion against the king. He annulled every treaty between Henry and other princes. He enjoined the clergy to publish the excommunication ; and, with the standard of the cross, to ring the bells on the occasion, and then extinguish the candles. All who opposed, according to his infallibility, ' incurred the indignation of Almighty God, and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.' Pius deposed Elizabeth, as Innocent and Paul had degraded John and Henry. His holiness, in 1570, * anathematized her majesty as a professor and patron of heresy, despoiled the English queen of all dominion and dignity, and freed the British nation from all subjection and fidelity.' His infallibility's im- precations, according to Gabutius, took effect on the British sovereign. * The queen of England,' says the historian of Pius the Fifth, * exchanged, in 1603, an impious life for eternal death.' 1 The Roman pontiff also intrigued for the temporal destruction of the English queen, whom he had excommunicated. This, he attempted by rebellion and invasion, and through the agency of Rodolpho and the Spanish king. Rodolpho, a Florentine merchant who resided at London, employed, in his zeal for Romanism, a variety of stratagems for exciting an insurrection in England. Many partizans of popery and some nominal friends of protestantism, actuated by ambition or a desire of innovation, entered into the conspiracy. This, according to Gabutius, c was an evidence of their piety.' The majority of the nobility, headed by the Duke of Norfolk, engaged, through the activity of Rodolpho, in this combination for an insurrec- tion. 2 The rebels were to be supported by a Spanish army of Cherub. 2. 704. II avoit excommunie, anathematise, maudit, condamn6 a la damnation externello. Paol. 1. 166. Labb. 19. 1203. Mageogh. 2. 310. Du Pin, 568. Alex. 93. 174. Paulus, III. Henricum regno ac dominiis omnibus privatum denunciat, and loca omnia, in quibus rex fuerit, ecclesiastico subjicit interdicto. Henrici vassallos and subditos a juramento fidelitatis absolvit. Alex. 24. 420. 1 Ipsam Angloe regno omnique alio dominio dignitate, privilegio, privatum de- claravit, omnesque ac singulos ejus subditos a juramento fidelitatis absolvit, latos in eos qui illius legibus and mandatis parerent anathemate : quam constitutionem, Gregorius XIII, and Sixtus V. innovarunt and confirmarunt. Alex. 24. 435. Mageogh. 3. 412, 413. Impiam vitam cum sempiterna morte commutaverit. Gabutius, 102. Mageogh. 3. 409. Thuan. 2. 770. 2 Incolarum animos ad Elisabethae perditionem, rebellione facta, commoveret. Anglorum in Elisabetham pie conspirantium studia foveret. Rodulfus negotium eo parduxit, ut pars major optimatum in Elisabetham conspiraret. Gabut. 103. 206 THE VARIATIONS OF 1'OPERY .* J 0,000 men from the Netherlands, under the command of tne Duke of Alva. But the vigilance of Cecil, Elizabeth's Secretary, frustrated the machinations of Rodolpho and Alva. The designs of Pius were afterward pursued by Gregory, Sixtus, and Clement. Gregory the Thirteenth, in 1580, sent his apostolic benediction to the Irish rebels, who, according to his infallibility, were, in the war with the English, righting against the friends of heresy and the enemies of God. The pontiff accompanied this benediction to the Irish army with a plenary pardon of all sins, as to the crusaders who marched for the recovery of the Holy Land. He supported his benediction and remission with a levy of 2000 men raised in the Ecclesiasti- cal states. Sixtus the Fifth also fulminated anathemas and deposition against Elizabeth ; and urged Spain to second his maledictions by military expeditions to Ireland. Clement the Eighth, in 1600, loaded Oviedo and La Cerda, whom Philip the Spanish king had despatched to Ireland, with crusading indul gences to all who would arm in defence of the faith. The Spanish king, induced by the Roman pontiff, sent tw: expeditions to Ireland, under Lerda and Aquilla, witn arms ammunition, men, and money. The university of Salamanca in the mean time, as well as that of Valladolid, celebrated for learning and Catholicism, deliberated, in 1603, on the lawful- ness of the war waged by the Irish against the English. The Salamancan theologians, after mature consideration, decided in favour of its legality, and of supporting the army of the faith under the command of O'Neal, prince of Tyrone, against the queen of England. The learned doctors, at the same time determined against the lawfulness of resisting O'Neal, who was the defender of Catholicism against heresy, The warriors of the faith, according to the Spanish university, were sowing righte- ousness and would reap an eternal recompense : while those who supported the English committed a mortal sin, and would suffer, if they persisted, the reward of iniquity. This sentence proceeded on the principle, which the Salamancans assumed as certain, that the Roman pontiff had a right to use tne secular arm against the deserters of the faith and the impugners of Catholicism. 2 The university of Valladolid agreed with that of Salamanca ; and both, on the occasion, differed from their modern reply in 1778 to Pitt the British statesman. The Roman pontiffs, in these and various other instances, ' Mageogh. 3. 437, 542, 549. Thuan. 4. 531. 3 Magno cum merito et spe maxima retributionis aeternae. Mageogh. 3. 595. Stafford, 285. Tanquam certum est accipiendum, posse Romanum Pontificem fidei desertores, et eos, qui Catholicam religionem oppugnant, armia compellere. Mageogh. 3 595. Slevin, 193. DETHRONEMENT OF KINGS TAUGHT BY THE POPES. 227 shewed, in practical illustration, their assumption of temporal authority. But these viceroys of heaven also taught what they practised ; and inculcated the theory in their bulls, as well as the execution in fact. The partizans of the French system indeed have, with the assistance of shuffling and sophistry, endeavoured to explain this principle out of the pontifical decretals. Doctor Slevin, in the Maynooth examination, has, on this topic, exhibited a world of quibbling, chicanery, and Jesuitism. The learned doctor, with admirable dexterity, plays the artillery of misrepresentation and hair-breadth distinctions. He maintains that no pope, speaking from the chair, ever pro- posed this doctrine to the church, to be believed as revealed and held as an article of faith. Doctor Higgins, on the same occa- sion, and with more candour and dogmatism than Slevin, asserted, that no pontiff defined for the belief of the faithful, that the pontifical power of dethroning kings was founded on divine right. 1 These misrepresentations and evasions, how- ever, will vanish before a plain unvarnished statement of facts. These facts may be supplied from the bulls and definitions of Gregory, Boniface, Paul, Pius, and Sixtus. Gregory taught the principle of the dethronement of kings, with as much decision and in as unequivocal a manner as he wielded the exercise. His infallibility, in a Roman council in 1076, decreed, that the power of binding and loosing in heaven and earth, which extended to temporals as well as to spirituals, and by which he deposed the emperor Henry, was given to the pontiff by God. Gregory, in consequence, degraded his imperial majesty in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The sentence, he pronounced in council, and therefore in an official capacity. He acted, he declared, by the authority of God, and therefore by divine right.* Gregory afterwards vindicated his conduct in a letter to Herman, who requested information on this subject. The act, he said, ' was warranted by many certain scriptural proofs,' and quoted, as a specimen, the words of Jesus conferring the power of the keys. He represented, * the Holy Fathers as agreeing in his favour with one spirit and with one voice.' The contrary opinion his holiness called madness, fatuity, impudence, and idolatry. Those who opposed, he styled wild beasts, the body of Satan, and members of the devil and antichrist. 3 Philip the 1 Slavin, 189. Higgins, 275. * Labb. 12. 498, 499, 600, 637, 638, 639. Duran. 1. 46. 3 Hujus rei, tarn raulta et certissima documents in sacrarum scripturarum pagini* reperiuntur. Greg, ad Herm. Matt. xvi. 16. Sancti patres in hoc consentientes, et . 246 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : wide and debasing dominion of ignorance, immorality, and superstition, which superseded the use of the inquisitor and crusader. 1 The revival of sectarianism followed the revival of Letters. Many denominations of this kind appeared, in the beginning of the twelfth century, among the European nations, such as the Paulicians, Catharians, Henricians, Waldenses, and Albi- genses. The Waldenses arid Albigenses were the most numerous and rational, and therefore the most formidable to the Papacy. AIL these concurred in hostility to Romanism, as a system of error and superstition. The usurpation and despo- tism of the Popedom were the chief objects of their enmity and opposition. The despotism and immorality of the clergy exposed them to the indignation of sectarian zeal. Philosophy in its first dawn, learning in its feeblest glimmerings, discovered the deformity and shook the domination of the Papacy. The revival of literature, however, was not the only cause of opposi- tion to Romanism. Many reasons concurred. The reign of superstition ; the trafic of indulgences ; the dissensions between the emperors and the pontiffs ; the wars, which, for two hun- dred years, had desolated the Christian world ; the luxury of the bishops and inferior clergy ; all these tended to arouse the hostility of men against the overgrown system of ecclesiastical tyranny. 2 This hostility against the principles of Popery produced a reaction and enmity against the partizans of sectarianism. Rome plied all her spiritual artillery, and vented her rage in excommunication and massacre. Heresy or rather truth and holiness were assailed by kings, theologians, popes, councils, crusaders, and inquisitors. Princes wielded the secular arm against the abettors of heresy. Frederic the German emperor, and Lewis the French king, as well as many other sovereigns, enacted persecuting laws against the Waldenses and Albigenses. Frederic, in 1224, promul- gated four edicts of this kind from Padua. His majesty, in his imperial politeness, began with calling the Albigenses vipers, snakes, serpents, wolves, angels of wickedness, and sons of perfidy, who were descended from the author of iniquity and falsehood, and insulted God and the church. Pretending to the authority of God for his inhumanity, he execrated all the patrons of apostacy from Catholicism, and sentenced heretics of every sect and denomination alive to the flames, their prop- erty to confiscation, and their posterity, unless they became persecutors, to infamy. The suspected, unless they took an i Moreri, 5. 129. Giannon, XV. 4. Velly, 3. 431, 8 Giannon, xv. 4. PERSECUTION OF HERESY. 247 oath of exculpation, were accounted guilty. Princes were admonished to purify their dominions from heretical perversity ; and, if they refused, their land might without hesitation be seized by the champions of Catholicism. 1 This was the first law that made heresy a capital offence. The emperor also patronized the inquisition, and protected its agents of torture and malevolence. Lewis, in 1228, issued similar enactments. He published laws for the extirpation of heresy, and enjoined their execution on the barons and bailiffs. He rendered the patrons and pro- tectors of error incapable of giving testimony, making a will, or succeeding to any honour or emolument. The sainted monarch encouraged the work of death, and in the language of Pope Innocent, diffused through the crusading army ' the natural and hereditary piety of the French kings.' He forced Raymond, Count of Toulouse, to undertake the extermination of heresy from his dominions, without sparing vassal or friend. Alfonso, king of Arragon, and several others copied the example of Frederic and Lewis. 2 The emperors were sworn to exterminate heretics. The emperor Henry, according to Clement, in the council of Vienna took an oath, obliging his majesty to eradicate the professors and protectors of heterodoxy. A similar obligation was im- posed on the emperor of Germany, even after the dawn of the Reformation. He was bound by a solemn oath to extirpate, even at the hazard of his life and dominions, all whom the pontiff condemned. 3 Saints and pontiffs, in these deeds of inhumanity, imitated emperors and kings. Lewis, who enacted such statutes of cruelty, was a saint as well as a sovereign. Aquinas was actuated with the same demon of malevolence, and breathed the same spirit of barbarity. ' Heretics,' the angelic doctor declares, * may not only be excommunicated but justly killed. Such, the church consigns to the secular arm, to be extermina- ted from the world by death.' 4 Dominic, Osma, Arnold, 1 Hi sunt lupi rapaces. Hi sunt angeli pessimi. Hisimt filii pravitatum, a patre nequitiae et fraudis authore. Hi colubri, hi serpentes, qui latenter videntur inser- pere. Debitae ultionis in eos gladium exeramus: decernimus, ut vivi in conspectu hominum comburantur. Labb. 14. 25, 26. Du Pin, 2, 486. 2 Labb. 13. 1231. Velly, 4. 134. Gibert, 1. 15. 3 Omnem hsresim, schisma, et hrereticos quoslibet fautores, receptatores, et de- fensores ipsorum exterminaret. Clem. II. Tit. 9. Bruy. 3. 373. Les Princes, et encore plus les Empereurs, qui en font des sermens si solemnels, etant etroitement obligez sous peine des censures d'extirper ceux, que les papes ont condamnez, et d'y employer jusqu' i leurs etats et meme leur vie. Paul. 1 103. 4 Haeretici possunt non solum excommunicari, sed et juste occidi Ecclesia reliriquit eum iudici saeculari mundo exterminandum per mortem. Aquinas, II 11. HI. p. 48 248 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY. Conrad, Rainer, Guy, Castelnau, Guido, Rodolf, and a long train of saints and doctors might be named, who, for support- ing the work of murder and extermination, were raised to the honours of canonization. The pontiffs, like the kings and saints, encouraged, with all their influence, the system of persecution and cruelty. Urban, Alexander, Lucius, Innocent, Clement, Honorius, and Martin gained an infamous notoriety for their ruthless and unre- lenting enactments against the partizans of Albigensianism, Waldensianism, and Wickliffism. Urban the Second, in 1090, decided that the person, who, inflamed with zeal for Catholi- cism, should slay any of the excommunicated, was not guilty of murder. 1 The assassination of a man under the sentence of excommunication, his infallibility accounted only a venial crime. His holiness must have excelled in the knowledge of casuistry. His morality, however, Bruys characterized by the epithets diabolical and infernal. 2 Lucius the Third fulminated red-hot anathemas against the Waldenses, as well as against their protectors and patrons, and consigned them to the secular arm, to undergo condign vengeance in proportion to their criminality. Innocent the Fourth sanctioned the enactments of Frederic, which sentenced the partizans of error and apostacy to be burned alive. He commanded the house in which an Albigensian had been sheltered to be razed from the founda- tion. All these viceroys of heaven concurred in consigning to infamy any who should give the apostate from the faith either counsel or favor ; and in driving the magistracy to execute the sanguinary statutes, by interdicts and excommunication. The crusaders against the Albigenses enjoyed the same indulgences as those who marched to the holy land. Supported by the mercy of Omnipotent God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, Innocent granted these holy warriors a full pardon of all sin, and eternal salvation in heaven. 8 Provincial and national councils breathed the same spirit of persecution, as kings and pontiffs. These were many. But the most sanguinary of them met at Toledo, Oxford, Avignon, Tours, Lavaur, Montpellier, Narbonne, Albi, and Tolosa. Anno 630, the national council of Toledo, in its third canon, promulgated an enactment for the expulsion of all Jews from Spain, and for the permission of none in the kingdom but the 1 Non enim eos homicidas arbitramur, quos advereus excommunicates, Zelo Ca- tholicse matris ardentes, aliquis eorum trucidasse contingent. Pithou, 324. 2 Bruy. 2. 508. 3 Plenam peccaminum veniam indulgemus, et in retributione justorum salutis teternse pollicemur augmentum. Labb. 14. 64. Bened. 1. 73. et 2. 232. Bray. 3. 13. Du Pin, 2. 335. Labb. 13 643. et 14. 23. PERSECUTION OF THE WALDENSES AND OTHERS. 249 professors of Romanism. 1 This holy assembly made the king, on his accession, swear to tolerate no heretical subjects in the Spanish dominions, The sovereign who should violate this oath, and all his accomplices, would, according to the sacred, synod, ' be accursed in the sight of the everlasting God, and become the fuel of eternal fire.' This sentence, the holy fathers represented ' as pleasing to God.' Spain, at an early date, began those proscriptions, which she has continued to the present day. The council of Oxford, in 1160, condemned more than thirty of the Waldenses who had emigrated from Gascony to Eng- land, and consigned these unhappy sufferers to the secular arm. Henry the Second ordered them, man and woman, to be pub- licly whipped, branded on the cheek with a red-hot iron, and driven half-naked out of the city : while all were forbid to grant these wretched people hospitality or consolation. None therefore showed the condemned the least pity. The winter raged in all its severity, and the Waldenses in consequence perished of cold and hunger. 2 The councils of Tours, Lavaur, Albi, Narbonne, Beziers, and Tolosa issued various enactments of outlawry and ex termination against the Albigenses and Waldenses. These, according to the sentence of those sacred synods, were excom- municated every Sunday and festival ; while, to add solemnity and horror to the scene, the bells were rung and the candles extinguished. An inquisitorial deputation of the clergy and laity was commissioned for the detection of heresy and its partisans. The barons and the magistracy were sworn to exterminate heretical pollution from their lands. The barons who through fear or favor should neglect the work of destruc- tion, forfeited their estates, which were transferred to the active and ruthless agents of extirpation. The magistracy, who were remiss, were stripped of their office and property. 3 All were forbidden to hold any commerce in buying or felling with these sectarians, that, deprived of the consolations 1 Hanc promulgamus Deo placituram sententiam. Inter reliqua sacrameuta, pollicitus fuerit, nullum non catholicum permittere in suo regno degere. Teme- rator hujus extiterit promissi sit anathema, marantha, in conspectu sempiterni Dei, et pabulum efficiatui- ignis aeterni. Carranza, 376. Crabb. 2. 211. Godea. 5. 157. 2 Prsecepit haereticae infamise characterem frontibus eorum inuri ; et spectante populo, virgis coercitos, urbe expelli, districte prohibens, ne quis eos vel hospitio recipere, vel aliquo solatio confovere, praesumeret Algoris intolerantia (hyenas quippe ei-at), nemine vel exiguum misericordise impendente, misere interierunt. Labb. 13. 287, 288. Neubrig. II. 13. Spelman, 2. 60. Excommunicentur in ecclesiis, pulsatis campanis et extinctis candelis. Labb. 4. 158. Dominos locorum de illia detegendis solicitos esse, et illorum latibula des- truere; fautores haereticorum terrae suse jactura et aliis poenis plecti. Baillivum, qui exterminandis haareticis operam non' dederit, bonis suis et magistratu exui Alex. 20. 1667. Du Pin, 2. 415 Labb. 13. 1237. Marian. 2. 707 250 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! of humanity, they might, according to the council of Tours. ' be compelled to renounce their error.' No person was allowed to afibrJ them succour or protection. The house, in which the Albigensian sheltered his head, was, as if contaminated with his presence, to be demolished and the ground confLscaldd. The grave itself could not defi-nd the heretical tenants of its cold domains from the fury of the inquisitor. The body or the bones of the Albigenses that slept in the dust were to be disin- terred, and the mouldering remains committed, in impotent and unavailing vengeance, to the (lames. 1 The council <>f Tulosn, in 1229, waged war on this occasion against the Bible as well as ag;iinsi. heresy. The sacred synod strictly forbade the laity to possess the Books of the Old and New Testament in the vernacular idiom. A layman, in the language of the holy fathers, might perhaps keep a Psalm-book, a breviary, or the hours of holy Mary ; but no Bible. 2 This, Velly admits, was the first prohibition of the kind. Twelve revolving ages from the commencement of Christianity had rolled their ample course over the world, and no assembly of men had dared to interdict the book of God. But a synod, in a communion boasting unchangeability, arrogated at length the authority of repealing the enactment of heaven and the practice of twelve hundred ye, us. These provincial synods were sanctioned by general coun- cils ; which therefore were blessed with infallibility. These comprehended four of the Lateran, and those of Constance and Sienna. Anno 1139, the second council of the Lateran, in its twenty-third canon, excommunicated and condemned the heretics of the day who affected a show of piety. These, the infallible assembly commanded the civil powers to suppress ; and consigned their protectors also to the same condemnation. 3 The Third general council of the Lateran issued a canon of a similar kind ; but of greater rigour and severity. This unerring assembly, in its twenty-seventh canon, and supported by the mercy of God and the authority of Peter and Paul, excommunicated on Sundays and festivals, the Cathari of 1 Nee in venditiouo aut emptione aliqua cum eis omnino commercium habeatur, ut solutio saltern humanitatis amisso ab errore vita) sum resipiscere cotnpellantur. Labb. 13. 303. Bened. I. 47, 52. Domum in qua fuorit inveutus hoereticus dirui, et fuiulum coufiscari. Alex. 20. 667. Hujretiei exhumentur et eorum cadavers give ossa publice comburantur. Labb. 14. 160. Alex. 2. 679. 3 Ne laici libros veteris aut novi testamenti permittantur. Ne sacros libros in linguam vulgarem translalos habeunt, arctissime prohibct Synodus. Labb. 13. 1239. Alex. 20. 668. Mez. 2. 810. Aucun laique n'aura chez lui lea livres de 1'ancien et du noveau Testament. Velly, 4. 133. 3 Eos qui religiositatis Bpociem simulautes, tanquam haereticos ab ecclesiu Dei pellimus, et damnaruus, et per potestates exteras coerceri prsecipimus. Det'eusore* quoquo ipsoruoi ejusdem damnationis vinculo inuodamus. Bin. 8. 596. PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 251 / Gascoay, Albi, and Tolosa : and the sentence extended to all their protectors, who admitted those sons of error into their houses or lands, or to any kind of traffic or commerce. Their possessions were consigned to confiscation and themselves to slavery ; while any who had made a treaty or contract with them, were acquitted of their engagement. 1 Crusaders were armed against these adherents of heresy ; and the holy war- riors were encouraged in the work of extermination and death by indulgences and the assurance of eternal felicity. But no oblation was to be offered for the souls of the heretics, and their dead were refused Christian burial on consecrated ground. The fourth general council of the Lateran, in 1245, surpas- sed all its predecessors in severity. These persecuting con- ventions seem to have risen above each other by a regular gradation of inhumanity. The third excelled the second on the scale of cruelty ; and both again were exceeded by the fourth, which indeed seems to have brought the system of persecution to perfection. This infallible assembly pronounced excorTimunication, anathemas, and condemnation against all heretics of every denomination, with their protectors ; and consigned all such to the secular arm for due punishment. 2 The property of these sons of apostacy, if laymen, was, accor- ding to the holy fathers, to be confiscated, and, if clergymen, to be conferred on the church. The suspected, unless they proved their innocence, were to be accounted guilty, and avoided by all till they afforded condign satisfaction. Kings were to be solicited, and, if necessary, compelled by ecclesias- tical censures, to exterminate all heretics from their dominions. The sovereign, who should refuse, was to be excommunicated by the metropolitan and suffragans : and, if he should prove refractory for a year, the Roman pontiff, the vicar-general of God, was empowered to transfer his kingdom to some cham- pion of Catholicism and absolve his vassals from their fealty. The populace were encouraged to engage in crusading expeditions for the extinction of heterodoxy. The ad- venturers in these holy wars enjoyed the same indulgences and the same honours as the soldiery that marched to 1 Eos et defensores eorum et receptores anathemati decernimus subjacere. Sub anathemate prohibemus, ne quis eos in domibus, vel in terra sua tenere vel fovere, vel negotiationem cum eis exercere praesumat. Confiscentur eorum boua et libe- rum sit principibus hujusraodi homines subjicere servituti. Labb. 13. 430. Bin 8. 662. 2 Excommunicamus et anathematizamus omnem haeresim, condemnantes univer- BOS hnereticos, quibuscumque nominibus censeantur. Labb. 13. 934. Synodua haereticofl omnes diris devovit, et dumnatos, sajcularibus potestatibus tradi jussit, animadversione debita puniendos. Alex. 20. 312. Bruy. 3. 148. Gibert, 1. 16. 252 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I the Holy Land. The prelacy were enjoined to bind the people of their vicinity by oath to inform, if they knew any guilty or suspected of heresy. Any, who should refuse to swear, were to be considered as guilty : and the bishops, if remiss in the execution of their task, were threatened with canonical vengeance. The general council of Constance, in 1418, sanctioned the canons of the Lateran. The holy and infallible assembly, in its forty-fifth session, presented a shocking scene of blasphemy and barbarity. Pope Martin, presiding in the sacred synod and clothed with all its authority, addressed the bishops and inquisi- tors of heretical perversity, on whom he bestowed his apos- tolic benediction. The eradication of error and the establish- ment of Catholicism, Martin represented as the chief care of himself and the council. His infallibility, in his pontifical politeness, characterized Wickliff, Huss, and Jerome, as pestilent and deceitful heresiarchs, who, excited with truculent rage, infested the Christian fold, and, in his supremacy's beautiful style, made the sheep putrify with the filth of falsehood. The partizans of heresy through Bohemia, Moravia, and other king- doms, his holiness described as actuated with the pride of Luci- fer, the fury of wolves, and the deceitfulness of demons. The pontiff, then, supported by the council, proceeded, for the glory of God, the stability of Romanism, and the preservation of Christianity, to excommunicate these advocates of error, with their pestilent patrons and protectors, and to consign them to the secular arm and the severest vengeance. He commanded kings to punish them according to the Lateran council. The above mentioned inhuman enactments of the Lateran, therefore, were to be brought into requisition against the Bohemians and Moravians. These, according to the holy synod, were to be despoiled of all property, Christian burial, and the consolations of humanity. 1 The general council of Sienna, in 1423, which was afterward continued at Basil, published persecuting enactments of a simi- lar kind. The holy synod assembled in the Holy Ghost, and representing the universal church, acknowledged the spread of heresy in different parts of the world through the remissness of the inquisitors, and to the offence of God, the injury of Catho- licism, and the perdition of souls. The sacred convention then 1 Haeresiarchse, Luciferina superbia et rabie lupina evecti, dsemonum fraudibus illusi. Oves Christ! Catholicas haeresiarcha? ipsi successive infecerunt, et in ster- core mendaciorum fecerunt putrescere. Credentes et adhaerentes eisdeflj, tan- quam haereticos indicetis et velut haereticos seculan Curiae relinquatis. Bin. 8. 1120. Secundum tenorem Lateranensis Concilii expellant, nee eosdem domicilia tenere, contractus inire, negotiationes exercere, aut humanitatia solatia cum Christ! fidelibus habe.re permittant. Bin. 8. 1121. Crab. 2. 1166. PERSECUTING COUNCILS. 253 commanded the inquisitors, in every place, to extirpate every heresy, especially those of Wickliff, Huss, and Jerome. Princes were admonished by the mercy of God to exterminate error, if they would escape divine vengeance. The holy fathers and the viceroy of heaven conspired, in this, manner, to sanction murder in the name of the God of rnercy : and granted plenary indulgences to all who should banish those sons of heterodoxy or provide arms for their destruction. 1 These enactments were published every Sabbath, while the bells were rung and the candles lighted and extinguished. The filth general council of the Lateran, in 1514, enacted laws, marked, if possible, with augmented barbarity. Dissem- bling Christians of every kind and nation, heretics polluted with any contamination of error were, by this infallible gang of ruffians, dismissed from the assembly of the faithful, and con- signed to the inquisition, that the convicted might undergo due punishment, and the relapsed suffer without any hope of pardon. 2 The general council of Trent was the last of these infallible conventions that sanctioned persecutions. This assembly, in its second session, ' enjoined the extermination of heretics by the sword, the. fire, the rope, and all other means, when it could be done with safety.' The sacred synod again, in the last session, admonished * all princes to exert their influence to prevent the abettors of heresy from misinterpreting or violating the ecclesiastical decrees, and to oblige these objectors, as well as all their other subjects, to accept and to observe the synodal canons with devotion and fidelity.' This was clearly an appeal to the secular arm, for the purpose of forcing acquies- cence and submission. The natural consequence of such compulsion was persecution. The holy fathers, having, in this laudable manner, taught temporal sovereigns their duty, con- cluded with a discharge of their spiritual artillery, .and pronounced an ' anathema on all heretics.' 3 The unerring 1 Volens haec sancta synodus remedium adhibere, statuit et mandat omnibus et singulis inquisitoribus haereticae pravitatis, ut solicite intendant inquisition! et extirpation! haeresium quarumcumque. Omnes Christianae religionis principes ac dominos tain ecclesiasticos quara saeculares hortatur, invitat, et monet per viscera misericordiae Dei, ad extirpationem tanti per ecclesiam praedamnati erroris orani celeritate, si Divinara ultionem et poenas juris evitare voluerunt. Labb. 17. 97, 98. Bray. 4. 72. ^ Omnes ficti Christiani, ac de fide male sentientes, cujuscumque generis aut nationis fuerint, necnon haeretici seu aliqua haeresis labe polluti, a Christi fidelium coetu penitus eliminentur, et quocnmque loco expellantur, ac debita animadver eione puniantur, statuimus, Crabb. 3, 646. Bin. 2. 112. Labb. 19. 844. 3 On devoit les destruire par le fer, le feu. la erode, on tout autre moyen. Paolo, IV. p. 604. Ut principes omnes, quot facit in domino moneat ad operam suam ita praestan- dam, ut quse ab ea decreta sunt, ab haereticis depravari aut violari non permittant ; 254 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : council, actuated according to their own account, by the Holy Ghost, terminated their protracted deliberations, not with blessing mankind, but with cursing all who should claim religious liberty, assert the rights of conscience, or presume to differ from the absurdity of their synodal decisions. The principle of persecution, therefore, being sanctioned, not only by theologians, popes, and provincial synods, but also by general councils, is a necessary and integral part of Romanism. The Romish communion has, by its representa- tives, declared its right to compel men to renounce heterodoxy and embrace Catholicism, and to consign the obstinate to the civil power to be banished, tortured, or killed. The modern pretenders to liberality in the Popish commu- nion have, in general, endeavoured to solve this difficulty by- dividing the work of persecution between the civil and ecclesi- astical powers. This was the solution of Grotty, Slevin, and Higgins at the Maynooth examination. 1 The canons of the Lateran, these doctors pretend, were the acts of both church and state. These councils were conventions of princes as well as of priests, of kings as well as of clergy. Their enact- ments therefore were authorized by the temporal as well as by the spiritual authority. But the laity never voted in councils. The prelacy, accord- ingly, Grotty admits, had the sole right of suffrage, and these canons, in all their barbarity, were suggested by the episco- pacy, by whom they were recommended to princes and kings. The clergy even urged the laity to these deeds of carnage by interdicts and excommunication. The solution, even on the supposition of concurrence or collusion between the church and state, is a beautiful specimen of Shandean dialectics. Tristram invented a plan of evading sin by a division similar to the logic of Grotty, Slevin, and Higgins. The process was simple and easy. Two ladies between them contrived to repeat a word, the pronunciation of which by one would have entrenched a little on politeness and morality. Each lady, therefore, rehearsed only half of the obnoxious term, and, of course, preserved a clear conscience and committed no offence against propriety or purity. Our learned Popish doctors, in like manner, and by equally con- clusive reasoning, have, by a similar participation, been enabled to transubstantiate sin into duty, and excuse murder and massacre. The authority of the Lateran, Constantian, and Siennan sed ab his et omnibus devote recipiantur et fideliter observantur. Labb. 20. 195 Anathema cunctis haereticis. Resp. Anathema, Anathema, Labb. 20. 197. 1 Grotty, 82, 87. Slevin, 241. Higgins, 269. CRUSADE AGAINST THE ALBIGENSES. 255 canons may be shown in another way. Popish Christendom, without a single murmur of opposition, acquiesced in these decisions, and in their accomplishment in the massacre of the Albigenses. None, among either the clergy or laity, remon- strated or reclaimed. But a Papal bull, received by open or tacit assent and by a majority of the Popish clergy, forms a dogma of faith. This, at Maynooth, was, in the clearest lan- guage, stated by Grotty, Brown, and Higgins. 1 Many pontiffs, such as Urban, Innocent, Clement, and Honorius, issued such decretals of persecution. These, without the objection of a solitary clergyman or layman, were approved and executed without justice or mercy on the adherents of heresy. These principles, therefore, obtained the sanction of the whole Romish church, and have been marked with the sign manual of infalli- bility. All the Popish beneficed clergy through Christendom pro- fess, on oath, to receive these persecuting canons and councils. They swear on the holy evangelists and in the most solemn manner, ' to hold and teach ah 1 that the sacred canons and general councils have delivered, defined, and declared.' 2 The rejection of these enactments would amount to a violation of this obligation. Any person, who should infringe or contra- dict this declaration, will, and commandment, incurs, according to the bull of Pius the Fourth, the indignation of Almighty God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. The legislation of kings, pontiffs, and councils was no idle speculation or untried theory. The regal, papal, and synodal enactments were called into active operation : and their prac- tical accomplishment had been written in characters of blood in the annals of the papacy and the inquisition. Pope Innocent first sent a missionary expedition against the Albigenses. His holiness, for this purpose, commissioned Rainer, Guy, Arnold, Guido, Osma, Castelnau, Rodolf, and Dominic. These, in the execution of their mission, preached Popery and wrought miracles. Dominic, in particular, though distinguished for cruelty, excelled in the manufacture of these * lying wonders.' But the miracles and sermons, or rather the imposition and balderdash, of these apostles of superstition and barbarity, excited only the derision and scorn of these ' sons of heresy and error.' The obdurate people, says Benedict, 4 shewed no desire for conversion ; but, on the contrary, treated their instructors with contempt and reproach.' * An infinite 1 Crotty, 78. Brown, 154. Higgins, 274. 2 Omnia a sacris canonibus et oecumenicis conciliis tradita, definite, et declarata, indubitanter recipio atque profiteer. Ego idem spondee, voyeo, ac juro. Sic me Dens adjuvet. Labb. 20. 222. 256 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: number,' says Nangis, * obstinately adhered to their error.' According to Mariana, * The Albigenses increased every day and, in their stupidity, rejoiced in their own blindness.' The gospel of Castelnau, Rainer, and Arnold, Velly grants, ' met with no attention ;' and, therefore, according to Giannon's admission, made no impression.' 1 His infallibility, Pope Innocent the Third, finding the ineffi- ciency of his gospel as preached by Dominic, proclaimed, by his bulls, a crusade against the Albigenses. Supported by divine aid, his holiness, in the -name of the Lord of Hosts, granted all who should march against the Albigensian pestilence, the pardon of sin, the glory of martyrdom, and the possession of heaven. The pontiff, by special favour and indulgence, gave the hero of the cross, if he fell in battle, an immediate passport, by a short way, to heaven, without ever touching on purgatory. 2 These rewards assembled half a million of HOLY WARRIORS, composed of bishops, soldiers, canons, and people, from Italy, France, and Germany, ready to riot in blood for the honour of God, the good of society, the defence of Romanism, and the extinction of heresy. This army was led by the Earl of Montfort, whom ambition and hypocrisy marked for the hero of a holy war. The arch- bishop of Narbonne, at an early period, painted Montfort's ambition, stratagems, malice, violence, and duplicity. But the contemporary historians ascribed his exploits to zeal and piety ; while Raymond, Count of Thoulouse, who was Montfort's rival, and protector of the Albigenses, was, on the contrary, charac- terized as a member of the Devil, the son of perdition, the eldest born of Satan, the enemy of the cross, the defender of heresy, and the oppressor of Catholicism. 3 This holy war, during its campaigns, exhibited a great diver- sity of battles and sieges. The storming of Beziers and Lavaur will supply a specimen of the spirit and achievements of the crusading army. The city of Beziers was taken by storm in 1209, and the 1 Les deux legats travaillerent quelque annees avec beaucoup de zele, et peu de fruit. Sans qu'il parut que les heretiques fussent touchez d'aucun dosir de conversion. Benedict, 1, 51, 52. Mariana, 2, 686. Alii, quorum infinitus erat numcrus, sno pertinaciter inhaerebant errori. Nangis, Ann. 1007. Dachery, 3. 22. Tous les trois se mirent faire des sermons, qui ne furent point ecoutes. Velly, 3, 436. Giannon, XV. 4. 8 Nos per indulgentias innovatas Crucesignatos et fideles alios excitamus, ut ad extirpandam pestem hanc, Divino freti auxilio, procedant in nomine Domini Sab- oaoth. Alex. 20. 307. Velly, 3, 439. Thuan. VI. 16. Benedici, 1. 79. Innocentius III. sacram adversus baereticos militiam indixit. Alex. 20. 290. 3 L'archeveque de Narbonne depeint les demarches, les mences, les violences, Vambition, et la malice de ce general de la croisade. Velly, 3, 444. Vrai men> bre du diable, fils de perdition, fils aine de Satan, ennemi de la croix. Velly, 3 437. Mariana, 2. 687. MASSACRES OF THE ALBIGENSES. 257 citizens put to the sword without distinction of condition, age, sex, or even religion. When the Crusaders and Albigenses were so mixed that they could not be discriminated, Arnold, the Papal missionary, commanded the soldiery to ' kill all and God would know his own.' 1 Seven hundred were slain in the church. Daniel reckons the killed at thirty thousand. Meze- ray and Velly as well as some of the original historians, estimate the number who were massacred at sixty thousand. The blood of the human victims, who fled to the churches for safety and were murdered by the HOLY WARRIORS, drenched the altars, and flowed in crimson torrents through the streets. Lavaur was taken by storm in 1211. Aimeric the governor was hanged on a gibbet, and Girarda his lady was thrown into a well and overwhelmed with stones. Eighty gentlemen, who had been made prisoners, were slaughtered like sheep in cold blood. All the citizens were mangled without discrimination in promiscuous carnage. Four hundred were burned alive, to the extreme delight of the crusaders. 2 One shudders, says Velly in his history of these transactions, while he relates such horrors. Languedoc, a country flourishing and cultivated, was wasted by these desolators. Its plains became a desert ; while its cities were burned and its inhabitants swept away with fire and sword. An hundred thousand Albigenses fell, it is said, in one day : and their bodies were heaped together and burned. Detachments of soldiery were, for three months, despatched in every direction to demolish houses, destroy vineyards, and ruin the hopes of the husbandman. The females were defiled. The march of the HOLY WARRIORS was marked by the flames of burning houses, the screams of violated women, and the groans of murdered men. 3 The Var, with all its sanguinary accom- paniments, lasted twenty years, and the Albigenses, during this time, were not the only sufferers. Three hundred thou- sand crusaders fell on the plains of Languedoc, and fattened the soil with their blood. i 1 Tuez les tous, Dieu connoit ceux qui sent a lui. Soixante mille habitant passerent par le fil de 1'epee. Velly, 3. 441. II y fut tue plus de soixante mille persormes. Mezeray, 2. 619. Promiscua caedes civium facta est. Thuan. 1. 222. Urbs capta, ctedes promiscue facta. Alex. 20. 291. Benedict, 1. 104. Daniel, 3. 518. Nangis, Ann. 1209. Dachery, 3. 23 2 Quatre-vingt Dentils hommes prisonniers furent egorges de sang froid. Quatre cents heretiques furent brules vifs avec une joye extreme de la part des croisSs. Velly, 3. 454. Benedict, 1. 163. Daniel, 3. 527. Alex. 20. 292. Nangis, Ann, 1210. 3 En violant filles et femmes, Bruy. 3. 141. En un seul jour, on egorgea cent mille de ces heretiques. Bruys, 3. 139. Daniel, 3. 511. Velly, 4- 121, 135. On promit indulgence et absolution pleniere a ceux qui tueroient des Vaudoia, Moreri, 8. 48. 258 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I All this barbarity was perpetrated in the name of religion The carnage was celebrated as the triumph of the church, the honour of the Papacy, and the glory of Catholicism. The pope proclaimed the HOLY WAR in the name of the Lord. The army of the cross exulted in the massacre of Lavaur, and the clergy sung a hymn to the Creator for the glorious victory. 1 The assassins thanked the God of mercy for the work of de- struction and bloodshed. The soldiery, in the morning, at- tended high mass, and then proceeded, during the day, to waste the country and murder its population. The assassina- tion of sixty thousand citizens of Beziers was accounted, says Mariana, * the visible judgment of heaven.' According to Benedict, * the heresy of Albigensianism drew down the wrath of God on the country of Languedoc.' The Crusaders were accompanied with another engine of horror and inhumanity. This was no less than the INFERNAL INQUISITION. The inventor of this inquisition, according to Benedict, was Dominic, who was also the first Inquisitor Gene- ral. This historian, indeed, seems doubtful whether the be- nevolent and Christian idea suggested itself first to Dominic or to Innocent, to the saint or to the pontiff. But Dominic first mentioned it to Arnold. The saint also established, as agents of this tribunal, a confraternity of knights whom he called the MILITIA OF JESUS.* These demons of destruction, these fiends of blood, the blasphemer had the effrontery to represent as the warriors of the Captain of Salvation. Gregory the Ninth, in more appropriate language, styled the knights the MILITIA op DOMINIC. These, in Italy, were called the knights of the inqui- sition, and in Spain the familiars of the holy office. Benedict is quite out of temper with some historians, who would rob Dominic of the glory of being the first inquisitor, and who bestow that honour on Rodolf, Castelnau, and Arnold. The invention of the holy office, and the title of Inquisitor- general, in this author's opinion, crowns his hero with immortal renown. 3 ^ The historian of Waldensianism therefore, has eter- nalized his patron's name, by combining it with an institution erected for human destruction, associated with scenes of blood, and calculated to awaken horror in every mind which retains a single sentiment of humanity. Dominic, it must be granted, was well qualified for his office. He possessed all that impregnable cruelty, which enabled hia mind to soar above every feeling of compassion, and to extract 1 Le clerge chantoit avec beaucoup de devotion 1'hymne Veni Creator. Velly 3. 454, 121. Alex. 20. 307. Mariana, 2. 687. Benedict, 2. 139. 8 II nornma lea Freres de la Milice de Jesus. Bened. 2. 131. s Bened. 2. 131. Giannon, XXXII. 5. CRUELTIES OF THE INQUISITION. 259 pleasure from scenes of torture and misery. The torments of men or, at least, of heretics were his enjoyment. The saint, in satanic and unsated malignity, enjoyed the spectacle of his victim's bleeding veins, dislocated joints, torn nerves, and lacerated limbs, quivering and convulsed with agony. Proofs of his inhumanity appeared, in many instances, in the noly war and in the holy office, During the crusade against the Albigenses, though a pretended missionary, he encour- aged the holy warriors of the cross in the work of massacre and murder. He marched at the head of the army with a crucifix in his hand ; and animated the soldiery to deeds of death and destruction. 1 This was the way of disseminating Dominic's gospel. The cross which should be the emblem of peace and mercy, became, in perverted application, the signal of war and bloodshed ; and the professed apostle of Christianity preached salvation by the sword and the inquisition. The holy office as well as the holy war showed Dominic's cruelty. The inquisition, indeed, during his superintendence, had no legal tribunal ; and the engines of torment were not brought to the perfection exhibited in modern days of Spanish inquisitorial glory. But Dominic, notwithstanding, could, even with this bungling machinery and without a chartered estab- lishment, gratify his feelings of benevolence in all their refine- ment and delicacy. Dislocating the joints of the refractory Albigensian, as practised in the Tolosan Inquisition, afforded the saint a classical and Christian amusement. This kind opera- tion, he performed by ' suspending his victim by a cord, affixed to his arms that were brought behind his back, which, being raised by a wheel, lifted off the ground the suspected Walden- sian, man or woman, who refused to confess ' till forced by the violence of torture.' 2 Innocent commissioned Dominic to pun- ish, not only by confiscation and banishment, but also with death ; and, in the execution of his task, he stimulated the magistracy and populace to massacre the harmless professors of Waldensianism. * His saintship, by words and MIRACLES, convicted a hundred and eighty Albigenses, who were at one time committed to the flames.' 3 Such was the man or monster, who, to the present day, is a full-length saint in the Roman Calendar. The miscreant is an 1 Dominique aniraoit les soldats, le Crucifix a la main Dominique marchoit & la tete de 1'armee, avec un crucifix la main. Bened. 1. 248, 249. Les Catholi- ques animes par les exhortations de S. Dominique. Marian. 2. 689. ^ * In chorda levatus aliquantulum. Negans se quicquam de haeresi confessum nisi per violentiam tormentorum. Limborch, IV. 29. 3 Fuerunt aliquando simul exusti OLXXX ha?retici Albigenses, cum ante-i e* verbis et miraculis eos S. Dominicus convicisset. Bell, de Laic. III. 22. Velly 3. 435 Giannon, XV. 4. 17* 260 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : object of worship in the popish communion. The Roman bre- viary lauds ' his merits and doctrines which enlightened the church, his ingenuity and virtue which overthrew the Tolosan heretics, and his many miracles which extended even to the raising of the dead.' The Roman missal, having eulogized his merits, prays for * temporal aid through his intercession/ 1 The holy infallible church, in this manner, perfers adoration to the canonized Dominic, who was the first Inquisitor-General, and one of the greatest ruffians that ever disgraced humanity. The inquisition was first established in Languedoc. The council of Thoulouse, in 1229, appointed a priest and three laymen to search for the partizans of heresy. The synod of Alby, in 1254, commissioned a clergyman and a layman to engage in the same odious task : and this commencement con- stituted this infernal institution in its infancy. Tiic tribunal afterward received various alterations and fresh accessions of power, till, at length, it was authorized in Spain, Portugal, and Goa to try the suspected, not only for heresy, but also for blasphemy, magic, sorcery, witchcraft, infidelity, and Judaism, and to punish the convicted with infamy, imprisonment, galley- slavery, banishment, outlawry, confiscation of property, and consignment to the flames in an ACT of FAITH. S The holy office admitted all kinds of evidence. Suspicion alone would subject its object to a long course of imprisonment in a dungeon, far from all intercourse with friends or society. A malefactor or a child was allowed to be a witness. A son might depose against his father, or a wife against her husband. The accuser and the accusation were equally unknown to the accused, who was urged by the most treacherous means to dis- cover on himself. His feelings, in the mean time, were horrified by a vast apparatus of crosses, imprecations, exorcisms, con- jurations, and flaming piles of wood, ready to consume the guilty. 3 The RACK, in defect of evidence, was applied. The accused, whether man or woman, was, in defiance of all decency, stripped naked. The arms, to which a small hard cord was fastened, were turned behind the back. The cord, by the action of a pulley, raised the sufferer off his feet and held him suspended m the air. The victim of barbarity was, several times, let fall, and raised with a jerk, which dislocated all the joints of his arms ; whilst the cord, by which he was suspended, entered the 1 Deus, qui ecclesiam tuam beati Dominici confessoris tui illuminare dignatus ea meritis et doctrinis, concede ut ejus intercessione, temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis. Miss Rom. 463. Brev. Rom. 906. * Labb. 13. 1236. et 14. 153. Velly, 4. 132 Dellon. c. 2. Mariana, 4. 362. Mariana, 4. 362, 363. Moreri, 5. 130. Dellon, c. 13. Giannon, XXXII. 5. CRUELTIES OF THE INQUISITION. 261 flesh and lacerated the tortured nerves. Heavy weights were frequently, in this case, appended to the feet, and when the prisoner was raised from the earth by the arms, strained the whole frame, and caused a general luxation of the shattered system. The cord was sometimes twisted round the naked arm and legs, till it penetrated to the bone through the ruptured flesh and bleeding veins. 1 This application of the rack, without evidence, caused many to be tortured who had never committed the sin of heresy. A young lady, who was incarcerated in the dungeon of the inqui- sition at the same time with the celebrated Bohorquia, will supply an instance of this kind. This victim of inquisitorial brutality, notwithstanding her admitted attachment to Roman- ism, endured the rack till all the members of her body were rent asunder by the infernal machinery of the holy office. An interval of some days succeeded, till she began, notwithstanding such inhumanity, to recover. She was then taken back to the infliction of similar barbarity. Small cords were twisted round her naked arms, legs, and thighs, till they cut through the flesh to the bone ; and blood, in copious torrents, streamed from the lacerated veins. Eight days after, she died of her wounds, and was translated from the dungeons of the inquisition to the glory of heaven. The celebrated Orobio endured the rack for the sin of Judaism. His description of the transaction is frightful. The place of execution was a subterranean vault lighted with a dim lamp. His hands and feet were bound round with cords, which were drawn by an engine made for the purpose, till they divided the flesh to the excoriated bone. His hands and feet swelled, and blood burst, in copious effusion, from his nails as well as from his wounded limbs. He was then set at liberty, and left Spain the scene of persecution and misery. 2 The convicted were sentenced to an ACT of FAITH. The ecclesiastical authority transferred the condemned to the secular arm, and the clergy in the mean time, in mockery of mercy, supplicated the magistracy in a hypocritical prayer, to shew com- passion to the intended victim of barbarity. But the magistracy, who, through pity, should have deferred the execution, would oy the relentless clergy, have been compelled by excommuni- cation to proceed in the work of death. The heretic, dressed in a yellow coat variegated with pictures of dogs,, serpents, flames, and devils, was then led to the place of execution, tied to the stake, and committed, amid the joyful acclamations of the populace, to the flames. Such has been the death of 1 Limborch, iv. 29. 2 Moreri, 6. 7. Limborch, 323. 262 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: myriads. Torquemada, on being made Inquisitor-general, burned alive, to signalize his promotion to the holy office, no less than two thousand of these 4 sons of heresy.' 1 The inquisition, in all its horrors, was founded and fostered by the whole Romish church or popish hierarchy. Several popish kingdoms indeed deprecated and expelled this enemy of religion and man. The only places in which this tribunal, prior to the reformation, obtained a permanent establishment, were Languedoc, and in modern times Spain, Portugal, and Goa. The holy office, with all its apparatus of inquisitors, qualificators, families, jailors, dungeons, racks, and other engines of torture, was driven, with indignation and ignominy, out of the Netherlands, Hungary, France, Germany, 'Poland, and even Italy. The Neapolitans and Romans expelled the inhuman nuisance with determined resolution. Spain itself, notwithstanding its red-hot persecutions, witnessed a scene of a similar kind. The citizens of Cordova, on one occasion, rose in insurrection against this infernal tribunal, stormed the palace of the inquisition, pillaged its apartments, and im- prisoned the jailor. 2 All this opposition, however, was the work, not of the priest- hood, but of the people. The populace dreaded its horrors, deprecated its cruelty, and therefore prevented its establish- ment. The clergy, on the contrary, have, with all their influence, encouraged the institution in all its inhumanity. The pope and the prelacy, who, in the Romish system, are the chu~ch and possess infallibility, have, with the utmost unan- iuvty ; declared in favor of the holy office. No Roman pontiff or popish council has ever condemned this foul blot on pre- tended Catholicism, this gross insult on reason and man. The inquisition, beyond all other institutions that ever appeared in the world, evidences the deepest malignancy of human nature. Nothing, in all the annals of time, ever exhib- ited so appalling and hateful a view of fallen and degenerate man, demoralized to the lowest ebb of perversity by Romanism and the popedom. No tribunal, equally regardless of justice and humanity, ever raised its frightful form in all the dominions of Heathenism or Mahometanism, Judaism or Christianity. The misanthropist, in the contemplation of the holy office, may find continual and unfailing fuel for his malevolence. He may see, in its victim, the wretchedest sufferer that ever drained the cup of misery ; and in the inquisitor, the hatefullest 1 On le faisoit publiquement bruler vive. Mariana, 4. 362, 365. Dellon. c. 28 Moreri, 5. 130. a Mariana, 5. 535, 572. Giannon, XXXII. 5. Thuan. 1. 788. Paolo, 1. 444. et 2. 57, 566. PERSECUTING ROMISH DOCTORS AND POPES. 263 object, Satan not exempted, that ever defiled or disgraced the creation of God. No person, in a future world, would own an inquisitor, who dies in the spirit of his profession, but the devil, and no place would receive him but hell. Such is a faint view of the persecutions which distracted Christendom, from the accession of Constantine till the era of the Reformation. The third period occupies the time which intervened between the Reformation and the present day. This long series of years displays great variety. Its commencement was marked by persecution, which was afterwards repressed by the diffusion of letters, the light of Revelation, and the influence of Protestantism. The popish clergy and kings wielded the civil and ecclesias- tical power against the Reformation, during its rise and pro- gress. The whole Romish hierarchy, through the agency of theologians, popes, and councils, laboured in the work of perse- cution. The theologians and historians, who have prostituted their pen for the unworthy purpose, have been many. From this multitude may be selected Benedict, Mariana, Bellarmine, Dens, the college of Rheims, and the universities of Salamanca and Valladolid. Benedict the Dominican, in his history of the Albigenses, approves of all the inhumanity of the holy office and the holy wars. The inquisitor and the crusader are the themes of his unqualified applause. Mariana the Jesuit, in his history of Spain, has, like Benedict, eulogized persecutions and the inqui- sition ; though these, he admits, * are innovations on Chris- tianity.' The historian recommends * fire and sword, when mild means are unavailing and useless. A wise severity, in such cases, is the sovereign remedy.' 1 Bellarmine's statements, as well as those of Dens, on this subject, are distinguished by their ridiculousness and barbarity. He urges, in the strongest terms, the eradication of heretics, when it can be effected with safety. Freedom of faith, in his sj r stem, tends to the injury of the individual and of society ; and the abettors of heterodoxy therefore are, for the honour of reli- gion, to be delivered to the secular arm and consigned to the flames. The cardinal would burn the body for the good of the soul. The prudent Jesuit, however, would allow even the advocates of heresy to live, when, owing to their strength and number, an appeal to arms would be attended with danger to the friends of orthodoxy. The apostles, he contends, * abstained from calling in the secular arm only because there were, in their 1 II faut recourir au fer et au feu dans les maux, ou les remedes lents gont inu tiles. Uu sage severite est le remede souverain. Mariana, 2- 686. 264 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: day, no Christian princes.' This, in all its horrors, he lepresents as the common sentiment of all the patrons of Catholicism. 1 His arguments, in favor of his sj^stem, are a burlesque on reason and common sense. Dens, patronized by the Romish clergy in Ireland, follows Bellarmine. He would punish notorious abet- tors of heresy with confiscation of property, exile, imprisonment, death, and deprivation of Christian burial. ' Such falsifiers of the faith and troublers of the community,' says the precious Divine, * justly suffer death in the same manner as those who counterfeit money and disturb the state.' This, he argues, from the Divine command to slay the Jewish false prophets, and from the condemnation of Huss in the council of Constance. The college of Rheims commended the same remedy, These doctors, in their annotations, maintain that the good should tolerate the wicked, when, in consequence of the latter's strength, punishment would be attended with danger. But heresy or any other evil, when its destruction could be effected with safety, should, according to this precious exposition, be suppressed and its authors exterminated. Such is the instruc- tion, conveyed in a popular commentary on the gospel of peace and good will to man. The university of Salamanca followed the CL liege of Rheims. The doctors of this seminary, in 1603, maintained 'the Roman pontiff's right to compel, by arms, the sons of apostacy and the opponents of Catholicism.' The theory taught at Salamanca, was also inculcated by the pro- fessors of Valladolid. 2 These are a few specimens of the popish divines, who have abetted the extirpation of heresy by violence and the inquisi- tion. The list might be augmented to almost any extent. Immense indeed is the number of Romish doctors, who, in the advocacy of persecution, * have wearied eloquence and ex- hausted learning.' Pontiffs, as well as theologians, have enjoined persecution. This practical lesson has, for a thousand years, been uniformly taught in the school of the popedom. The viceroys of heaven have, for this long succession of ages, acted on the same satanic system. From these pontifical persecutors, since the 1 Libertas credendi perniciosa est. Libros haereticorum jure interdici et exuri. Bell. De Laic. III. 18. Huss asseruit, non licere haereticum incorrigibilem tradere eculari potestati et perarittere comburendum. Contrariufti decent omnes Cathol- ici. Bell. III. 20. Ecclesia, zelo salutis animarum, eos persequitur. Sunt proculdubio extirpandi. Bellannin. 1. 1363. Haeretici notorii privantur sepultura ecclesiastica. Bona eorum temporalia sunt ipso jure confiscata. Exilio, carcere, &c. merito afficiuntur. Falsarii pecuniw yel alii rempublicam turbantes, justa morte puniuntur: ergo etiam haeretici, qu: unt falsarii fidei et rempublicam graviter perturbant. Dens, 2. 88, 89. * Rheim. Testam. in Matth. XIII. 29. Mageogh. 3. 595. PERSECUTION OF PROTESTANTS BY CHARLES V 265 reformation, may, as a specimen, be selected the names of Leo, Adrian, Paul, and Pius. Leo, in a bull issued in 1520, ordered all to shun Luther and his adherents. His holiness commanded sovereigns to chase the abettors of Lutheranism out of their dominions. Adrian, in 1522, deprecated the spread of Lutheranism, and admon- ished princes and people against the toleration of this abomina- tion ; and, if mild methods should be unavailing, to employ fire and faggot. 1 Paul the Fourth distinguished himself by his recommenda- jion of the inquisition for the extermination of heresy. This tribunal, his infallibility accounted the sheet-anchor of the papacy, and the chief battery for the overthrow of heresy. The pontiff reckoned the gospel, with all its divine institutions, as nothing, compared with the holy office for the defence of the holy see. Paul was right. The gospel may support the church, but the inquisition is the proper instrument to protect the popedom. The inquisition, accordingly, was the darling theme of his supremacy's thoughts. He conferred additional authority on the sacred institution, and recommended it to the cardinals and his successors with his parting breath. 2 When the cold hand of death was pressing on his lips, and the soul just going to appear before its God, he enjoined the use of the inquisition, and expired, recommending murder and inhumanity. These enactments of doctors and pontiffs were supported by the canons of councils. The council of Lyons, in 1527, com- manded the suffragans to make diligent inquiry after the disseminators of heresy, and to appeal, when necessary, to the secular arm. Anno 1528, the council of Sens enjoined on princes the extermination of heretics, in imitation of Constan- tine, Valentinian, and Theodosius. 3 The general council of Trent, in the same manner, patron- ized persecution. Ciaconia, a Dominican, preached before this assembly on the parable of the tares. The preacher, on this occasion, broached the maxim afterward adopted by Bellarmine and the Rhemish annotators. He urged 'that the adherents of heresy should be tolerated, when their extermina- tion would be attended with danger ; but when their extirpation 1 Labb. 19. 1050, 1068. Du Pin, 3. 170. Se servir de remedes plus violens, et d'employer le feu. Paolo, 1. 48. 2 II donna toutes ses pensees aux affaires de 1'inquisition, qu' il disoit etre la meilleure batterie, qu'on put opposer a 1'heresie, et la principale defense du Saint Siege. Paolo, 2. 45, 51. Bruys, 4. 636. Sanctissimum inquisitionis officiun?. quo ano sacne sedis auctoritatera niti affirrnabat, commendatum haberent. Th'nn XXIII. 15. Sacne inquisitionis tribunali majorern auctoritatem dedit. Alex. 23. 216 3 Labb. 19, 1127. 1180. Du Pin, 3. 257. 266 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : can oe effected with safety, they should be destroyed by fire the sword, the gallows, and all other means.' All this, Ciaconia declared, the sacred synod itself had inculcated in its second session : and the Dominican's sermon and declaration were heard in the infallible assembly without objection or con- tradiction. The sacred synod again, in their last session, admonished * all princes to exert their influence to prevent abettors of heresy from misinterpreting or violating the ecclesiastical decrees, and to oblige these objectors, as well as all their other subjects, to accept and to observe the synodal canons with devotion and fidelity.' 1 This was clearly an appeal to the secular arm, for the purpose of forcing acquies- cence and submission : and the natural consequence of such compulsion was persecution. The canon law and the Roman ritual extend the spirit of persecution even to the dead. The canor law excommunicates any, who, with his knowledge, bestows Christian burial on heretics. The Roman ritual, also, published by the command of Paul the Fifth, and in general use through the popish com- munion, ' refuses sepulchral honours to heretics and schismatics.' The offender, in this case, to obtain absolution and be freed from excommunication, must, with his own hands and in a public manner, raise the interred from the hallowed sepulchre. 2 He must, to be uncursed, unearth the mouldering remains of the corpse, and violate, by an act of horror, th? sanctuary of the tomb. The enactments of popes and councils were sanctioned and enforced by emperors and kings. Charles the Fifth, emperor of Germany and king of Spain and the Netherlands, persecuted the friends of the reformation through his extensive dominions. His majesty in 1521, supported by the electors in the Diet of Worms, declared it his duty, for the glory of God, the honour of the papacy, and the dignity of the nation, to protect the faith and extinguish heresy ; and in consequence proscribed Luther, his followers, and books, and condemned all, who, in any manner, should aid or defend the Saxon reformer or read his works, to the confiscation of their property, the ban of the empire, and the penalty of high-treason. 3 1 On devoit les detruire par le fer, le feu, la corde, ou tout autre moyen. Paolo, IV p. 604. Le concile eusuite exhortait tous les princes & ne point souffrir quo ses decrets fussent violez par les heretiques, mais & les obliger aussi bien quo tous leurs autret sujets a les observer. Paolo, 2. 660. 8 Quicunque haereticos scienter praesumpserint ecclesiastic ae tradere sepulturae, axcommunicationis sententiae se noverint subjacere. Nee absolutions beueficium mereantur, nisi propiis manibus publice extumulent. Sex. Decret. V. 2. p. -**50. Negutur ecclesiastica sepultura hsereticis, et eorum fautoribus, schismaticis. ft : tual. Eom. 167. 3 Paolo, 1. 30. Sleidan, III. Du Pin, 3. 1/f MASSACRES OF THE FRENCH PROTESTANTS. 267 The emperor's edicts against the Lutherans in the Nether- lands were fraught with still greater severity. Men who favoured Lutheranism were to be beheaded, and women to be buried alive, or, if obstinate, to be committed to the flames. This law, however, was suspended. But inquisitorial and military executions rioted in the work of death in all its shocking forms. The duke of Alva boasted of having caused, in six weeks, the execution of eighteen thousand for the crime of protestantism. Paolo reckons the number, who, in the Neth- erlands, were, in a few years, massacred on account of their religion, at fifty thousand ; while Grotius raises the list of the Belgic martyrs to a hundred thousand. 1 Charles began the work of persecution in Spain, and with his latest breath recommended its completion to his son Philip II. The dying advice of the father was not lost on the Son. He executed the infernal plan in all its barbarity, without shewing a single symptom of compunction or mercy. His majesty, on his arrival in Spain, commenced the work of destruction. He kindled the fires of persecution at Valladolid and Seville, and consigned the professors of protestantism without discrimi- nation or pity to the flames. Among the victims of his fury, on this occasion, were the celebrated Pontius, Gonsalvus, Vaenia, Viroesia, Cornelia, Bohorquia, ^Egidio, Losado, Arellan, and Arias. Thirty-eight of the Spanish nobility were, in his presence, bound to the stake and burned. 2 Philip was a spectator of these shocking scenes, and gratified his royal and refined taste with these spectacles of horror. The inqui- sition, since his day, has, by relentless severity, succeeded in banishing protestantism from the peninsula of Spain and Portugal. Francis and Henry, tl^e French kings, imitated the example of Charles and Philip. Francis enacted laws against the French Protestants ; and ordered the judges, under severe penalties, to enforce them with rigor. These laws were renewed and new ones issued by Henry. His most Christian Majesty, in 1549, entered Paris, made a solemn procession, declared his detesta- tion of protestantism and attachment to popery, avowed his resolution to banish the friends of the reformation from his dominions and to protect Catholicism and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. He caused many Lutherans to suffer martyrdom in 1 Poena in viros capitis, in foeminas defossionis in terrain, sin pertinaces fuerint exustionis. Thuan. 1. 229. Brand. II. Dansles Pais Bas, lenombre de ceux,que Ton avoit pendus. decapitez, brulez, et enterrez vifs, montat a cinquante inille hommes. Paolo, 2. 52. Carnificata hominum non minus centum millia. Grotius, Annal. 12. Brand. IV. X. Du Pin, 3. 656. 9 Spectante ipso Philippo, XXXVIII ex preecipua regionis nobilitate palis alligati ac cremati Bunt. Thuan. XXIII. 14. Du Pin, 3. 655. 2G8 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I Paris, and lent his royal assistance in person at the execution. 1 Henry, like Philip, had, on this occasion, an opportunity of indulging the refinement and delicacy of his taste, in viewing the expiring struggles of his heretical subjects in the pangs of dissolution. Instances of French persecution appeared in the massacres of Merindol, Orange, and Paris. The massacre of Merindol, planned by the king of France and the parliament of Aix, was executed by the president Oppeda. The president was com- missioned to slay the population, burn the towns, and demolish the castles of the Waldenses. Oppeda, thirsting for blood, executed his commission with infernal barbarity. The appalling butchery has been related by the popish historians, Gaufridus, Moreri, Paolo, and Thuanus with precision and impartiality. 2 The president slaughtered more than three thousand Waldenses, who, from age to age, have been the object of papal enmity. Man, woman, and child fell in indiscriminate and relentless carnage. Thousands were massacred. Twenty-four towns were ruined and the country left a deserted waste. The massacre was so appalling that it excited the horror even of Gaufridus, the Roman historian of these horrid transac- tions. The men, women, and children, in general, at the ap- proach of the hostile army, fled to the adjoining woods and mountains. Old men and women were mixed with boys and girls. Many of the weeping mothers carried their infants in cradles or in their arms ; while the woods and mountains re-echoed their groans and lamentations. These were pursued and immolated by the sword of popish persecution, which never knew pity. A few remained in the towns and met a similar destiny. Sixty men and thirty women surrendered in Capraria, on con- dition that their lives should be spared : and, notwithstanding plighted faith, they were taken to a meadow and murdered in cold blood. Five hundred women were thrown into a barn, which was then set on fire ; and when any leaped from the windows, they were received on the points of spears or hal- berts. The rest were consumed in the flames or suffocated with the smoke. The women were subjected to the most brutal insults. Girls 1 Ce Prince fit executer plusieurs Lutheriens & Paris, aux supplices desquels il voulut assister lui-meme. II vouloit exterminer de tout son royaurae les nnuveaux heretiques. Paolo, 1. 484. Thuan. VI. 4. 10. 3 Gaufrid, XII. Moreri, G. 46. Thuan. VI. 16. Les troupes passerent au fil de I' epee tous ceux qui n' avoient pu s'enfuir, et etoient restez exposez a la merci du soldat, sans distinction d' age, de qualite, ni de sexe. On y massacra plus de 4000 personnes. Paolo, 1. 190. MASSACRES OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 269 were snatched from the arms of their mothers, violated and afterward treated with the most shocking inhumanity. Mothers saw their children murdered before their face, and were then, though fainting with grief and horror, violated by the soldiery. The champions of the faith forced the dying women, whose offspring had been sacrificed in their presence. Cruelty suc- ceeded violation. Some were precipitated from high rocks ; while others were put to the sword or dragged naked through the streets. 1 The massacre was not merely the work of Oppeda and the soldiery ; but approved by the French king and parliament ; and afterward by the popedom, and all, in general, who were attached to Romanism. Francis and the city of Paris heard the news of the massacre with joy, and congratulated Oppeda on the victory. The parliament of Aix also, actuated, like the French monarch and nobility, with enmity against Waldensian- ism, approved of the carnage, and felicitated the president on the triumph. The rejoicing, on the occasion, was not confined to the French sovereign and people. The pope and his court exulted. The satisfaction which was felt at the extirpation of Walden- sianism was, says Gaufrid, in proportion to the scandal caused by that heresy in the church, by which the historian means the popedom. The friends of the papacy, therefore, according to the same author, ; reckoned the fire and sword well employed, which extinguished Waldensianism, and forgot nothing that could immortalize the name of Oppeda. Paul the Fourth made the president Count Palatine and Knight of Saint John ; while the partizans of Romanism styled the monster, 'the defender of the faith, the protector of the faithful, and the hero of Christianity.' 2 The massacre of Orange, in 1562, was attended with the same horrors, as that of Merindol. This was perpetrated against the protestants, as the other had been against the Waldensians. Its horrifying transactions have been related with impartiality by the popish historians Varillas, Bruys, and Thuanus. 3 The Italian army, sent by pope Pius the Fourth, 1 Foeminae a furentibus violates, et satiata libidine tarn crudeliter habifce, ut pleraeque, sive ex animi moerore, sive fame et cruciatibus perierint. Thuan. 1. 227. Cruaut6 alia jusqu' a violer des femrnes mourantes, et d'autres, a la veue desquelles on avoit egorg6 leurs enfans. Gaufride, 2. 480. Les troupes apres avoir rempli tout les pais de crimes et de debauches. Paolo, 1. 190. 2 Tous ceux de la cour feliciterent le premier President de sa victoire. Rome et la Cour du Pape y prirent leur part Ceux-la trouverentle fer et le feu bien em ployes. Gaufrid. 2. 481. Us le traiterent de deffenseur de la foi, de heros d Christianisme, et protecteur des fidcle?, Gaufrid. 2. 494. 3 Varillas, HI. Bruy. 4. 654. Thuauus, XXXI. 11. 270 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I was commanded by Serbellon, and slew man, woman, and child in indiscriminate carnage. Infants, and even the sick, were assassinated in cold blood. Children were snatched r rom the embraces of their mothers, and killed with the blows )f bludgeons. The work of death was carried on by various modes of torture and brutality. Some were killed with the sword, and some precipitated from the rock on which the city was built. Some were hanged and others roasted over a slow fire. Many were thrown on the points of hooks and daggers. The sol- diery mutilated the citizens in such a shameful manner as modesty forbids to name. 1 Women with child were suspended on posts and gates, and their bowels let out with knives. The blood, in the meantime, flowed in torrents through the streets. Many of the boys were forced to become Ganymedes, and to commit the sin of Sodom. The women, old and young, were violated ; the ladies of rank and accomplishments were abandoned to the will of the ruffian soldiery ; and afterward exposed to the public laughter, with horns and stakes thrust into the body in such a manner as decency refuses to describe.* The massacre of Paris, in 1572, on Bartholomew's day, equalled those of Merindol and Orange in barbarity, and ex- celled both in extent. The facts have been detailed with great impartiality by Bossuet, Daniel, Davila, Thuanus, and Meze- ray. 3 The queen laid this plan, which had been two years preconcerted, for the extinction of heresy. The execution was entrusted to the Duke of Guise, who was distinguished by his inhumanity and hatred of the Reformation. The duke, on the occasion, was aided by the soldiery, the populace, and the king. The military and the people attached to Romanism thirsted for the blood of the Hugonots. His most Christian majesty, Charles the Ninth, attacked, in person, his unresisting subjects with a gun, and * shouted with all his might, KILL, KILL.'** One man, if he deserve the name, boasted of having, in one night, killed a hundred and fifty, and another of having slain four hundred. 1 Us prirent plaisir & couper les parties secretes. Varillas, 1. 203. 2 Pueri multi item rapti, et ad nefandam libidinem satiandam ad miseram cap- tivitatera abducti. Thuan. 2. 228. Les dames furent exposf-es nues a la risee publique, avec des comes enfoncees dans les parties, que la pndeur defend de nominer. Varillas, 1. 203. Productis mulierum cadaveribus, et in eorum pudenda bourn cornibus, et saxis, ac stipitibus ad ludibrium injectis. Thuan. 2. 228. Exudante passim per urbem cruore. Thuan. 31. 11. 3 Bossuet, Abre ? . XVII. Daniel, 8. 727740. Mezeray, 5. 151162. Davila, V. Mezeray, 5. 151162. 4 II dechargea sur les Calvinistea. Sully, 1. 34. Le Roi tiroit sur eux lui-meme avec de tongues arquebuses, et crioit, de touto sa force, 'tuez, taez.' Dan. 8. 731. Mezeray, 5. 155. Davila, V. MASSACRES OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW. 271 The tocsin, at midnight, tolled the signal of destruction. .The assailants spared neither old nor young, man nor woman. The carnage lasted seven days. Mezeray reckons the killed, in Paris, during this time, at 5000, Bossuet at more than 6000, and Davila at 10,000, among whom were five or six hundred gentlemen. The Seine was covered with the dead which floated on its surface, and the city was one great butchery and flowed with human blood. The court was heaped with the slain, on which the king and queen gazed, not with horror, but with delight. Her \najesty unblushingly feasted her eyes on the spectacle of thousands of men, exposed naked, and lying wounded and frightful in the pale livery of death. 1 The king went to see the body of Admiral Coligny, which was dragged by the populace through the streets ; and remarked in unfeel- ing witticism, that the ' smell of a dead enemy was agreeable., The tragedy was not confined to Paris, but extended, in general, through the French nation. Special messengers were, on the preceding day, despatched in all directions, ordering a general massacre of the Hugonots. The carnage, in conse- quence, was made through nearly all the provinces, and espe- cially in Meaux, Troyes, Orleans, Nevers, Lyons, Toulouse, Bordeaux, and Rouen. Twenty-five or thirty thousand accord- ing to Bossuet and Mezeray, perished in different places. Davila estimates the slain at 40,000, and Sully at 70,000. Many were thrown into the rivers, which, floated the corpses on the waves, carried horror and infection to all the country, which they watered with their streams. The reason of this waste of life was enmity to heresy or protestantism. A few indeed suggested the pretence of a con- spiracy. But this, even Bossuet grants, every person knew to be a mere pretence. The populace, tutored by the priesthood, accounted themselves, in shedding heretica,! blood, ' the agents of Divine justice,' and engaged ' in doing God service.' 2 The king accompanied with the queen and princes of the blood, and all the French court, went to the Parliament, and acknowledged that all these sanguinary transactions were done by his autho- rity. * The parliament publicly eulogised the king's wisdom,' which had effected the effusion of so much heretical blood. His 1 Tout le quartier ruisseloit de sang. La cour etoit pleine de corps morts, que }e Roi et la Reine regardoient, non seulement sans horreur, mais avec plaisir. Tout les rues de la ville n'etoient plus que boucheries. Bossuet, 4. 537. On exposa leurs corps tout nuds a la porte du Louvre, la Reine mere etant 4 une fenestre, qui repaisoit sea yeux de cet horrible spectacle. Mezeray, 5. 157. Davila, V, Thuan. II 8. Frequentes e gyno3ceo foeminas, nequaquam crudeli spectaculo eas absterrente, curiosis oculis iiudorum corpora inverecunde intuebantur. Thuan. 3. 131. 3 Les Catholiques se regarderent comrae les executeurs de la justice de Dietu Daniel, 8 738. Thuan. 3. 149. 272 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! majesty also went to mass, and returned solemn thanks to God for the glorious victory obtained over heresy. He ordered medals to be coined to perpetuate its memory. A medal ac- cordingly was struck for the purpose with this inscription, PIE TV EXCITED JUSTICE. 1 Piety, forsooth, propelled to murder, and the immolation of forty thousand people was an act of jus- tice. Piety and justice, it seems, aroused to deeds of cruelty, the idea of which afterwards, says Sully, caused even the inhu- man perpetrator Charles, in spite of himself, to shudder. The carnage, sanctioned in this manner by the French king, parliament, and people, was also approved by the pope and the Roman court. Rome ' from her hatred of heresy, received the news with unspeakable joy. The pope went in procession to the church of Saint Lewis, to render thanks to God for the happy victory.' His Legate in France felicitated his most Christian majesty in the pontiff's name, ' arid praised the exploit, so long meditated and so happily executed, for the good of religion.' The massacre, says Mezeray, ' was extolled before the king as the triumph of the church.' 2 Spain rejoiced also in the tragedy as the defeat of protestant- ism. This nation has ever shown itself the friend of the papacy, and the deadly enemy of the Reformation : and this spirit, on this occasion, appeared in the joy manifested by the Spanish people for the murder of the French Hugonots. England, like Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands, was the scene of persecution and martyrdom. Philip and Mary, who exercised the royal authority in the British nation, issued a commission for ' the burning of heretics.' The queen, in this manifesto, ' professed her resolution to support justice and Catholicism, and to eradicate error and heresy : and ordered her heretical subjects, therefore, to be committed before the people to the flames.' This, her majesty alleged, would shew her detestation of heterodoxy, and serve as an example to other Christians, to shun the contagion of heresy. 3 Orleans acknowledges Mary's rigour, and her execution of 1 Pietas excitavit justitiam. II fit frapper un medaille A 1'occasion de la Saint Barthelemi. Daniel, 8 786. Apres avoir oui solemnellement la messe pour remercier Dieu de la belle victoire obtenue sur I'heresie, et commande de fabri- (juer des medailles pour en conserver lamemoire. Mezeray, 5. 160. II fretnissoit inulqre lui, au recit de inille traits de cruaute. Sully, 1. 33. - La haine de 1' heresie les fit recevoir agreablement a Rome. On ee rejouit amsi en Espagne. Bossuet, 4 545. La Cour de Rome et le Conseil d' Espagne eurent line joye indicible de la Saint Bartelemy. Le Pape alia en procession d 1'eglise de Saint Louis, rendre graces a Dieu d'un si heureux sueces, et 1'on fit le panegyrique de cette action sous le nom de Triomphe de 1' Eglise. Mezeray, 5. 162. Sullj, 1.27. 3 HaTeticos juxta legem, ignis inccndio comburi debere ; praecipimus, quod prafatos coram populo igni committi. et in eodem igne realiter comburi facias. Wilkin, 4. 177. POPISH PERSECUTIONS IN ENGLAND. 273 many on account of their protestantism. In this, he discovers, the queen foUowed her own genius rather than the spirit of the church, by which he means the popedom. This historian, nevertheless, represents Mary as ' worthy of eternal remem- brance for her zeal.' 1 Such is his character of a woman who was a modern Theodora, and never obliged the world but when she died. Her death was the only favour she ever con- ferred on her unfortunate and persecuted subjects. Popish persecution raged, in this manner, from the com- mencement of the Reformation till its establishment. The flow of this overwhelming tide began at the accession of Constantine to the throne of the Roman empire : and, having prevailed for a long period, gradually ebbed after the era of protestantism. The popedom, on this topic, was compelled, though with reluctance and inconsistency, to vary its profession and practice. A change was effected in an unchangeable communion. Some symptoms of the old disease indeed still appear. The spirit, like latent heat, is inactive rather than extinguished. But the general cry is for liberality or even latitudinarianism. The shout, even among the advocates of Romanism, is in favor of religious liberty, unfettered con- science, and universal toleration. The inquisition of Spain and Portugal, with all its apparatus of racks, wheels, and gibbets, has lost its efficacy, and its palace at Goa is in ruins. The bright sun of India enlightens its late dungeons, which are now inhabited, not by the victim of popish persecution, but by 'the owl, the dragon, and the wild beast of the desert.' This change has, in some measure, been influenced by the diffusion of literature and the Reformation. The darkness of the middle ages has fled before the light of modern science : and with it, in part, has Disappeared priestcraft and supersti- tion. Philosophy has improved, and its light continues to gain on the empire of darkness. Protestantism has circulated the Book of God, and shed its radiancy over a benighted world. The advances of literature and revelation have been unfavour- able to the reign of intolerance and the inquisition. But the chief causes of this change in the papacy are the preponderance of protestantism and the policy of popery. The Reformation, in its liberalizing principles, is established over a great part of Christendom. Its friends have become nearly equal to its opponents in number, and far superior in intelli- gence and activity. Rome, therefore, though she has not ex- pressly disavowed her former claims, has according to her 1 Reine digne d'une memoire eternelle, per son zele. On en fit, en efiet, mount un grand nombra Orleans, VIII. F 174, 175. 18 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : ancient policy, allowed these lofty pretensions to slumber for a time in inactivity, and yielded, though with reluctant and awkward submission, to the progress of science, the light of revelation, and the strength of protestantism. A late discovery has shewn the deceitfulness of all popish pretences to liberality, both on the continent and in Ireland. Dens, a doctor of Lou vain, published a system of theology in 1758, and in some of the succeeding years. This work, fraught with the most revolting principles of persecution, awards to the patrons of heresy, confiscation of goods, banishment from the country, confinement in prison, infliction of death, and depri- vation of Christian burial. Falsifiers of the Faith, like forgers of money and disturbers of the state, this author would, accord- ing to the sainted Thomas, consign to death as the proper and merited penalty of their offence. This, he argues from the sentence of the Jewish false prophets, and from the condemna- tion of Huss in the general council of Constance. 1 This production in all its horror and deformity, was dedi- cated to Cardinal Philippus, and recommended to Christendom by the approbation of the University of Lou vain, which vouched for its * orthodox faith and its Christian morality.' It was ushered into the world with the permission of superiors, and the full sanction of episcopal authority. Its circulation on the continent was, even in the nineteenth century, impeded by no Romish reclamation, nor by the appalling terrors of the expurgatorian index. The popish clergy and people, in silent consent or avowed approbation, acknowledged, in whole and in part, its Catholicism and morality. 2 The University of Louvain, on this occasion, exhibited a beautiful specimen of Jesuitism. A few years after its appro- bation of Dens' Theology, Pitt, the British statesman, asked this same university, as well as those of Salamanca and Valladolid, whether persecution were a principle of Romanism. TL^ astonished doctors, insulted at the question, and burning with ardour to obliterate the foul stain, branded the insinuation with a loud and deep negation. The former, in this case, copied the example of the latter. The divines of Salamanca and Valladolid, questioned on the same subject in 1603, in 1 An hacretici recte puniuntur morte? Respondet S. Thomas affirmative : quia falsarii pecunise vel alii rempublicam turbantes juste morte puniuntur: ergo etiam hieretici qui sunt falsarii fidei et rempublicam graviter perturbant. Confirmatur ex eo quod Dens in veteri lege jusserit occidi falsos Prophetas. Idem probatur ex condemnatione articuli 14, Joan. Huss in Concilio Constant!- f.nsi. Dens, 2. 88, 89. Haeretici notorii privantur sepultura ecclesiastica. Bona. &c. Dens, 2. 88. * Dens, 4. 3. Eas reperi nihil continere a fide orthodoxa et moribus Chrislinnis ttlienum. Dens, 5. 1. Home's Protest. Mem. 95, 96. PERSECUTING PRINCIPLES OF DENS* THEOLOGY. 275 reference to the war waged by the Irish against the English in the reign of queen Elizabeth, patronized the principle of perse- cution, which, in their answer to Pitt, they proscribed. 1 Such, on the European continent, were the candour and consistency of the popish clergy, who, in this manner, adapted their move- ments, like skilful generals, to the evolutions of the enemy, and suited their tactics to the emergency of the occasion. This complete body of theology, unconfined to the continent, was, in a special manner, extended to Ireland. The popish prelacy, in 1808, met, says Coyne and Wise, in Dublin, and unanimously agreed that this book was the best work, and safest guide in theology for the Irish clergy. Coyne, in conse- quence, was ordered to publish a large edition, for circulation among the prelacy and priesthood of the kingdom.' 2 The work was dedicated to Doctor Murray, Titular Arch- bishop of Dublin. The same prelate also sanctioned an addi- tional volume, which was afterwards annexed to the performance with his approbation. Murray, Doyle, Keating, and Kinsella made it the conference book for the Romish clergy of Leinster. The popish ordo or directory, for five successive years, had its questions for conference arranged as they occurred in Dens, and were, of course, to be decided by his high authority. The Romish episcopacy, in this way, made this author theii standard of theology to direct the Irish prelacy and priesthood in casuistry and speculation. 3 Dens, therefore, possesses, with them, the same authority on popish theology as Blackstone with us, on the British Constitution, or the Bible on the princi- ples of protestantism. Accompanied with such powerful recommendations, the work, as might be expected, obtained extensive circulation. The college of Maynooth, indeed, did not raise Dens to a text-book. This honour was reserved for Bailly. But this seminary received Dens as a work of reference. His theology lay in the library, ready, at any time, for consultation. Doctor Murphy's academy in Cork had fifty or sixty copies for the use of the seminary and the diocesan clergy. 4 The precious production, indeed, has found its way into the nands of almost every priest in the kingdom, and forms the holy fountain from which he draws the pure waters of the sanctuary. The days of persecution, notwithstanding, will, in all proba- 1 Tanquam certum est accipiendum, posse Romanum Pontific em fidei desertores, et eos qui Catholicam religionem oppugnant, annis compellere. Mageogh. 3. 595. Slevin, 193. 9 Coyne, Catal. 6, 7. Wyse, Hist. Oath. Ass. App. N. 7. Home's Protest. Mem. 95. 3 Reverendissimo in Deo, Patri ac Domino, Danieli Murray, &c. Dens, I. 1, Coyne, 7. Home, 95, 96. Home, 95, 96. 18* 276 THE VARIATIONS OP POPERY. bility, never return to dishonor Christianity and curse mankind, The inquisition, with all its engines of torment and destruction, may rest for ever in inactivity. The Inquisitor may exercise his malevolence, and vent his ferocity in long and deep execra- tions against the growing light of philosophy and the reforma- tion ; but will never more regale his ears with the groans of the tortured victim, or feast his eyes in witnessing an Act of Faith. The popedom may regret its departed power. The Roman pontiff and hierarchy may indulge in dreams of future greatness, prefer vain prayers for the restoration of persecution, or, in bitter lamentation, weep over the ashes of the inquisition. But these hopes, supplications, and tears, in all likelihood, will, for ever, be unavailing. Rome's spiritual artillery is, in a great measure, become useless ; and the secular arm no longer, as formerly, enforces ecclesiastical denunciations, or consigns the abettors of heresy to the flames. CHAPTER VIII. INVALIDATION OF OATHS. VIOLATION OF FAITH THEOLOGIANS, POPES, AND COUNCILS PONTIFICAL MAXIM* PONTIFICAL ACTIONS COUNCILS OF ROME AND DIAMPER COUNCILS OF TJ LATERAN, LYONS, PISA, CONSTANCE, AND BASIL. ERA AND INFLUENCE OF THK REFORMATION. THE Roman pontiffs, unsatisfied with the sovereignty over kings and heretics, aimed, with measureless ambition, at loftier pretensions and more extensive domination. These vice-gods extended their usurpation into the moral world and invaded the empire of heaven. The power of dissolving the obligation of vows, promises, oaths, and indeed ah 1 engagements, especially those injurious to the church and those made with the patrons of heresy, was, in daring blasphemy, arrogated by those vice- gerents of God. This involves the shocking maxim, that faith, contrary to ecclesiastical utility, may be violated with heretics. The popedom, in challenging and exercising this authority, has disturbed the relations which the Deity established in His ra- tional creation, and grasped at claims which tend to unhinge civil society and disorganize the moral world. Christendom, on this topic, has witnessed three variations. The early Christians disclaimed, in loud indignation, the idea of perfidy. Fidelity to contracts constituted a distinguished trait in the Christianity of antiquity. A second era commenced with the dark ages. Faithlessness, accompanied with all its foul train, entered on the extinction of literature and philosophy, and became one of the filthy elements of Romish superstition. The abomination, under the patronage of the papacy, flourished till the rise of protestantism. The reformation formed a third era, and poured a flood of light, which detected the demon of insincerity and exposed it to the detestation of the world. Fidelity to all engagements constituted one grand character- istic of primeval Christianity. Violation of oaths and promises is, beyond all question, an innovation on the Christianity of antiquity, and forms one of the variations of Romanism. The attachment to truth and the faithfulness to compacts, evinced 278 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: by tne ancient Christians, were proverbial. The Christian profession, in the days of antiquity, was marked by a lofty sincerity, which disdained all falsehood, dissimulation, subter- fuge, and chicanery. Death, say Justin and Tertullian, would have been more welcome than the violation of a solemn promise. A Roman bishop, in those days of purity, would have met an application for absolution from an oath with holy indignation ; and the humblest of his flock, who should have been supposed capable of desiring such a dispensation, would have viewed the imputation as an insult on his understanding and profession. But the period of purity passed, and the days of degeneracy, at the era of the dark ages, entered. The mystery of iniquity, in process of time, and as Paul of Tarsus had foretold, began to work. Christianity, by adulteration, degenerated into Romanism, and the popedom became the hot-bed of all abomi- nation. Dispensations for violating the sanctity of oaths formed perhaps the most frightful feature in the moral deformity of popery. This shocking maxim was, for many ages, sanc- tioned by theologians, canonists, popes, councils, and the whole Romish communion. The theologians and canonists, who have inculcated this frightful maxim, are many. A few may be selected as a specimen. ' Such were Bailly, Dens, Cajetan, Aquinas, Ber- nard, the Parisian university, and the French clergy. Bailly, in the class-book used in the Maynooth seminary, ascribes to * the church a power of dispensing in vows and oaths.' J This the author attempts to shew from the words of Revelation, which confer the prerogative of the keys in binding and loosing, and which, he concludes, being general, signify not only the power of absolving from sin, but also from promises and oaths. The moral theologian, in this manner, abuses the inspired language for the vilest purpose, and represents his shocking assumption as taught in the Bible and as an article of faith. The church, in this hopeful proposition, means the Roman pontiff, whom the canon law characterizes as the inter- preter of an oath. Dens, in his theology, the modern standard of Catholicism in Ireland, authorizes this maxim. 2 The dispensation of a vow, 1 Existit in ecclesia potestas dispensandi in votis et juramentis. Bailly, 2. 140. Maynooth Report, 283. Declaratio juramenti seu interpretatio, cum de ipso dubitatur, pertinet ad Papam. Gibert, 3. 512. 3 Superior, tanquam vicarius Dei, vice et nomine Dei, remittit homini debitum promissionis factse. Dens, 4. 134, 135. Debet respondere se nescire earn, et, si opus eat, idem juramento confirmare. Talis confessarius interrogatur ut homo, et respondet ut homo. Jam autem non icit ut homo illam veritatem, quamvis sciat ut Deus. Dens, 6. 219. VIOLA1ION OF FAITH TAUGHT BY ROMISH DOCTORS. 279 says this criterion of truth, ' is its relaxation by a lawful su perior in the place of God, from a just cause. The superior, as the vicar of God in the place of God, remits to a man the debt of a plighted promise. God's acceptance, by this dispen- sation, ceases: for it is dispensed in God's name.' The precious divine, in this manner, puts man in the stead of God, and enables a creature to dissolve the obligation of a vow. A confessor, the same doctor avers, ' should assert his igno- rance of the truths which he knows only by sacramental con- fession, and confirm his assertion, if necessary, by oath. Such facts he is to conceal, though the life or safety of a man or the destruction of the state, depended on the disclosure.' The reason, in this case, is as extraordinary as the doctrine. * The confessor is questioned and answers as a man. This truth, however, he knows not as man, but as God ;' and. therefore, which was to be proved he is not guilty of falsehood or perjury. Cajetan teaches the same maxim. According to the cardi- nal, ' the sentence of excommunication for apostacy from the faith is no sooner pronounced against a king, than, in fact, his subjects are freed from his dominion and oath. 1 Aquinas, though a Saint, and worshipped in the popish com- munion on the bended knee, maintains the same shocking principle. He recommends the same Satanic maxim to sub- jects, whose sovereign becomes an advocate of heresy. Ac- cording to his angelic saintship, " when a king is excommuni- cated for apostacy, his vassals are, in fact, immediately freed from his dominion and from their oath of fealty : for a heretic cannot govern the faithful." Such a prince is to be deprived of authority, and his subjects freed from the obligation of allegi- ance. This is the doctrine of a man adored by the patrons of Romanism for his sanctity. He enjoined the breach of faith and the violation of a sworn engagement: and is cited for authority on this point by Dens, the idol of the popish prelacy in Ireland. 2 Bernard, the celebrated Glossator on the canon-law, advances the same principle. A debtor, says the canonist of Parma, " though sworn to pay, may refuse the claim of a creditor who falls into heresy or under excommunication." According to the same authority, " the debtor's oath implies the tacit condi- 1 Quam cito aliquis per sententiam denunciator excommunicatus propter apos- tasiam a fide, ipso facto ejus subditi sunt absoluti adominio et juramento. Cajetan in Aquin. 2. 50. 2 Quam cito aliquis per sententiam denunciator excommunicatus, propter apos- tasiam a fide, ipso facto, ejus subditi a dominio et juramento fidelitatis ejus liberati aunt, quod subditis fidelibus dominari non possit. Aquinas, 2. 50. 280 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I tiori that the creditor, to be entitled to payment, should remain in a state in which communication with him would be lawful." 1 The Parisian University, in 1589, consisting of sixty doctors, declared the French entirely freed from their oath of allegiance to their king, Henry the Third, and authorized to take arms against their sovereign, on account of his opposition to Catholi- cism. 2 The French clergy, in 1577, even after the reformation, taught the same^infernal maxim. The Hugonots " insisted on the faith which the French nation had plighted in a solemn treaty. The Romish theologians, on the contrary, rejected the plea, and contended in their sermons and public writings, that a prince is not bound to keep faith with the partizans of heresy." These advocates of treachery and perjury pleaded on the occasion, the precedent of the Constantian council, which, in opposition to a safe-conduct, had sacrificed Huss and Jerome to the demon of popery. 5 This atrocious maxim was taught by popes, as well as by theologians. A numerous train of pontiffs might be named, who, in word and in deed, disseminated this principle. These viceroys of heaven, indeed, for many ages, engaged, with hardly an exception, in violating faith both in theory and in practice. From this mass may, for the sake of exemplifying the theory, be selected Gregory, Urban, Paul, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, and Innocent. Gregory, in 1080, asserted his authority to dissolve the oath of fealty. 4 His infallibility supported his assertion by proofs, or pretended proofs, from scripture and tradition. This au- thority, his holiness alleged, was conveyed in the power of the keys, consisting in binding and loosing, and confirmed by the unanimous consent of the fathers. The contrary opinion he represented as madness and idolatry. Urban, in 1090, followed the example of Gregory. Subjects, he declared, * are by no authority bound to observe the fealty which they swear to a Christian prince, who withstands God 1 Licet non solvat, non incidit in poenam, et in eodem modo, si per juramentum : in ilia obligatione et juramento tacite subintelligetur, si talis permanserit, cui com- municate liceat. Greg. 9. Decret. L. 5. Tit. 7. c. 16. Maynooth Report, 261. 8 Populum jurejurando solutum esse. Thuan. 4. 690. Lea Francois etoient effectivement delie du serment de fidelite. Maimburg, 299. Daniel, 2. 349. 3 Protestantes fidem datam urgerent. Contra theologi nostri disputabant. et jam nperto capite, in concionibus et evulgatis scriptis, ad fidem sectariis servandam non obligare principem contendebant. Thuan. 3. 524. 4 Contra illorum insaniam, qui, nefando ore, garriunt, auctoritatem sanctae et Apostolicae sedis non potuisse quemquam a sacramento fidelitatis ejus absolvere Labb. 12. 380, 439, 497 VIOLATIONS OF OATHS TAUGHT AND PRACTISED BY POPES. 281 and the saints and contemns their precepts.' 1 The pontiff ac- cordingly prohibited Count Hugo's soldiery, though under the obligation of an oath, to obey their sovereign. Gregory, the Ninth, in 1229, followed the footsteps of his predecessors. According to his infallibility, ' none should keep faith with the person who opposes God and the saints." 2 Gre- gory, on this account, declared the emperor Frederic's vassals freed from their oath of fidelity. Urban the Sixth imitated Gregory the Ninth. This pontiff, in 1378, declared that ' engagements of any kind, even when confirmed by oath with persons guilty of schism or heresy, though made before their apostacy, are in themselves unlawful and void.' 3 Paul the Fourth, in 1555, absolved himself from an oath which he had taken in the Conclave. His holiness had sworn to make only four cardinals ; but violated his obligation. His supremacy declared, that the pontiff could not be bound, or his authority limited, even by an oath. The contrary, he charac- terized, ' as a manifest heresy.' 4 Paul the Fifth canonized Gregory the Seventh, and inserted an office in the Roman breviary, praising his holiness for free- ing the emperor Henry's subjects from the oath of fidelity.' 5 His absolution, as well as the deposition of the emperor, the pontiff represents as an act of piety and heroism. Paul's enact- ment, in this transaction, was sanctioned by Alexander, Cle- ment, and Benedict. Innocent the Tenth declared that < the Roman pontiff could invalidate civil contracts, promises, or oaths, made by the friends of Catholicism with the patrons of heresy.' 6 A denial of this proposition, his infallibility styled heresy ; and those who re- jected the idea of papal dispensation, incurred, according to his holiness, the penalty prescribed by the sacred canons and apostolic constitutions against those who impugn the pontifical authority in questions of faith. The Roman pontiffs taught this diabolical doctrine, not only by precept but also by example. The practice of annulling 1 Fidelitatem quam Christiano principi jurant, Deo ejusque sauctis adversanti, et eorum praecepta calcanti, nullo cohibentur auctoritate persolvere. Pithou. 260. Decret. caus. 15. Quaest. 6. 2 Personne ne doit garder fidelite celui, qui s'oppose a Dieu et & ses saints. Bruy, 3. 183. 3 Conventiones factae cum hujusmodi haereticis seu schismaticis, postquam talea efFecti erant, sunt temerariae, illicitse, et ipso jure nullae, (etsi forte ante ipsorum lapsum in schisma seu haeresim initse) etiam si forent juramento vel fide data firmatae. Rymer, 7. 352. 4 Le contraire etoit une heresie manifesto. Paolo, 2. 27. 5 Subditos populos fide ei data liberavit. Bruy. 2. 492. Grotty, 85. 6 Coutractus civiles, promissa, vel juramenta catholicorum cum hseretici* oo quod hseretici sint, per pontificem enervari possint. Caron, 14. 282 THE VARIATIONS OP POPERY ! oaths and breaking faith was exemplified by Zachary, Gregory Innocent, Honorius, Clement, Urban, Eugenius, Clement, Paul, and Pius, as the theory had been taught by Gregory, Urban, Paul, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, and Innocent. Pope Zachary, in 745, annulled the French nation's oath of fealty to king Childeric, and Stephen, Zachary's successor, afterward dissolved Pepin's allegiance to the French monarch. 1 Gregory, in 1078, ' absolved all from their fidelity, who were bound by oath to persons excommunicated.' This sweeping and infernal sentence, his holiness, according to his own ac- count, pronounced * in accordance with the statutes of his sacred predecessors and in virtue of his apostolic authority.' 2 Innocent, in 1215, ' freed all that were bound to those who had fallen into heresy from all fealty, homage, and obedience.' 3 His infallibility's dispensation extended to the dissolution of obligation arid security of all kinds. Honorius, in 1220, freed the king of Hungary from all obli- gations in some alienations of his kingdom, which his majesty nad made and which he had sworn to fulfil. These, it appears, were prejudicial to the state and dishonourable to the sovereign. His holiness, however, soon contrived a remedy, which was distinguished by its facility and efficiency. The vicar-general of God, in the fulness of apostolic authority, ' demolished the royal oath, and commanded the revocation of these alienations.' 4 Clement, in 1306, emancipated Edward, king of England, from a solemn oath in confirmation of the great charter. ' The English monarch had taken this obligation in 1258 on the holy evangelists,' and the ceremony was performed w r ith an affecting solemnity and awful imprecations of perdition in case of violation or infringement. The Roman viceroy of heaven however, soon removed these uneasy bonds, and furnished his British majesty with a ready licence for the breach of faith and the commission of perjury. The pontiff' published a bull, * granting the king absolution from his oath.' 5 The absolution, 1 Zacharias omnes Francigenas a juramento fidelitatis absolvit. Labb. 12. 500 Pithou, 260. Pepinus a Stephano pape a fidelitatis sacramento absolvitur. Otho V. 23. Boasuet, 1. 49. 3 Eos qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut sacramento constricti sunt, Apostolica auctoritate a sacramento absolvimus. Pithou, 260. Caus. 15. Q. 6. 3 Absolutes se noverint a debito fidelitatis, hominii, et totius obsequii, quicunque lapsis manifesto in haereism, aliquo pacto, quacunque firmitate vallato, tenebantur adstricti. Pithou, 241. L. 5. T. 7. 4 Nos eidem regi dirigimus scripta nostra, ut alienationes prsedictas, non obstante 163. Pape lui donnoit 1'absolution du serment. Bruy. Rex coactus est praestare sacramentum. Trivettus, Ann. 1258. Obtinebat rex a Domino papa absolutionem a juramento. Trivettus, Ann. 1306. Dachery, a 196. 230 VIOLATIONS OF OATHS TAUGHT AND PRACTISED BY POPES. 283 for greater comfort, was supported in the rear by an excommu- nication pronounced against all who should observe such an oath. Urban imitated Clement. This plenipotentiary of heaven, in 1367, in the administration of his spiritual vicegerency, trans- mitted absolution to some Frenchmen, who had been taken prisoners by a gang of marauders who invested the French na- tion, and had sworn all whom they released, to remit a sum of money as the price of their liberation. 1 His holiness, however, having heard of the transaction, not only repealed the treaty ; but with the whole weight of his pontifical authority, ' dissolved the oath and interdicted the payment of the ransom.' Eugenius the Fourth reaped laurels in this field, and outshone many of his rivals in the skilful management of the oath-annul- ling process. His holiness, who wielded his prerogative in this way toward Piccinino and in nullifying the Bohemian compacts, was followed in this latter transaction, by Pope Pius. Eu- genius, in 1444, also induced Ladislaus king of Hungary, to break his treaty with the sultan Amurath, though confirmed by the solemn oaths of the king and the sultan on the gospel and the koran. His holiness, on this occasion, introduced a variety into the system established for the encouragement of perjury, by executing his plan by proxy. Julian, clothed with legatine authority, mustered all his eloquence to effect the design ; and represented, in strong colours, the criminality of observing a treaty, so prejudicial to the public safety and so inimical to the holy faith. The pontiff's vicegerent, in solemn mockery, dispensed with the oath, which, being sworn with infidels, was, like those with heretics, a mere nullity. * I absolve you,' said the representative of the representative of God, ' from perjury, and^ I sanctify your arms. Follow my footsteps in the path of glory and salvation. Dismiss your scrupulosity, and devolve on my head the sin and the punish- ment.' The sultan, it is said, displayed a copy of the violated treaty, the monument of papal perfidy, in the front of battle, implored the protection of the God of truth, and called aloud on the prophet Jesus to avenge the mockery of his religion and authority. The faith of Islamism excelled the casuistry of popery. The perjurers, whom Moreri calls Christians, * falsi- fied their oath,' took arms against the Turks, and were defeated on the plains of Varna. 2 1 Le Pape envoia aux prisonniers 1'absolution du serment. Daniel, 5. 145- 2 Les Chretiens sollicitez par Julien, Legat du Pape Eugene IV. fausserent leur foi. Moreri, 1. 390. Sismond. 9. 196. Canisius, 4. 462. Lenfant, 2. 164. Le Cardinal 1' en dispensoit par 1'authorite du siege Apostolique. Amurath s' escria au milieu du combat, Christ, Christ, voy ton peuple desloyal qui a faulc6 sa foy. Vigorien, 3. 692. 284 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I Clement, in 1526, absolved Francis II. the French king from a treaty which he had formed in Spain. 1 The emperor of Germany had taken his Christian majesty a prisoner in the battle of Pavia, and carried him to Madrid. The conditions of his engagement, which were disadvantageous, Francis confirmed by an oath. This engagement, however, the pontiff, by his apostolic power, soon dissolved, for the purpose of gaining the French king as an ally in a holy confederacy, which his infal- libility had organized against the German emperor. The convention, though ratified by a solemn oath, soon yielded to apostolic power, and, more especially, as its annihilation con- duced to ecclesiastical utility. Pope Paul III. in 1535, * forbade all sovereigns, on pain of excommunication, to lend any aid, under pretext of any obli- gation or oath, to Henry VIII. king of England.' His holiness also ' absolved ah 1 princes from all such promises and engage- ments.' 2 Pius IV. treated Elizabeth as Paul had treated Henry. l His holiness annulled the oath of allegiance, which had been sworn to her majesty, by her subjects.' This consti- tution Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. renewed and confirmed. 3 Henry and Elizabeth had patronized schism or heresy, and therefore forfeited all claim to enjoy the conditions of plighted faith. Councils, as well as pontiffs, encouraged this principle of faithlessness. Some of these synods were provincial and some general. Among the provincial councils, which countenanced or practised this maxim were those of Rome, Lateran, and Diamper. A Roman Council, in 1036, absolved Edward the Confessor, king of England, from a vow which he had made to visit the city of Rome and the tombs of the holy apostles. The fulfil- ment of his engagement, it seems, was inconvenient to his sainted majesty, and contrary to the wish of the British nation. But Leo the Ninth and a Roman council soon supplied a remedy. His holiness presided in this assembly, which eulo- gized Edward's piety, and in a few moments and with great facility, disannulled his majesty's troublesome vow. 4 Gregory VII. in 1076, in a Roman synod, absolved all Chris- tians from their oath of fealty to the Emperor Henry, who, in his infallibility's elegant language, had become a member of the 1 Le Pape delivera le roi du serment qu'il avoit prete en Espagne. Paol. 1. 63. * Henrici vassalos et eubditos a juramento fidelitatis absolvit. Cum Henrico, confoederationes, contractus, pacta, et conventa omnia, quovis modo stabilita, irrita facit et nulla. Alex. 24. 420. 3 Omnes ac singulos ejus subditos a juramento fidelitatis absolvit, lato in eos, qui illius legibus ac mandatis parerent, anathemate. Alexander, 23. 425. Bruy. 4 502. 4 Sa Saintete, qui y presidoit, lui donna 1' absolution de son voeu. AndiUy. 558. VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 285 devil, and an enemy to the vicar-general of God. 1 He also interdicted all persons from obeying Henry, as king, notwith- standing their oath. This sentence the pontiff, with the appro- bation of the council, pronounced as the plenipotentiary of heaven, ' who possessed the power of binding and loosing, in the name of Almighty God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.' A council of the Lateran, in 1112, freed Pascal the Roman pontiff from an oath which he had sworn on the consecrated host, on the subject of investitures and excommunication. This obligation, in all its terrors, the holy assembly, with the utmost unanimity, ' condemned and annulled.' 2 This decision, the sacred synod, in their own statement, * pronounced by canonical authority and by the judgment of the Holy Spirit.' These patrons of perjury, in the annunciation of this infernal sentence, pretended, in the language of blasphemy, to the inspiration of neaven. Gregory the Ninth, in 1228, convened a Roman council, consisting of the bishops of Lombardy, Tuscany, and Apulia, and, with the approbation of this assembly, absolved, from their oath, all who had sworn fealty to Frederic the Roman Emperor. The sacred synod issued this sentence, because, according to its own statement, no person is obliged to keep faith with a Christian prince when he gainsays God and the saints. 3 The pontiff, on this occasion, declared, in council, that * he pro- ceeded against the emperor, as against one who was guilty of heresy and who despised the keys of the church.' The synodal decision contains a direct and unmitigated avowal of the dia- bolical maxim, that no faith should be kept with persons guilty of heresy or of rebellion against the popedom. The synod of Diamper, in India, issued a decision of the same kind. This assembly, in 1599, under the presidency of Menez, invalidated the oaths that those Indian Christians had taken against changing Syrianism for Popery, or receiving their clergy from the Roman pontiff instead of the Babylonian patriarch. Such obligations, the holy council pronounced pestilential and void, and the keeping of them an impiety and temerity. 4 The sacred synod, in this manner, could, by a skilful use of their spiritual artillery, exterminate obligations and oaths by wholesale. The encouragement to faithlessness and perjury was not 1 Omnes Christianos a vinculo juramenti absolve. Labb. 12. 600 \ 9 Judicio Sancti Spiritus damnamus. Irritum esse judicamus, atque omnino castramuB. Labb. 12. 1165. Bray. 2. 580. Platina, in Pascal. 3 On n'est point oblige de garder la foi, que 1'on a jure a un prince Chrestien, quand il s'oppoae A Dieu et a aes saints. Bruy. 3. 179. Labb. 13. 114, 1223. 4 Declarat Synodus juramenta hujusmodi nulla prorsus et irrita. Cossart, 6, 51 286 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: confined to provincial synods, but extended to universal coun- cils. Six of these general ecclesiastical conventions patronized, in word or deed, by precept or example, violation of engage- ments and breach of trust. These were the universal councils of the Lateran, Lyons, Pisa, Constance, and Basil. The third general council of the Lateran, superintended by Alexander and clothed with infallibility, taught this principle in word and deed. The unerring fathers, in the sixteenth canon, styled ' an oath contrary to ecclesiastical utility, not an oath, but perjury.' 1 The pontiffs, whose province it is to explain oaths and vows, always confounded ecclesiastical utility with pontifical aggrandizement. Obligations, therefore, which mili- tated against the interest or grandeur of the papacy, soon has- tened to their dissolution. The Lateran convention, in its twenty-seventh canon, exemplified its Cwn theory, and disen- gaged, from their oath of fidelity, the vassals of the barons and lords who embraced or protected the heresy of Albigensianism.* These princes patronized heresy, and their subjects, therefore, were not bound to keep faith with such sovereigns, or to yield them fealty or obedience. This language is unequivocal, and supersedes, by its perspicuity and precision, the necessity of any comment. The fourth general council of the Lateran, in 1215, issued an enactment of the same kind. This infallible assembly, in its third canon, * freed the subjects of such sovereigns as embraced heresy from their fealty.' 3 The temporal lord, who refused to purify his dominions from heretical pollution, not only forfeited the allegiance of his vassals, but his title to his estate, which, in consequence, might be seized by any orthodox ad- venturer. Heresy, therefore, according to this unerring con- gress, rescinds the obligation of fidelity, cancels the right of property, and warrants the violation of faith. The general council of Lyons absolved the Emperor Frederic's vassals from their oath of fealty. 4 The synod in their own way, convicted the emperor of schism, heresy, and church-robbery. His criminality, therefore, according to the unerring council, warranted a breach of faith, and a dissolution of the subject's oath of obedience. Innocent, who presided on the occasion, represented himself as the viceroy of heaven, on whom God, 1 Non juraraenta, sed perjuria potius sunt dicenda, quae contra utilitatem ecclesi- asticam attentantur. Pith. 110. Labb. 13. 426. Gibert, 3. 504. 2 Relaxatos se noverint a debito fidelitatis et hominii, et totius obsequii. Labb. 13.431. 3 Vassalos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutes. Bin. 8. 807. Labb. 13. 934. 4 Omnes qui ei juramento fidelitatis tenentur adstricti a juramento hujusmodi perpetuo absolventes. Labb. 14 52. Binn. 8. 852. Paris, 651, 652. Giannon, XVIII. 3. VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 287 in the person of the Galilean fisherman, had conferred the keys of his kingdom, and vested with the power of binding and loosing. The council concurred with the pontiff. The pope and the prelacy, says Paris, ' lighted tapers and thundered, in frightful fulminations, against his imperial majesty.' The testi- mony of Paris is corroborated by Nangis and pope Martin. 1 The general council of Pisa imitated those of the Lateran and Lyons. This assembly, in its fifteenth session, released all Christians from their oath of fidelity to Benedict and Gregory, and forbade all men, notwithstanding any obligation, to obey the rival pontiffs, whom the holy fathers, by a sum- mary process, convicted of perjury, contumacy, incorrigibility, schism, and heresy. 2 The sacred synod, in this instance, assumed the power of dissolving sworn engagements, and of warranting all Christendom to break faith with two viceroys of heaven, who, according to the synodal sentence, were guilty of schism and heresy. The general council of Constance, on this topic, outstripped all competition, and gained an infamous celebrity, in recom- mending and exemplifying treachery, the demolition of oaths, and unfaithfulness to engagements. The holy assembly having convicted John, though a lawful pope, of simony, schism, heresy, infidelity, murder, perjury, fornication, adultery, rape, incest, sodomy, and a few other trifling frailties of a similar kind, deposed his holiness, and emancipated all Christians from their oath of obedience to his supremacy. 3 His infallibility, in the mean time, notwithstanding his simony, schism, heresy, perjury, murder, incest, and sodomy, exercised his prerogative of dissolving oaths as well as the council. The holy fathers had sworn to conceal from the pontiff their plans for his degradation. The trusty s prelacy, however, notwithstanding their obligation to secrecy, revealed all, during the night, to his holiness. John, by this means, had the satisfaction of discov- ering the machinations of his judges, and of inducing the infallible bishops to perjury. The pontiff, however, by his sovereign authority, and by the power of the keys, soon dis- annulled these obligations, and delivered the perjured traitors, who composed the sacred synod, from their oath of secrecy. 4 1 Diligent! deliberatione praehabita cum praelatis ibidem congregates super nefan- dis Frederici. Nangis, Ann. 1045. Dachery, 3. 35. Innocentius, memoratum Fredericum in concilio Lugdunensi, eodem approbante concilio denunciavit. Dachery, 3. 684. 2 Nonobstaute quocuuque fidelitatis juramento. Labb. 15. 1138. Alex. 24. 573 Dachery, 1. 847. 3 Universes et singulos Christianos ab ejus obedientia, fidelitate, et juramento absolutos declarans. Alex. 24. 620. 4 Les degageant par son autorite souveraine des sermens, qu'ils avoient faits de ne rien reveler Bruy. 4. 40- Labb. 16. 233 288 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: The pontiff shewed the council, that he could demolish oaths as well as his faithless accusers, who * represented the whole church and had met in the spirit of God.' The Constantians, in the twentieth session, freed the vassals of Frederic, Duke of Austria, from their oath of fealty. The thirty-seventh session was distinguished by disentangling all Christians from their oath of fidelity, however taken, to Pope Benedict, and forbidding any to obey him on pain of the pen- alty annexed to schism and heresy. 1 The sacred synod, in its forty-first session, annulled and execrated all conventions and oaths, which might militate against the freedom and efficiency of the pending election. This council's treatment of Huss and Jerome constituted the most revolting instance of its treachery. The martyrdom of these celebrated friends, indeed, was one of the most glaring, undisguised, and disgusting specimens of perfidy ever ex- hibited to the gaze of an astonished world or recorded for the execration of posterity. John Huss was summoned to the city of Constance on a charge of heresy. His safety, during his journey, his stay, and his RETURN, was guaranteed by a safe-conduct from the Emperor Sigismund, addressed to all civil and ecclesiastical governors in his dominions. Huss obeyed the summons. Plighted faith, however, could, in those days, confer no security on a man accused of heresy. Huss was tried and condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal, which, in its holy zeal, t devoted his soul to the infernal devils,' and delivered his body to the secular arm ; which, notwithstanding the imperial promise of protection and in defiance of all justice and humanity, committed the victim of its own perfidy to the flames.' 2 This harbinger of the reformation suffered martyr- dom with the emperor's safe-conduct in his hand. He died as he had lived, like a Christian hero. He endured the punish- ment with unparalleled magnanimity, and, in the triumph of faith and the extacy of divine love, 'sung hymns to God,' while the mouldering flesh was consumed from his bones, till the immortal spirit ascended from the funeral pile and soared to heaven. 3 Jerome, also, trepanned by the mockery of a safe-conduct fiom the faithless synod, shared the same destiny. This man, 1 Omnes Christianos ab ejus obedientia atque juramentis absolvit. Coss. 4. 81. Labb. 16. 309, 681, 714. 3 Animam tuam devovemus diabolis informs. Lenfan. 1. 409. 3 Hus monta sur le bucher, avec une grande intrepidite, et il mourut en chan- tant des Pseaumes. Moreri, 4. 221. Aucun philosophe n'avoit endure la mort avec une resolution si determinee. II pratiqua le dehors de toua les actes que suggere la devotion la plus solide. Sa fer- vour redoubloit lors qu'il apperceut le flambeau. Hist. Hist, du Wiclef. 2, 127. 128. VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 289 distinguished for his friendship and eloquence, came to Con stance, for the generous purpose of supporting his early companion, and died with heroism, in the fire which had con- sumed his friend. Huss and Jerome, says ^Eneas Sylvius, afterward Pope Pius the Second, 'discovered no symptom of weakness, went to punishment as to a festival, and sung hymns in the midst of the flames and without interruption till the last sigh." Doctor Murray, Titular Archbishop of Dublin, has, in his examination before the British Commons, endeavoured, by his usual misrepresentations and sophistry, to exculpate Sigismund and the synod from the imputation of faithlessness. The task was Herculean, but the bishop's arguments are silly. Murray, like Phaeton, failed in a bold attempt. The imperial safe-conduct, says the doctor, following Becanus, Maimburg, and Alexander, was only a passport, like those granted to travellers on the European continent, to hinder interruption or molestation on the way : but, by no means, to prevent the execution of justice, in case of a legal conviction. The arch- bishop's statement is as faithless as the emperor's safe-conduct or the synod's sentence. The emperor's promised protection to Huss, ' extended, not only to his going and stay, but also to his RETURN.' The return of this victim of treachery was intercepted by the faggot and the stake, trying obstacles, indeed, but good enough for a heretic. The emperor's safe-conduct, says the Popish author of the history of Wickliffism, * was, in its terms, clear, general, absolute, and without reserve.' 2 The council was accessory to the emperor's treachery. The safe-conduct, indeed, was not binding on the Constantian clergy. These were not a party to the agreement, a.nd pos- sessed, at least a canonical \and admitted power of pronouncing on the theology of the accused. An ecclesiastical court was the proper tribunal for deciding an ecclesiastical question. The Constantian fathers, therefore, according to the opinion of the age, might, with propriety, have tried the Catholicism of Huss, and, on evidence, declared him guilty of heresy and obstinacy. But this did not satisfy the holy synod, who advised 1 Us alloient au supplies comme & un festin. II ne leur echappa jamais aucune parole, qui marquat la moindre foiblesse. Au milieu des flammes, ils chanterent des hymnes jusques au dernier soupir. Moreri, 4. 232. Sylv. c. 36. Qui les avoient accompagnez leur avoient oui chanter jusqu' au dernier leur vie les louanges de Dieu. Hist. Du Wiclif. 2. 3 Transire, stare, morari, et redire libere permittatis. Alexander, 25, 258, 260. De le laisser -ibrement et surement passer, demeurer, s'arreter, et retoumer. Moreri, 4. 232. Du Pin, 3. 92. Les termes etoient evidens, generaux, absolus, el sans aucune reserve. Histoire du Wicklifianisme, 98. Maimb. 215. Com. Rep 629. 19 290 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: and sanctioned Sigiemund's breach of faith, and, by this means, became partakers in his perfidy. But Huss, says Murray, suffered in Constance, a free city, over the laws of which Sigismund had no control. The empe- ror, he concludes, could not have prevented the Constantian Act of Faith. This is another shameful misrepresentation. The bishop, in his statement, breaks faith with history as much as the emperor did with Huss. The emperor made no attempt to oppose the synod. His majesty, on the contrary, protested, that rather than support the Heresiarch in his error and obsti- nacy, he would kindle the fire with his own hands. The sen- tence, accordingly, was executed by imperial authority. The council consigned the prisoner to the emperor, and the emperor to the Duke of Bavaria, who delivered him to the executioner. 1 Sigismund, it appears, possessed power ; but instead of using it for the protection of Huss, he exerted it for his punishment. He could not, indeed, have annulled the prisoner's sentence of heresy ; but he could have granted him life and liberty, till the expiration of his safe-conduct, as Charles V. did to Luther. But the council's sanction of the oath annulling and faith- violating system depends, by no means, on the contents of the emperor's safe-conduct or his treatment of Huss. Murray, if he even could have vindicated Sigismund, would have effected just nothing with respect to the council, The holy ruffians, at Constance, avowed the shocking maxim with fearlessness and without disguise, both by their deputation to the emperor and by their declarations in council. The deputation sent to the emperor, for the purpose of con- certing a plan for the safety and convenience of the council's future deliberations, maintained this principle. These gave his majesty to understand, that the council had authority to disen- gage him from a legal promise, when pledged to a person guilty of heresy. This is attested by Dachery, an eye-witness, in his German history of the Constantian council. The deputation, says this historian, ' in a long speech, persuaded the emperor, that by decretal authority, he should not keep faith with a man accused of heresy.' 2 Nauclerus, who lived shortly after the council, testifies nearly the same thing. The emperor himself entertained this opinion of the deputation's sentiments. His majesty, addressing Huss at his last examination, declared ' that some thought he had no right to afford any protection to a man ' Lenfan. 1. 82, 318. Du Pin, 3. 94. Bruy. 4. 66. Hist, du Wicklif. 126. * Caesar, quasi tenore decretalium, Husso fidem datam praestare non tenweta* mrltis verbis persuasus, Husso et Bohemia Salvi Conductus fidem fregit. Lenfant 1.82. VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 291 convicted or even suspected of heresy/ 1 The deputation, on this occasion, must have known and represented the opinion of the synod, which acquiesced, without any contradiction, in this statement, and which, had the emperor been mistaken, should have corrected the error, Huss was a victim to the malevolent passions of the council, and the superstition and perfidy of the emperor. The faith-violating maxim was avowed, not only by the de- putation, but also by the council. The infallible assembly, boldly, roundly, and expressly declared, that ' no faith or pro- mise, prejudicial to Catholicism, was to be kept with John Huss by natural, divine, or human law.' 2 Prejudicial to Catholicism, in this case, could signify no infraction on the faith of the church ; but merely the permission of a man convicted of heresy, to escape with his life. Faith, therefore, according to the council, should be violated rather than allow a heretic to live. The synod of Basil, however, and the diet of Worms thought otherwise, when they suffered the Bohemians and Luther, under the protection of a safe-conduct, to withdraw from the council and the diet, and returned in safety to their own country. The sacred synod, unsatisfied with this frightful declaration, issued, in its nineteenth session, another enactment of a similar kmd, but expressed in more general terms and capable of more extensive application. According to these patrons of perfidy, ' no safe-conduct, disadvantageous to the faith or jurisdiction of the church, though granted by emperor or king, and ratified by the most solemn obligations, can be any protection to per- sons convicted of heresy. Persons, suspected of defection from the faith, may be tried by the proper ecclesiastical judges, and, if convicted and persisting in error, may be punished, though they attended the tribunal relying on a safe-conduct, and otherwise would not have appeared.' 8 This declaration, it is plain, contains a formal sanction of the atrocious principle. Alexander, followed by Murray, Crotty, and Higgins, endeavours to vindicate the council and the emperor, by distributing the condemnation and execution of Huss between the synodal and royal authority. 4 The council, in the exercise of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction, convicted the accused of heresy, 1 Nonnulli dicant, nos de jure ei non posse patrocinari, qui aut haereticus, aut de hseresi aliqua suspectus. Hard. 4. 397. Lenfant, 1. 492. 2 Nee aliqua sibi fides, aut promissio de jure natural!, Divino, aut humane, fuent in praejudicium Catholics? fidei observanda. Labbeus, 16. 292. 3 Salvo dicto conductu non obstante, liceat judici competent! ecclesiastico de ejusmodi personarum erroribus inquirere, et alias contra eos debite procedere, eosdemque punire. Labbeus, 16. 301. Alex. 25. 255. Crabb. 2. 1111. 4 Alex. 25. 256. Murray, 660. Crotty, 88. Higgins, 271. 19* 292 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY! and the emperor, according to the laws of the state, executed the sentence. Both, therefore, were clear of all imputation of perfidy. This is a beautiful specimen of Shandian logic and casuis- try. The learned doctors had studied dialectics in the above- mentioned celebrated school. An action, according to Tris- trim, which, when committed entirely by one, is sinful, does, when divided between two, and perpetrated partly by one, and partly by the other, become sinless. Two ladies, accord- ingly, an abbess and Margarita, wished to name a word of two syllables, the pronunciation of which by one person would ha,ve been a crime. The abbess, therefore, repeated the first, and Margarita, by her direction, the last syllable ; and by this means, both evaded all criminality. 1 Alexander, Murray, Grotty, and Higgins, in like manner, partition the breach of faith between the council and the emperor, the church and state, the ecclesiastical and civil law, and by this simple and easy process, exculpate both from all blame or violation of faith. Breach of trust, it seems, loses, in this way, its im- morality, and is transformed into duty. Some people, however, unacquainted with the new system of Shandian dialectics, may suppose that this learned distinction, instead of excriminating each, only rendered both guilty. The faithlessness of the council and the emperor has been admitted by Sigismund, the French clergy, the Diet of Worms, and the infallible councils of Basil and Trent. Sigismund, on one occasion, seemed sensible of his own infamy. His majesty accordingly blushed in the council, when Huss appealed to the imperial pledge of protection. I came to this city, said the accused, to the assembled Fathers, * relying on the public faith of the emperor, who is now present;' and, whilst he uttered these words, ' he looked steadfastly in the face of Sigismund, who, feeling the truth of the reproach, blushed for his own baseness.' 2 Conscious guilt and shame crimsoned his coun- tenance, and betrayed the inward emotions of his self-con- demned soul. His blush was an extorted and unwilling acknowledgment of his perfidy. The emperor, it is plain, notwithstanding modern advocacy, thought himself guilty. The French clergy, according to De Thou, urged the Con- stantian decision as a precedent for a similar act of treachery. 8 The French, according to Gibert, afterward, in temporizing 1 Tristram Shan. c. 25. 3 II regarda fixement Sigismond, qui ne put s'empecher de rougir. Lenfan. 1. 403. 3 Allato in earn rem Concilii Constantiensis decreto. Thuanus, 3. 524. Gibei% I. 106. VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. inconsistency, deprecated the infringement of the imperial safeguard, by which capital punishment was inflicted on a man, to whom had been promised safety and impunity. The French, in these instances, varied indeed with the times on the subject of breaking trust, and exemplified the fluctuations which occur even in an infallible communion. The French clergy, however, in both cases, both in their urgency and deprecation, concurred in ascribing perfidy to the Constantian congress. The Diet of Worms, or, at least, a party in that assembly, pleaded the precedent of synodal and imperial treachery at the Constantian assembly, in favour of breaking faith with Luther. 1 This showed their opinion of the council. Charles V. however, possessed more integrity than Sigismund, ' and was resolved not to blush with his predecessor.' 2 The Elector Palatine supported the emperor ; and their united authority defeated the intended design of treachery. The councils of Basil and Trent, in the safe-conducts granted to the Bohemians and Germans, admitted the same fact. The Basilians, in their safe-conduct to the Bohemians, disclaimed all intention of fallacy or deception, open or con- cealed, prejudicial to the public faith, founded on any authority, power, right, law, canon, or council, especially those of Con- stance or Sienna. The Trentine safe-conduct to the German Protestants is to the same effect. 3 Both these documents, proceeding from general councils, reject, for themselves, the Constantian precedent of treachery, and, in so doing, grant its existence. The general council of Basil copied the bad example, issued at the Lateran, at Lyons, Pisa, and Constance. This unerring assembly, in its fourth session, invalidated all oaths and obliga- tions, which might prevent any person from coming to the council. 4 Attendance, at Basil, it was alleged, would tend to ecclesiastical utility, and to this end, even at the expense of perjury, every sacred and sworn engagement had to yield. The sacred synod, in its thirty-fourth session, deposed Eugenius for simony, perjury, schism, and heresy, and absolved all * Qui approuvant ce qui c'etoit fait & Constance, disoient qu'on ne devoit point lui garder la foi. Paolo, 1. 28. 8 Je ne veux pas rougir avec Sigismond, mon predecesseur. Lenfant. 1. 404. 3 Promittentes sine fraude et quolibet dolo, quod nolumus uti aliqua authoritate, vel poteatia, jure, statuto, vel privilegio legura vel canonum et quorumcumque eonciliorum, specialiter Constantiensis in aliquod praejudicium salvo conductui Bin. 8. 25. et 9. 398. Crabb. 3. 17. Labb. 17. 244. et 20. 120. 4 Ne quis, pra?textu cujuscunque juramenti, vel obligations, aut promissionis, se ab accessu ad concilium dispeusatum ciistimaret. Alex. 25, 321. Crabb. 3. 19. 294 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I Christians from their sworn obedience to his Supremacy. The pontiff was guilty of heterodoxy, and, therefore, unworthy of good faith, and became a proper object of treacheiy. The holy fathers, in the thirty-seventh session, condemned and annulled all compacts and oaths, which might obstruct the election of a sovereign pontiff. 2 This was clever, and like men determined to do business. This maxim, in this manner, prior to the reformation, ob- tained general reception in the popish communion. The Roman hierarchs, as the viceroys of heaven, continued, according to interest or fancy, and especially with persons convicted or sus- pected of schism or apostacy, to invalidate oaths or vows of all descriptions. General councils arrogated the same autho- rity, and practised the same infernal principle. Universal harmony, without a breath of opposition, prevailed on this topic through papal Christendom. This abomination, therefore, in all its frightful deformity, constituted an integral part of popery. The reformation, on this subject, commenced a new era. The deformity of the papal system remained, in a great mea- sure, unnoticed amid the starless night of the dark ages, and even in the dim twilight which dawned on the world at the re- vival of letters. The hideous spectre, associated with kindred horrors and concealed in congenial obscurity, escaped for a long time, the execration of man. But the light of the reformation exposed the monster in all its frightfulness. The Bible began to shed its lustre through the world. The beams of the Sun of 'Righteousness, reflected from the book of God, poured a flood of moral radiance over the earth. Man opened his eyes, and the foul spirits of darkness fled. Intellectual light shed its rays thiough the mental gloom of the votary of Popery, as well as the patron of Protestantism. The abettors of Romanism, in the general diffusion of scrip- tural information and rational philosophy, felt ashamed of ancient absurdity ; and have, in consequence, disowned or modified several tenets of their religion, which were embraced, with unshaken fidelity, by their orthodox ancestors. The six universities of Louvain, Douay, Paris, Alcala, Valladolid, and Salamanca, which, in their reply to Pitt's questions, disowned the king-deposing power, disavowed also the oath-annulling and faith violating maxim. The Romish Committee of Ireland, in 1792, in the name of all their popish countrymen, represen- 1 Omnes Christicolas ab ipsius obedeentia, fidelitate, ac juramentis absolvit. Labb. 17. 391. Crabb. 3. 107. 8 Promissiones, obligationes, juramenta, in adversum hnjus electionis, damnat, reprobat et anuullat. Crabb. 3. 109. Labb. 17. 395. VIOLATIONS OF OATHS BY POPISH COUNCILS. 295 ted the latter principle, as worthy of unqualified reprobation and destructive of all morality and religion. The Irish bishops, Murray, Doyle, and Kelly, in their examination before the British Commons in 1826, disclaimed all such sentiments with becoming an 3. utter indignation, which was followed at the Maynooth examination by the deprecation of Grotty, Slevin. and M'Hale. 1 This, at the present day, seems to be the avowal of all, even those of the Romish communion, except perhaps a few apostles of Jesuitism. This change is an edifying specimen of the boasted immuta- bility of Romanism, and one of the triumphs of the Reformation, by which it was produced. The universal renunciation of the hateful maxim is a trophy of the great revolution, which Doyle, in a late publication, has denominated the grand apostacy. i Com. Report, 175, 227, 243, 659. Grotty, 89. Slevin, 258. M'Hale, 288 OLeary, 77,85. CHAPTER IX. ARIANISM. MUNITARIANISM OF ANTIQUITY ORIGIN OF THE ARIAN SYSTEM ALEXANDRIA* AND BITHYNIAN COUNCILS NICENE AND TYRIAN COUNCILS 8EMI-ARIANISM > ANTIOCHIAN AND ROHAN COUNCILS SARDICAN, ARLESIAN, MILAN, AND SIRKIAt COUNCILS LIBERIUS FELIX ARMENIAN, SELEUCIAN, AND BYZANTINE COUNCILS STATK OF CHRISTENDOM VARIETY OF CONFESSIONS. TRINIT ARIANISM, though without system or settled phraseology, was the faith of Christian antiquity. This doctrine indeed was not confined to Judaism or Christianity ; but may, in t disfigured and uncouth semblance, be discovered in the annals of gentilism and philosophy. The Persian, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, and Scandinavian mythology exhibits some faint traces, some distorted features of this mystery, conveyed, no doubt, through the defective and muddy channels of tradition. The same, in a mis-shapen form, appears in the Orphic theology, aud in the Zoroastrian, Pythagorean, and Platonic philosophy. The system which tradition in broken hints and caricatured representation insinuated, was declared, in plain language, by revelation, and received, in full confidence, by Christian faith. The early Christians, however, unpractised in speculation, were satisfied with acknowledging the essential unity and per- sonal distinctions of the Supreme Being. The manner of the identity and personality, the unity and distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, had, in a great measure, escaped the vain re- search of refinement and presumption. Philosophy, during the lapse of three ages after the introduction of Christianity, had not, to any considerable extent, dared, on this subject, to theo- rize or define. The confidence of man, in those days of sim- plicity, had not attempted to obtrude on the arcana of heaven. The relations of paternal, filial, and processional deity escaped, in this manner, the eye of vain curiosity, and remained, in con- sequence, undefined, undisputed, and unexplained. No deter- mined or dictatorial expressions being prescribed by synodal or imperial authority, the unfettered freedom of antiquity ascribed to the several divine persons in the Godhead, all the perfections ORIGIN OF THE ARIAN SYSTEM. 297 of Deity. This liberty, mdeed, was unfriendly to precision of language : and many phrases, accordingly, were used by the ancients on this subject, which are unmarked with accuracy. The hostility of heresiarchs first taught the necessity of dis- crimination and exactness of diction, on this as on other topics of theology. Arius, about the year 317, was, on this question, the first innovator on the faith of antiquity, whose error obtained exten- sive circulation or was attended with important consequences. Artemon, Paul, Ebion, and a few other speculators, indeed, had, on this topic, broached some novel opinions. These, however, were local and soon checked. But Arianism, like contagion, spread through Christendom : and was malignant in its nature and lasting in its consequences. This heresy originated in Alexandria. The patriarch of that city, whose name was Alexander, discoursing, perhaps with ostentation on the trinity, ascribed consubstantiality and equality to the Son. Arius, actuated, says Theodoret, with envy and ambition, opposed this theory. Epiphanius represents Arius, in this attempt, as influenced by Satan and inspired by the afflatus of the Devil. Alexander's theology seemed to Arius, to destroy the unity of God and the distinction of Father and Son. 1 Epiphanius has drawn a masterly and striking portrait of Arius. His stature was tall and his aspect melancholy. His whole person, like the wily serpent, seemed formed for decep- tion. His dress was simple and pleasing; whilst his address and conversation, on the first interview, were mild and winning. His prepossessing manner was calculated to captivate the mind, by the fascinations of gentleness and insinuation. Sozomen and Socrates represent Arius as an able dialectician, and a formidable champion in the thorny field of controversy. 2 His opinions, on the topic of the trinity, differed widely from the generality of his fellow-Christians. The Son, according to his view, was a created being, formed in time out of nothing by the plastic power of the Almighty. Emmanuel, in this system, does not possess eternity. A time was in which he did not exist. He was, according to this statement, unlike the Father in substance, subject to mutability, and liable to pain. 3 TheHeresiarch's impiety prevented not his success in prose- lytism, which he obtained, in a great measure, by his extraor dinary zeal and activity. His system was soon embraced loy 1 Epiph. 1. 728. Socrates, I. 6. Theodoret, I. 2. Alex. 7. 87. 2 Epiph. 1. 729. Socrates, I. 5. Sozomen, I. 15. Alex. 7. 86. Godeau, 2. 101 3 Theodor. I. 2. Sozomen, I. 15. Socrat. I. 6. Augrustin, 8. C21. Alex. 7. 3& Godeau, 2. 121. 298 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY: two Egyptian bishops, seven presbyters, twelve deacons, and what is more extraordinary, by 700 devoted virgins. He boasted, at one time, of being followed by all the oriental clergy, except Philogonos, Hellenicus, and Macarius, of Antioch, Tripoli, and Jerusalem. 1 The patriarch of Alexandria, in the mean time, having ad- monished the innovator and found him obstinate, convened a council in 320, consisting of about 100 Egyptian and Lybian bishops, who condemned Arianism, expelled its author, with the clergy and laity of his faction, from the church and from the city. Arius went to Palestine, where some, says Epiph- anius, received, and some rejected his system. 2 His party, however, soon became formidable. The Arians, accordingly, assembled a synod, and exhibited a noble display of their unity with the Egyptians. The former in the council of Bithynia, reversed all that had been done at Alexandria. Arius was declared orthodox and admitted to their communion. Circular letters were transmitted to the several bishops of the church, for the purpose of inducing them to follow the Bithynian example, and of enjoining the same on the patriarch of Alex- andria. The Tyrian, some time after, counteracted the Nicerie coun- cil, as the Bithynian had the Alexandrian. The council of Nicaea, the first general council, convoked by the emperor Constantine, was assembled to settle the Trinitarian controver- sy, and was the most celebrated ecclesiastical congress of antiquity. The clergy were summoned from the several parts of Christendom, and about 318 attended. Hosius, in the general opinion, was honoured with the presidency. The assembled fathers, for the establishment of Trinitarianism and the extermination of Arianism, declared the CONSUBSTANTIALITT of the Son. This celebrated term, indeed, had, about sixty years before, been rejected by the synod of Antioch and by Dionysius of Alexandria, in opposition to Sabellianism. Diony- sius, however, had rejected it merely because unscriptural ; but afterward used it in an epistle to the Roman hierarch. The Antiochian fathers omitted it, because it seemed, in the perverted explanation of the Paulicians, to favour Sabellianism, and militate against the distinct personality of the Son. The word, however, came into use soon after the apostolic age. Tertullian, arguing against Praxeas, employs an expression of the same import. The term, according to Ruffinus, was found vn the works of Origen. 3 The Arians, only three in number, 1 Epiph. II. 69. P. 729. Sozomen, I. 15. Godea. 2. 120. Epiph. I. 729. Euseh. III. 6, 7. Sozomen, I. 15. Alex. 7. 91. Epiph. 1. 735. Socrat. 1. 8. Tertullian, 502. c. 4. Alex. 7. 122. Juenin, 3. 60 NICENE AND TYRIAN COUNCILS. 29G who refused subscription, were, according to the unchristian custom of the age, anathematized and banished. The Tyrian synod, though only provincial, endeavoured to counteract the supreme authority of the general Nicene coun- cil. This assembly, which was convened by the emperor in 335, consisted of about sixty of the eastern episcopacy. Athanasius, who was compelled to appear as a criminal, accused of the foulest but most unfounded imputations, attended with about forty Egyptians. Dionysius, with the imperial guards, was commissioned to prevent commotion or disorder. The Arian faction was led by Eusebius of Csesarea, with passion and tyranny. The whole scene combined the noisy fury of a mob, and the appalling horrors of an inquisition. Athanasius, notwithstanding, with admirable dexterity, exposed the injustice of the council and vindicated his own innocence. The champion of Trinitarianism, however, would have been murdered by the bravoes of Arianism, had not the soldiery rescued the intended victim from assassination. He embarked in a ship and escaped their holy vengeance. 1 But the sacred synod, in his absence, did not forget to pronounce sentence of excommunication and banishment. The Antitrinitarians, soon after the Nicene council, split into several factions, distinguished by different names. The Arians and Semi-Arians, however, predominated. The Arians fol- lowed the system of their founder, and continued to maintain the DISSIMILARITY of the Son. The Semi-Arians, approxima- ting to the Nicenians, asserted his SIMILARITY. 2 Arianism, indeed, in the multiplicity of its several forms, occupies all the immense space between Socinianism, which holds the Son's mere humanity, and Trinitarianism, which maintains his true deity. This intermediate distance seems to have been filled by the Antitrinitarian systems of the fourth century, as they ascribed more or less perfection to the second person of the Godhead. The Arians and Semi-Arians, however, wrangling about the similarity and dissimilarity, showed the utmost opposition and hatred to each other, as well as to the Nicenians who contended for the consubstantiality. The Semi-Arians and Trinitarians soon came to action, in the Antiochian a.nd Roman synods. Julius, the Roman pontiff, assembled a Roman council of fifty Italian bishops, in which Athanasius was acquitted and admitted to communion. The Greeks, in the mean time, assembled at ^Antioch, and opened 1 Socrat. 1. 28-34. Sozom. II. 25-28. Theod. I. 30. Alex. 7. 132. Godeau, 2. 182. e Epiph. II. 73. P. 485. Alex. 7. 95. 300 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I a battery against the enemy. 1 These, amounting to ninety, degraded Athanasius, and issued three Semi-Arian creeds, which differing in other particulars, concurred in rejecting the con substantiality. The council of Sardica in 347, declared for Athanasius and Trinitarianism, and was opposed by that of Philippopolis in Thracia. The Sardican assembly consisted of about 300 of the Latins, and the other of about seventy of the Greeks. The hostile councils encountered each other with their spiritual artillery, and hurled the thunders of mutual excommunication. The Latins at Sardica cursed and degraded the Aria us with great devotion. The Greeks at Philippopolis, retorting the imprecations with equal piety, condemned the consubstantiality, and excommunicated Athanasius the Alexandrian patriarch, Julius the Roman pontiff, and their whole party. Athanasius, in this manner, stigmatised in the east as a sinner, was revered in the west as a saint. Accounted the patron of heresy among the Greeks, he was reckoned, among the Latins, the champion of Catholicism. Having devoted each other to Satan with mutual satisfaction, the pious episcopacy proceeded to the secpndary task of enacting forms of faith. The western pre- lacy were content with the Nicene confession. The oriental clergy published an ambiguous creed faintly tinged with Semi- Arianism. 2 The Sardican council was the last stand which the Latins, during the reign of Constantius, made for Athanasius and Trinitarianism. The Greeks, who were mostly Arians, were joined by the Latins, and both in concert, in the councils of Aries, Milan, Sirmium, Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantino- ple, condemned Athanasius and supported Arianism. The Synod of Aries, in 353, commenced hostilities against Consubstantiality and its Alexandrian champion. Constantius had long, with the utmost anxiety, wished the western prelacy to condemn the Alexandrian metropolitan. But the emperor, on account of his enemy's popularity, and the reviving freedom of the Roman government, proceeded with caution and diffi- culty. The Latins met at Aries, where Marcellus and Vincent, who, from their capacity and experience, were expected to maintain the dignity of their legation, represented the Roman hierarch. Valens and Ursacius, who were veterans in faction, led the Arian and Imperial party ; and succeeded by the superiority of their tactics and the influence of their sovereign, in procuring the condemnation of Athanasius. 3 1 Socrat. 11. 7. Bin. 1. 519. Alex. 7. 151. Godeau, 2. 20. 2 Theod. 11. 8. Socrat. 11. 20. Bin. 1. 558. Alex. 7 153. Bruys, 1. 112. Bin. 1. 589. Labb. 2. 823. Bruys, 1. 115. COUNCILS OF SARDICA, ARLES, AND MILAN. 301 The Synod of Aries was, in 355, succeeded by that of Milan, and attended with similar consequences. This conven- tion, summoned by Constantius, consisted of about 300 of the western and a few of the oriental clergy. The assembly, which, in number appears to have equalled the Nicene council; seemed, at first, to favour the Nicene faith and its intrepid defender. Dionysius, Eusebius, Lucifer, and Hilary made a vigorous, though an unsuccessful stand. But the integrity of the bishops was gradually undermined by the sophistry of the Ariiins and the solicitation of the emperor, who gratified his revenge at the expense of his dignity, and exposed his own passions while he influenced those of the clergy. Reason and truth were silenced by the clamours of a venal majority. The Arians were admitted to communion, and the hero of trinita- rianism was, with all due solemnity, condemned by the formal judgment of western as well as eastern Christendom. The decisions of Aries and Milan were corroborated by those of Sirmium. The Sirmian assembly, convoked by the emperor and celebrated in the annals of antiquity, consisted, says Sozomen, 1 of both Greeks and Latins ; and, therefore, in the usual acceptation of the term, was a general council. The westerns, according to Binius, amounted to more than three hundred, and the easterns, in all probability, were equally numerous. The fathers of Sirmium must have been about double those of Nicsea. 2 The assembly seems to have had sev- eral sessions at considerable intervals, and its chronology has been adjusted by Petavius and Valesius. The Sirmians emitted three forms of faith. The first, in 351, omits the consubstantiality, but contains no express decla- ration against the divinity of the Son. This exposition, which Athanasius accounted Arian, Gelasius, Hilary, and Facundus reckoned Trinitarian. 3 The eastern and western champions of the faith differed, in this manner, on the orthodoxy of a creed, issued by a numerous council and confirmed by a Roman pontiff. Athanasius condemned, as heresy, a confes- sion which Hilary, supported in the rear by his infallibility Pope Gelasius, approved as Catholicism. This was an admi- rable display of unity. The second formulary of Sirmium, in 357, contains pure Arianism. The consubstantiality and similarity, in this celebrated confession, are rejected, and the Son, in honour and gl">ry, represented as inferior to the Father 1 Soz. IV. 9. Socrat. 2. 36 Bin. 1. 289. Labb. 2. 827. 2 Socrat. II. 30. Sozomen, IV. 6. Bin. 1. 593, 594, 595. 3 Hilarius illam fonnulam nun improbat, irao censet Catholicara. Sed ab Atha> nasio rejicitur tanquam opus, quo Ariana impietas, implicate saltern, coutineretur Juenin, 3. 70. Alex. 7. 170. Labb. 2. 846. Godeau, 2. 282. 302 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY I who alone possesses the attributes of eternity, invisibility, and immortality. The third, which was afterward adopted in the Armenian synod, is Semi-Arian. Rejecting the con substanti- ality, as unscriptural, it asserts the similarity of the Son. The second Sirmian confession was confirmed by Pope Libe- rius. Baronius, Alexander, Binius, and Juenin indeed have laboured hard to show that the creed which Liberius signed, was not the second, but the first of Sirmium, which, according to Hilary, was orthodox. 1 But the unanimous testimony of history is against this opinion. Du Pin has stated the transactions, on this occasion, with his usual candour and accuracy. The Ro- man bishop, according to this author, subscribed the second of Sirmium, which was Arian, while an exile at Berea, and the first of the same city, which was Semi-Arian, afterwards at the place in which it was issued. * All antiquity, with one consent, admits the certainty of this Pontiff*' s subscription to an Arian creed, and speaks of his fall as an apostacy from the faith.' 2 Du Pin's statement and the Arianism of the Sirmian confession, which Liberius signed, has been attested by Liberius, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerom, Philostorgius, Damasus, Anastasius, and Sozomen. Liberius himself, in his epistle to his oriental clergy, declared, that he signed, at Berea, the confession which was presented to him by Demophilus, a decided and zealous partizan of Ari- anism. Demophilus, the Roman pontiff writes, explained the Sirmian faith, which Liberius, with a willing mind, afterward subscribed.' He avers, in the same production, that ' he agreed with the oriental bishops,' who were notoriously Arian, ' in ill things.' 3 The sainted Hilary calls Liberius a prevaricator, designates the confession issued at Sirmium, proposed by Demophilus, and signed by the pontiff, ' the Arian perfidy,' and launches ' three anathemas against his holiness and his companions, who were all heretics.' 4 Hilary's account shows, in the clearest terms, that it was not the first Sirmian formulary which Liberius signed. This, Hilary accounted orthodox, and therefore would not denominate it a perfidy. Athanasius confirms the relation of Hilary and the apostacy of Liberius, ' who, through fear of death, subscribed.' Jerome i Spon. 357. XIII. Alex. 7. 117. Bin. 1. 576. 8 Omnes antiqui, uiio ore, de lapsu Liberii, velut de apostasia a fide loquuntur Du Pin, 347. 3 Videtis in omnibus me vobis consentaneum esge. H'anc ego libenti animo, su* cepi. Bin. 1. 582. Hilary, Fragm. 426. Juenin, 3. 75. Maimburg, 103. 4 Haec est perfidia Ariana. Anathema, tibi a me dictum, Liberi, et sociis luis, Iterum tibi anathema et tertio prevaricator, Liberi. Hilary, in Fragm. 426, 427 POPE LIBERIUS AN ARIAN. 303 of sainted memory has, in his catalogue and chronicon, related the same fact. Fortunatian, says the saint, * urged, and sub- dued, and constrained Liberius to the subscription of heresy.' Liberius, says the same author, ' weary of banishment, signed neretical depravity.' Liberius according to Philostorgius, ' subscribed against Athanasius and the Consubstantialitv.' This pontiff, says Damasus in his pontifical, and Anastasius in his history, * consented to the heretic Con stan this.' The emperor, says Sozomen, ' forced Liberius to deny the consub- stantiality.' 1 Liberius, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Philostorgius, Da- masus, and Anastasius, in this statement, have, in more modern times, been followed by Platina, Auxilius, Eusebius, Cusan, Areolus, Mezeray, Bruys, Petavius, Avocat, Gerson, Vignier, Marian, Alvarius, Bede, Sabellicus, Gerson, Regino, Alphon- sus, Caron, Tostatus, Godeau, Du Pin, and Maimbourg. Liberius, says Platina, * agreed in all things with the heretics or Arians.' Auxilius, Eusebius, Cusan, Areolus, Mezeray, Bruys, Petavius, Avocat, Gerson, Vignier, Marian, and Alvarius represent Liberius, as subscribing or consenting to an Arian confession. Bede, the English historian in his martyrology, characterizes this pontiff, like the Emperor Constantius, as a partizan of Arianism. Liberius, accordingto Sabellicus, Gerson, Regino, Alphonsus, Caron and Tostatus, was an Arian. This pontiff, says Godeau, ' subscribed the Sirmian confession and concurred with the oriential clergy, who were the patrons of heresy. His condemnation of Athanasius, at this time, was the condemnation of Catholicism.' Du Pin bears testimony of this pontiff's apostacy, in signing the second confession of Sirmium. The Roman hierarch, says this author in his History and Dis- sertations, subscribed botji to Arianism and Semi-Arianism ; while all the ancients, with the utmost unanimity, testify his de- fection from Trinitarianism. Maimbourg, though a Jesuit, admits the pontiff's solemn approbation of Arianism, and his fall into the abyss of heresy. 2 toy aTttihovpvov 0cwaf ov, vrteypo^tv. Athanasius, ad Sol. Solicita- vit ac fregit et ad subscriptionem haeresios compulit. Jerom. 4. 124. Libe- rius tsedio victus exilii et in haeretica pravitate subscribens. Jerom in Chron. At-jfopiov acata T'OV O/AOKGIOV xai, fitjv xcu xatu ye fov AOavaoiov vrtoypa^au Philos. IV. 3. Liberius conseiisit Constantio haeretico. Anastasius, 11. Bin. 1.576 EjSia^fT'o awto opoKoysw p.y swat i!<& ILxT'pt ifov vtov opotiaiov* Sozomen, IV. 5. 2 In rebus omnibus sensit cum hsDreticis. Pontifexcum Arianis sentiebat. Pla- tina in Liber. Quis nesciat quod Liberius, proh dolor, Arianae haeresi subscrip- eerit. Auxilius, 1. 25. Alex. 9. 17. Doleret Liberium Papam Arianae perfidiae consensisse. Euseb. in Brev. Rom Launoy, 1. 126. Liberius consensit errori Arianorum. Cusan, II. 5. Carou, 87. Liberius in illam pravitatem subscripsissit. Areolus in Oaron, 96. 304 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY ! His supremacy's fall from Trinitarianism, indeed, is attested by all antiquity and by all the moderns, who have any preten- sions to candour or honesty. The relation has been denied only by a few men, such as Baronius and Bellarmine, whose days were spent in the worthy task of concealing or perve rt- ing the truth. These, utterly destitute of historical authority, have endeavoured to puzzle the subject by misrepresentation and chicanery. Baronius maintains the orthodoxy of the Sirmian confession signed by the Roman pontiff. The annalist, on this topic, has the honour to differ from the saints and his- torians of antiquity, such as Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Damasus, and Sozomen. His infallibility, according to Bel- larmine, encouraged Arianism only in external action ; while his mind, ' that noble seat of thought,' remained the unspotted citadel of genuine Catholicism. This was very clear and sensible in the Jesuit, who seems to have been nearly as good at distinctions as Walter Shandy. The pontiff's vindicators, such as Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius, Juenin, Faber, Dens, and Bossuet, who deny his Arianism, admit his condemnation of Athanasius, his communion with the Arians, and his omission of the consubstantiality. These errors, which are acknowledged, amount, in reality, to a pro- fession of Arianism and an immolation of the truth. The cause of Athanasius, says Maimbourg, 'was inseparable from the faith which he defended ' The condemnation of the Trinita- Liberius etaut tombfc en heresie. Mezeray, 5G1 Concile de Sirmium aiant dresse une profession de foi en faveur de 1'arianisme Libere y souscrivit. Bruys, 1. 118. Liberius subscripsit Arianorum fidei profession!. Petavius, 2. 134. Liberius cut la foiblesse de souserire a une formule de fai dressee a Sirmieli avec beaucoup d'artifice par les Ariens. Avocat, 2. 67. Legimus Liberium Ariante pravitati subscripsisse. Gerson in Cossant, 3. 1156. Liberius souscrivit a la doctrine des Ariens. Vignier, 3. 879. Liberius taedio victus exilii, in hseretica privitate subscribens, Marian, in Crabb 1. 347. Liberius Papa Arianse perfidiae consensit. Alvarus, II. 10. Sub Constantio Imperatore Ariano machinante, Liberio pnesule similiter ha? ret- co. Beda, 3. 326. Marty. 19. Calend. Sept. Arianus, ut quidam scribunt, est factus. Sabell. Enn. 7. L. 8. Libere souscrivit 1'Arianisme. Gerson in Lenfan. Pisa, 1. 286. Liberius reversus ab exilio, haereticis favet. Regin. 1. De Liberio Pape, constat fuisse Arianum. Alphonsus, I. 4. Caron. 96. Vere Arianus fuit. Caron. c. 18. Quilibet homo potest errare in fide, et effici haereticus : sicut de multis summis. Pontificibus legimus ut de Liberio. Tostatus, in Laun. ad Metay. 16. On ne peut nier qu'ils ne fussent heretiques. Godeau, 2. 286. Liberius fidei formula? haereticse subscripsit. Du Pin, 347. Liberius approuva solennellement 1'Arianisme tomber dans 1'abime de 1'heresie Maimburg, c. 10. COUNCILS OF ARIMINUM AND S"ELEUCIA. 306 rian chief, according to Godeau and Moreri, * was tantamount to the condemnation of Catholicism.' 1 The Papal church, therefore, in its representation at Sir- mium, through the oriental and occidental communion, was, in this manner, guilty of general apostacy. Its head and its mem- bers, or the Roman pontiff and his clergy, conspired, through eastern and western Christendom, against Catholicism, and fell into heresy. The defection extended to the Greeks and Latins, and was sanctioned by the pope. No fact, in all antiquity, is better attested than this event, in which all the cotemporary historians concur, without a single discord to interrupt the general harmony. The world, on this occasion, was blessed with two cotem- porary Artan Pontiffs. During the expatriation of Liberius, Felix was raised to the papacy, and remains to the present day a saint and a martyr of Romanism. This Hierarch notwith- standing, was, without any lawful election, ordained by Arian bishops, communicated with the Arian party, embraced, say Socrates and Jerome, the Arian heresy, and violated a solemn oath, which, with the rest of the Roman clergv? he had taken, to acknowledge no other bishop while Liberius lived. Atha- nasius, the champion of Trinitarianism, was so ungenteel as to style this saint, ' a monster, raised to the Papacy by the malice of Antichrist.' 2 The church, at this time, had two Arian heads, and God had two heretical vicars-general. One viceroy of heaven was guilty of Arianism, and the other, both of Arianism and perjury. Baronius and Bellarmine should have informed Christendom, which of these vice-gods, or whether both, pos- sessed the attribute of infallibility. The councils of Ariminum, Seleucia, and Constantinople fol- lowed the defection of Liberius, and displayed, in a striking point of view, the versatility of the Papal communion and the triumph of the Arian heresy. Constantius had designed to call a general council, for the great, but impracticable purpose of effecting unanimity of faith through all the precincts of eastern and western Christendom ; and Arianism, in the emperor's intention, was to be the standard of uniformity. His majesty, however, was diverted, probably by the intrigues of the Arians, from the resolution of convening the Greeks and Latins in one assembly. Two councils, therefore, one in the east and the 1 On ne pent nier que condamner Athanase, ne fut condemnerla foi Catholique. Godeau, 5. 286. Moreri, 5. 154. Maimburg, IV. Bellarmin, IV. 9. Bin. 1. 593. Verum est Liberium cum Arianis communicasse et subscripsisse damnationi Athanasii. Dens, 2. 163. Liberius rejetta la communion d' Athanase, communia avec les Ariens, et suscru vit une confession de foi, ou la foi de Nicee etoit supprimee. Bossuet, Opus. 2. 545 3 Athan. ad Sol. Theod. II. 17. Socrat. II. 37. Sozemen, IV. 11. 20 306 THE VARIATIONS OF POPERY : other in the west, were appointed to meet at the same time. The westerns were instructed to meet at Ariminum and the easterns at Seleucia. The Ariminian council, which met in 359, consisted of 400, or, as some say, 600 western bishops, from Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyricum. 1 The Arian party, in this convention, was small, amounting only to about 80 ; but was led by Valens and Ursacius, who trained under the Eusebian banners in the ecclesiastical wars of the east, had been practised in faction and popular discussion, which gave them a superiority over the undisciplined eccles- iastical soldiery of the west. The council, at first, assumed a high tone of orthodoxy. The consubstantiality was retained, the Nicene faith confirmed, and the Arian heresy condemned with the usual anathemas. The Ariminians, unsatisfied with the condemnation of Arianism, proceeded next to point their spiritual artillery against his par- tizans. 2 These were sacrificed to the interests of the Nicene theology, and hurled from their episcopal thrones, as an immo- lation to the offended genius of Trintarianism. But the end of this assembly disgraced the beginning. Ursa- cius and Valens, experienced in wordy war and skilled in syno- dal tactics, rallied their flying forces, and charged the victorious enemy with menace and sophistry. These veterans summoned to their aid, the authority of the emperor and the control of the Prefect, who was commissioned to banish the refractory, if they did not exceed fifteen. The chicanery of the Semi-Arian faction embarrassed, confounded, and, at last, deceived the ignorance or simplicity of the Latin prelacy, who, by fraud and intimida,- tion, yielded to the enemy, and surrendered the palladium of the Nicenian faith. The authority of Constantius, the influence of Taurus, the stratagems of Ursacius and Valens, the dread of banishment, the distress of hunger and cold, extorted the reluctant subscription of the Ariminian Fathers to a Semi-Arian form of faith, which established the similarity of the Son, but suppressed the consubstantiality. The suppression, however, did not satisfy the Semi-Arian party. An addition was sub- joined, declaring the son unlike other creatures.' This plainly implied that the Son is a created being, though of a superior order and of a peculiar kind. The western clergy, in this manner were bubbled out of their religion. All, says Prosper, * condemned, through treachery, the ancient faith, and sub- scribed the perfidy of Ariminum.' 8 The crafty dexterity of * Theod. II. 18. Epiph. 1. 870. Hilary, 428. Alex. 7. 180. Godeau, 2. t96 2 Theod. II. 16 Labbeus, 2. 896, 912. Paolo, 2. 106. Juenin, 3. 71. 3 Syuodus apud Ariminum et Seleuciam Isauriae facta, in qua antiqua patrura fides decem primo legatorum dehinc omnium proditione damnata est. Prosper, 1. 423. Socrat. II. 37. Sozomen, IV. 19. VARIETY OP CONFESSIONS. 307 the Semi-Arians gulled the silly simplicity or gross ignorance of the Trinitarians, who, according to their own story, soon repented. Arianism, said the French chancellor at Poissy, was established by the general council of Ariminum. The eastern clergy, in the mean time, met at Seleucia, and exhibited a scene of confusion, fury, tumult, animosity, and nonsense, calculated to excite the scorn of the infidel and the pity of the wise. Nazianzen calls this assembly * the tower of Babel and the council of Caiaphas.' An hundred and sixty bishops attended. The Semi-Arians amounted to about one hundred and five, the Arians to forty, and the Trinitarians to fifteen, Leonas, the Quaestor, attended, as the Emperor's deputy, to prevent tumult. The Arians and Semi-Arians commenced furious debates on the Son's similarity, dissimilarity, and con- substantiality. Dissension and animosity arose to such a height, that Leonas withdrew, telling the noisy ecclesiastics, that his presence was not necessary to enable them to wrangle and scold. The Semi-Arian creed of Antioch, however, was, on the motion of Sylvan, recognized and subscribed ; and the Arians withdrew from the assembly. The Arians and a deputation from the Semi-Arians afterwards appeared at court, to plead their cause before the emperor, who obliged both to sign the last Sirmian confession, which, dropping the con substantiality, established the similarity of the Son in all things. 1 The Byzantine synod, which met in 360, confirmed the last Sirmian confession. This assembly consisted of fifty bishops of Bythinia, who were the abettors of Arianism. All these, though Arians, adopted the Sirmian formulary, which sanc- tioned * the similarity of the son in all things.' This, these dissemblers did to flatter the emperor, who patronized this system. All other forms of belief were condemned, the Acts of the Seleucian synod repealed, and the chief patrons of the Semi-Arian heresy deposed. 2 The Arians, supported by the emperor, continued the perse- cution of the Nicene faith, till the world, in general, became Arian. The contagion of heresy, like a desolating pestilence, spread through the wide extent of eastern and western Chris- tendom. The melancholy tale has, among others, been attested by Sozomen, Jerome, Basil, Augustine, Vincentius, Prosper, Beda, Baronius, and Labbeus. 8 1 Godeau, 2. 302. Nazianzen Or. 21. Labbeus, 2. 915. Sozomen, IV. 22. Socrat. II. 39, 40. Alex. 7. 185. 8 Socrat. II. 41. Labbeus, 3. 72. Juenin, 3. 72. 3 Eftoxci tots SKI Tfov fov /3acrascoj ^ojSov, avcrtoty xw> Svdts opotypovew rtept,